When President Trump came into office, he found that Obama had neutered the U.S. military by eliminating most of the conservatives from top down.
Something smells like sulfur – about Mad Dog Mattis speaking out.
Why didn’t Mattis speak out when Obama was destroying the military. A good example, the soldiers had to march in high heel shoes. What was that all about?
Kent, who speaks frequently with Mattis, said he was glad to see his old battle buddy speak up. Other retired generals, including David Petraeus, have since, as well.
Didn’t Obama frame Petraeus so that he had to resign or be fired?
Below is an article of what Obama did to our military. It is a shame that these Generals don’t speak out that Obama was the person WHO WAS NOT FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION.
Obama’s destruction of the military is by design
By Sylvia Thompson
March 22, 2014
It is patently clear that the Obama administration and the Left have always intended to scuttle the military, and it is irritating to me that so many couch the intent as “social experimentation.” Yes, the means of turning the greatest fighting force on the globe into a third-world look-alike is through feigned social equity, but the ultimate goal is to destroy the organization. That fact should not be soft-pedaled.
Women who are ill-equipped to be fighters because they lack the physical characteristics that provide for masculine strength; homosexuals, whose primary focus is sexual sodomy; and way too many people who join the military for government benefits do not make for a quality fighting force. A weak military is a useless military, and the Left is well-aware of this fact.
None of the rot that has infiltrated America’s military ranks would be quite so abominable if it had been allowed to happen to a less stellar fighting force. I emphasize allowed to happen, because very few supposedly conservative groups have lifted a finger against the Administration’s assaults – from tying soldiers’ hands during combat to persecuting Christian members. When Obama and the Democrats (with the help of Republican Scott Brown and a few other Republican Senators) forced an acceptance of open homosexuality in the armed forces, few noted conservatives gave support to the Center for Military Readiness (CMR) and Elaine Donnelly, President, who was the voice of reason on behalf of the rank and file.
It was fully known by all involved that the majority of military personnel opposed the removal of the ban on open homosexuality in the military, because it jeopardizes their safety, health, and freedom of conscience. The CMR provided statistics to prove the danger of that twisted decision (http://cmrlink.org/), but so-called “conservative” forces scarcely made a peep.
There was nothing from the likes of Fox News (the so-called “conservative” news outlet), nor anything of substance from conservative groups or religious organizations, who knew full well that lifting the ban would sound the death knell of the United States military. Everybody was running scared from activist homosexuals and their leftist and Libertarian supporters, just as they turned tail and ran from rabid feminists back when that group insisted on the integration of women into male units.
After imploring my conservative contacts to fight the madness, because the troops needed our support, I was told by a conservative male friend that the military was so ordered that they would keep things in check. Yeah, sure. Homosexual assaults on males are up since the ban was removed, in the same way that rapes and pregnancies went up when feminists forced the integration of women into the all-male ranks.*
Women, by the way, have always served valiantly in the military, but back when sanity reigned, they were in their own units – remember the WAC, the WAF, and the WAVES? I do. Back then, America had a great military with little of the messiness that ensues when degeneracy and perversion are heartily embraced to appease the minority position.
When the Democrats, the Left, and a few elitist Republicans were lying through their teeth about there being no harm to lifting the ban against open homosexuality in the military – a ban that had held since Washington’s Continental Army – I was irritatingly puzzled at the lack of male voices joining this lone woman, Donnelly, at the forefront of fighting for America’s military.
We know that the rank and file cannot speak out against the politically appointed civilian leaders who direct the military. These unprincipled, power-seeking leaders have seldom been supportive of the fighting forces; their aim has always been to climb the ranks and pander to the political class that appoints them. And our current political class is one rotten bunch. But I certainly expected former and retired military men to speak up forcefully for those enlisted members, when it might have mattered.
Only now, after permanent harm has been done and Obama has turned his attention to getting rid of top generals, are voices being raised. F. Michael Maloof wrote a telling article for the March 2014 issue of Whistleblower magazine (WND.com), which features military leaders who have been removed for sundry (likely trumped-up) reasons. These men give their assessments of what is happening to what was once the greatest military on the globe.
In the article, Major General Paul Vallely (retired) states that “political correctness” has permeated the military and is negatively affecting everyone from top generals to the ranks of the enlisted. Some of the affected officers are taking legal action against the government, and I hope that more will follow suit. One Senior Master Sgt. Philip Monk was relieved of his position for refusing to agree with the homosexual agenda of his commanding officer, herself a homosexual. Major Vallely added that the planned agenda is to squash any dialogue in the ranks on any issue on which Obama’s administration disagrees.
The destruction is reaching into the elite forces, as well. These forces have heretofore escaped female and homosexual influences, but that is changing.
In an article posted at the WND.com Web site, March 17, 2014, Greg Corombos points out that the Obama administration endangered perhaps the best known unit of the elite Navy SEALs, SEAL Team Six. Team Six is the group that successfully targeted and killed Osama bin Laden in May 2011.
Corombos speculates that the public revealing of the SEALs’ role in the mission may be the reason that many of them are now dead.
Instead of shielding the identity of the men, Vice President Joe Biden publicly identified them just two days after the raid. (Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/674241/#EPBoby47m5Tgtf5Z.99.) The obvious ineptitude of Joe Biden may indicate that this action was simply the result of his limited intelligence. But I would not rule out a deliberate attempt to target these brave men for elimination. I put nothing past this lawless, gutless administration.
My personal disgust with these circumstances is not just that the military and so many other solid American institutions have been destroyed by Obama and the Democrat Left. What rankles me even more is the ease with which they have been allowed to do it. I am ashamed of the lack of will of so many Americans to fight for the members of the military when they cannot fight for themselves. And I simply do not comprehend the tepid response to an administration so obviously set on the complete destruction of this country.
Elaine Donnelly needs a heck of a lot more people with clout in her corner, in addition to everyday Americans. Conservatives need to grow spines when it comes to protecting the forces that have for so long protected us.
- From Center for Military Readiness Release (May 15, 2013): “Disregarding New Pentagon Report Tracking Soaring Sexual Assaults, DoD Plans to Extend Problems into Combat Arms” The recent Report of the Defense Department Office of Sexual Assault and Prevention (SAPRO) chronicles a record of abject failure that is getting worse. Instead of pausing to seriously re-evaluate flawed policies, the Obama Administration is ordering the armed forces to extend escalating misconduct problems into “tip of the spear” combat arms units such as Army and Marine infantry and Special Operations Forces. Data and graphs published in both volumes of the annual SAPRO Report for 2013 reveal disastrous consequences of many years of social experiments with human sexuality in our military. For example: . . .
•Contrary to claims of success following repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” SAPRO charts showing gender breakdowns of completed investigations indicate that 12% of unrestricted reports and more than 13% of restricted reports were filed by men. (Vol. I, Exh. 17, p. 81 and Exh. 27, p. 88, which includes an additional 8% segment marked “gender data not available.”)
•In addition, Volume II of the SAPRO report, which presents “virtual” findings extrapolated from the Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active-Duty members (WGRA), suggest that more men are victims of abuse than women are. Of the nearly 26,000 active-duty survey respondents, 6.1% of women and 1.2% of men said they had experienced sexual assault in the past year. (Vol. II, Fig. 6, p. 13) In an article titled “Sexual Assaults in Military Raise Alarms in Washington” (Jennifer Steinhauer, May 7, 2013) the New York Times concluded that in 2012, 12,100 of the 203,000 women on active-duty and 13,900 of the 1.2 million men on active-duty had experienced some form of sexual assault.
© Sylvia Thompson
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
June 5, 2020
Carol D. Leonnig, Dan Lamothe
For former defense secretary Jim Mattis, it was the last straw: the sight of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, walking the streets of downtown Washington in battle-ready camouflage amid a show of brute federal force.
President Trump and then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis listen during a Cabinet meeting at the White House in June 2017.© Jabin Botsford/The Washington PostPresident Trump and then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis listen during a Cabinet meeting at the White House in June 2017.
Smoke was still rising from Lafayette Square, where authorities had just used pepper spray and smoke canisters to disperse a group of largely peaceful protesters, when Gen. Mark A. Milley, along with Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, joined President Trump Monday evening as he strolled to a nearby church to pose for cameras with a Bible.
In Mattis’s eyes, the appearance of the two top military leaders appeared to condone an unprovoked use of force. The nonpartisan military that Mattis had served for nearly five decades was being featured as decoration for a photo op, and Mattis fumed that the president was using the leaders who replaced him at the Defense Department to further divide the nation, according to four people familiar with his thinking.
Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Today’s most popular stories on The Washington Post
He was especially upset to see Milley — whom Mattis believed had sought to curry favor with Trump when he was defense secretary — appear in his Army combat uniform at a peaceful demonstration. That jarring image highlighted the military’s involvement in a heavy-handed crackdown on civilians.
With that, the military historian and retired Marine general decided it was time to call out the damage he saw Trump doing to the country.
“The military was never set up to prop up anyone’s political agenda, and I think that really pissed him off, when he saw that,” said Carlton Kent, a retired Marine sergeant major who advised Mattis in Iraq. “He never wanted them to be in a compromising situation.”
In a statement published by the Atlantic two days later, Mattis described himself as “angry and appalled” — and denounced the president he had served for two years.
“When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution,” Mattis wrote. “Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens — much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.”
Donald Trump et al. standing next to a man wearing a suit and tie: President Trump walks with Attorney General William P. Barr, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark A. Milley and others to visit St. John’s Episcopal Church on Monday after the area was cleared of people protesting the death of George Floyd.© Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty ImagesPresident Trump walks with Attorney General William P. Barr, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark A. Milley and others to visit St. John’s Episcopal Church on Monday after the area was cleared of people protesting the death of George Floyd.
Mattis’s decision to thrust himself in the maw of the country’s fraught politics — after long hovering on the sidelines — grew out of his ongoing concern about the Defense Department’s independence, according to people who know him.
His former colleagues still serving in the military had warned him in recent months about Trump’s sway over its leadership. Some told him that Esper had been dubbed “Yesper” by some in the Pentagon because he seemed unable to say no to the president. And they said they believed Milley was effectively running the department by talking to Trump directly and bypassing the secretary, a dynamic that potentially threatened civilian control of the military.
Several Pentagon officials declined to address Mattis’s criticism on the record.
An administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, defended Esper’s actions during a “fast-moving week.”
“Esper is working to keep the Department of Defense apolitical in turbulent times,” the administration official said. “That is not easy and is not without criticism — both inside and outside DoD — but in the long run it is what is best for the department, the men and women in uniform, and the nation.”
The official said Mattis never reached out to his successor to share his concerns before his statement was published.
“Not Monday. Not Tuesday. Not Wednesday,” the official said. “He should still have the office number.”
Mattis’s decision to speak out came after he had long refused to directly criticize Trump, even though the fact that he had been frustrated with the president was well known. Critics have said he should have used his standing to express his concerns sooner, noting that in his book “” that was published last year, he faulted Obama administration decisions but held back when it came to the sitting president.
Donald Trump standing in front of a mirror posing for the camera: President Trump and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis arrive at a White House reception on Oct. 25, 2018.© Jabin Botsford/The Washington PostPresident Trump and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis arrive at a White House reception on Oct. 25, 2018.
In a PBS interview during his book tour, Judy Woodruff prodded him on why he had not offered his assessment of Trump, noting that Americans would soon be deciding whether to give him a second term. “Are you saying you don’t think it’s your responsibility to speak up before the election?” she asked.
“That’s exactly what I’m saying,” Mattis replied, adding that he and other former defense secretaries believe “the defense of this country is a nonpartisan issue.”
Mattis had told friends that he did not want any critiques he has to interfere with the efforts of the new defense secretary and his former colleagues at the Pentagon to work with the White House.
He made his general disagreement with the president clear when he announced his resignation in December 2018 amid a dispute with the president’s decision to withdraw troops from Syria at the Turkish president’s request. Mattis’s resignation letter signaled his disapproval of Trump’s long-standing objections to international alliances, and his dismay at the president leaving Kurdish allies unprotected in Syria.
“My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues,” Mattis wrote.
But while at the helm of the Pentagon, Mattis himself failed at times to shield his department from the perception that the military was furthering the president’s political objectives.
The most prominent example was Trump’s contentious deployment of active-duty troops to the southern border beginning in fall 2018, just ahead of midterm elections. Trump, citing migrant caravans heading north through Mexico, said that he wanted the military to fortify the border, and at one point said that if migrants threw rocks at U.S. troops, they should “consider that a firearm.”
When pressed about the border mission, Mattis dismissed suggestions that the troops were being used for political purposes, saying, “We don’t do stunts.” He visited the border in November 2018, one month before he resigned, and defended the mission.
In another incident that angered some in the military, Trump signed an executive order for a travel ban on immigrants from several Muslim-majority countries in the Pentagon’s Hall of Heroes, a revered space meant to honor the nation’s Medal of Honor recipients. Mattis stood next to him as Trump signed the order.
Since the civil unrest that has followed the police killing of George Floyd, Trump has repeatedly raised the threat of military force to quell the protests and pushed the Pentagon to deploy troops to cities hit hard by protests.
Last weekend, after a police station in Minneapolis was burned, he tweeted that “THUGS” were “dishonoring the memory of George Floyd,” and said he told Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) that “the Military is with him all the way.” He appeared to threaten protesters, tweeting “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.”
On Friday, as protests spread to Washington and other cities, active-duty members of the Army were put on alert.
“Crossing State lines to incite violence is a FEDERAL CRIME!” Trump tweeted Saturday. “Liberal Governors and Mayors must get MUCH tougher or the Federal Government will step in and do what has to be done, and that includes using the unlimited power of our Military and many arrests.”
Esper and Milley, meanwhile, were advocating privately to use the National Guard — but not active-duty troops, which have rarely been called up to respond to domestic unrest.
The current secretary has repeatedly stressed his belief that the U.S. military should remain apolitical. But at least two incidents on Monday drew Mattis’s ire.
First, on a call with Trump, administration officials and governors, Esper said that the sooner that authorities could “dominate the battlespace” in their cities, the sooner things could return to normal. A recording of that call leaked to the media within hours.
Then Esper and Milley walked with Trump from the White House to nearby St. John’s Episcopal Church, which had been damaged in a fire started during protests, minutes after federal authorities rushed at demonstrators with shields and batons.
The White House quickly packaged the scene into a video set to triumphant music.
The following day, the Pentagon announced that it was deploying 1,600 active-duty troops to the D.C. region, including infantrymen. That decision was reversed by Esper this week, halted for a day amid the tension and then continued Thursday night.
Mattis was especially irked by Milley’s presence at Lafayette Square. The two men’s relationship had soured shortly before Mattis resigned, according to people with knowledge of the episode.
At the time, Milley was serving as the Army’s top general, and he asked Mattis if he could speak with Trump to seek a new role as chief of U.S. European Command and the supreme allied commander of Europe for NATO. After the meeting, the president chose Milley as the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, bypassing Mattis’s recommendation of the Air Force’s top officer. Mattis believed Milley had misled him and lobbied for the job; Milley told aides that he and Trump hit it off and that Trump simply offered it.
Amid this week’s furor, some Pentagon officials have privately acknowledged that it was a mistake for Esper and Milley to appear with Trump on Monday evening after the protesters had been forcefully cleared away.
Esper’s supporters say he has attempted to right the ship when it comes to keeping politics out of the department, sending a message to U.S. troops on Tuesday night that reminded them of their role to protect the American people and highlighting on Wednesday at the Pentagon the role of the National Guard in maintaining peace in the nation.
Under fire, Esper also expressed regret for his use of the term “battlespace,” saying it was a part of the lexicon he grew up with as an Army officer. He said that when he joined Trump for the walk through Lafayette Square, he thought he was going to survey damaged buildings and meeting National Guard members, not participate in a photo op.
But for Mattis, the damage was done.
“He knew his voice would have power and he could see that nobody was stopping this danger,” one ally said.
Mattis reached out to Jeffrey Goldberg, editor of the Atlantic, which had published a piece he wrote last fall about the importance of the country’s unity. On Tuesday, Mattis began writing his statement. He shared it with Goldberg on Wednesday, who published it that evening with the headline “James Mattis Denounces President Trump, Describes Him as a Threat to the Constitution.”
Kent, who speaks frequently with Mattis, said he was glad to see his old battle buddy speak up. Other retired generals, including David Petraeus, have since, as well.
“You never should put them in a compromising situation in the military,” Kent said. “You should never put them in a political situation, and that’s where they are right now.