Admiral "reassigned"

[MasterBates]

But we exist for Combat.

Enemies are like Honey Badgers. They just don't give a shit. Especially if you are an ineffective combat leader but are an admin whiz at producing whatever metrics the boards cared about when you went up for Captain or Admiral.

We NEED Pattons. MacArthurs are debatable. We also need Nimitzs, Halseys, and Eisenhowers.

I don't think any of them would have been promoted in today's system, if applied to WWII.

We aren't in a WWII war for survival. People say it will never happen again.

They said the same thing after WWI.

 

[Flash]

......Since we don't have the tests to prove COMBAT leadership that previous generations have had to weed out the inferior officers, we are left with great administrators, but they may not be the best warriors.

And in previous generations some of the greatest 'warrior' leaders were not tested in combat as junior officers or even when they were senior, great examples include Marshall (who never held a combat command), Eisenhower and Nimitz to name a few. And some more junior officers who were combat tested turned out later to be poor combat leaders like Westmoreland and other Vietnam-era leaders.

Whatever 'tests' that our previous combat leaders endured the only way they got it was in a war, without a war involving maritime combat I don't know how we might 'test' our leaders that way. Maybe that is why we have so many 'spare' officers that can take their place if necessary in war.

 

[Renegade One]

I hope this doesn't count as "speculation" [Mods will delete if it is....I trust their judgement.]

Some bloggers have begun to...in their minds, at least..."connect recent dots" and speculate that the recent reliefs of GEN Carter Ham (AFRICOM) AND Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette both have something to do with events surrounding the incidents in Benghazi resulting in the loss of 4 American lives.

From "Unknown Blogger" (received via 3d-party e-mail...I don't know the blogger...just passed for whatever....):

The information I heard today was that General [Carter] Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.​

General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.​

 

[OscarMyers]

I hope this doesn't count as "speculation" [Mods will delete if it is....I trust their judgement.]

Some bloggers have begun to...in their minds, at least..."connect recent dots" and speculate that the recent reliefs of GEN Carter Ham (AFRICOM) AND Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette both have something to do with events surrounding the incidents in Benghazi resulting in the loss of 4 American lives.

From "Unknown Blogger" (received via 3d-party e-mail...I don't know the blogger...just passed for whatever....):

The information I heard today was that General [Carter] Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.​

General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.​

I think you're safe Sir. Washington Times: Is a General Losing his Job Over Benghazi

 

[hscs]

^Right up there with the fake Apollo moon landings....

 

[squorch2]

No, I'm sure that a general was "apprehended" by someone junior to him. I'm very sure that happened.

 

[Flash]

I hope this doesn't count as "speculation" [Mods will delete if it is....I trust their judgement.]

Some bloggers have begun to...in their minds, at least..."connect recent dots" and speculate that the recent reliefs of GEN Carter Ham (AFRICOM) AND Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette both have something to do with events surrounding the incidents in Benghazi resulting in the loss of 4 American lives.

From "Unknown Blogger" (received via 3d-party e-mail...I don't know the blogger...just passed for whatever....):

The information I heard today was that General [Carter] Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.​

General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.​

Ahhh yes, internet bloggers relying on third-hand info and a Moonie newspaper, folks you know you can rely on! Are we sure they didn't pick up a draft to some cheesy Hollywood movie? You know, one of the ones that we always make fun of for being so unrealistic........

 

[Brett327]

No, I'm sure that a general was "apprehended" by someone junior to him. I'm very sure that happened.

Especially since his Deputy is a civilian.

 

[jmcquate]

The first thought I had was Benghazi......just saying, but Occums Razor brought me back.

 

[Flash]

The first thought I had was Benghazi......just saying, but Occums Razor brought me back.

Maybe that is because you were using a lesser known cousin of the more well-known Occam's Razor, or is it Ockham.........

 

[helolumpy]

Especially since his Deputy is a civilian.

AFRICOM has 2 deputies, 1 military and one civilian

Vice Admiral Charles J. "Joe" Leidig, Jr. Deputy to the Commander for Military Operations United States Africa Command
http://www.africom.mil/leidig.asp

and

Christopher William Dell Deputy to the Commander for Civil-Military Activities United States Africa Command
http://www.africom.mil/dell.asp

Not saying I buy into the story, but GEN Ham does have a military deputy.

 

[BACONATOR]

Peacetime leadership and combat leadership are very different things. If what we're doing is, by and large, peacetime in nature, then combat leaders may be ill-suited for such jobs. To wit: Patton, MacArthur, etc. Saying that combat leadership is the solution to our problems ignores the lessons learned when we used to do just that.

And, I would argue there are different metrics for "successful command" in those two scenarios. A "successful" commander in peacetime may be a disaster in wartime (as has been alluded to in this thread) and ought to be fired. He may get all his admin gold stars, but sucks in tough wartime decisions.

The corollary being a solid wartime leader who gets the job done in combat would likewise be fired in peacetime because he doesn't care for the needless minutiae of ORM risk matrices with every leave chit, 100% accountability for GMT for all sailors, or that all his commands have received their character and integrity training for all-hands..

 

[Brett327]

AFRICOM has 2 deputies, 1 military and one civilian

Vice Admiral Charles J. "Joe" Leidig, Jr. Deputy to the Commander for Military Operations United States Africa Command
http://www.africom.mil/leidig.asp

and

Christopher William Dell Deputy to the Commander for Civil-Military Activities United States Africa Command
http://www.africom.mil/dell.asp

Not saying I buy into the story, but GEN Ham does have a military deputy.

I'm aware, but thanks for stepping on my point.

 

[BigRed389]

And, I would argue there are different metrics for "successful command" in those two scenarios. A "successful" commander in peacetime may be a disaster in wartime (as has been alluded to in this thread) and ought to be fired. He may get all his admin gold stars, but sucks in tough wartime decisions.

The corollary being a solid wartime leader who gets the job done in combat would likewise be fired in peacetime because he doesn't care for the needless minutiae of ORM risk matrices with every leave chit, 100% accountability for GMT for all sailors, or that all his commands have received their character and integrity training for all-hands..

You really think a solid wartime leader is really going to get fired in peacetime over admin overhead?

Or maybe I should ask, you think a solid wartime leader is incapable of doing (or more accurately: tasking) the admin pencil whipping in peacetime to get the bullshit out of the way?

 

[BACONATOR]

You really think a solid wartime leader is really going to get fired in peacetime over admin overhead?

Or maybe I should ask, you think a solid wartime leader is incapable of doing (or more accurately: tasking) the admin pencil whipping in peacetime to get the bullshit out of the way?

No, but I also think you're looking at it in a vacuum. These types of leaders aren't put in both scenarios overnight. Just like the type of leaders we have doesn't change overnight.

A WWII leader today might be an admin failure. A leader today placed in WWII might also fail miserably in the type of dynamic and authoritative position he would have been placed in that type of combat.

The point is that these types of leaders are created by the service culture and military culture that is fostered over years and decades. They are a product of their upbringing. So during times of transition, there needs to be a purge. What worked for 20 years of peacetime is NOT going to work during a transition to a very volatile political climate and wartime. Likewise, after a long period of war, there will need to be a down-sizing and refocus of efforts (as was the case post-WWII). Some will adapt, many will not.

Part of the problem, in my own ignorant opinion, is the entrepreneurial paradigm-shift of the military's leadership over the last few decades. Suddenly all officers O-4 and above (gross exaggeration) have an MBA and seem to think they can cut their teeth in leadership by employing the methods they read in their post-graduate texts, which really are often misplaced within the military context. We aren't a corporation. We're a military. This isn't about board-meetings, focus groups and surveys. This is about getting the goddamn mission done.