Two Marine generals lose their jobs over deadly Taliban attack
By Barbara Starr
In an action unprecedented during 12 years of war in Afghanistan, the commandant of the Marine Corps is firing two top generals for failing to protect troops and their base in southern Afghanistan from a Taliban attack.
Marine Commandant Gen. James Amos, has agreed to a finding that Maj. Gen. Charles M. Gurganus and Maj. Gen. Gregg A. Sturdevant "did not take adequate force protection measures" at Camp Bastion last year, the service said on Monday.
On September 14-15, 2012, Taliban fighters got through an unguarded part of a fence and engaged in a long running gun battle with U.S. and coalition forces.
Two Marines were killed and eight other personnel were wounded. Six aircraft were destroyed by the Taliban, the largest loss of Marine aircraft since the Vietnam War.
There were three investigations of the incident, two of which Gurganus ran, according to a Marine Corps official. But Amos then asked U.S. Central Command for an independent probe. Central Command recommended both generals leave the corps and Amos accepted it.
Amos has recommended to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus that Gurganus's promotion to lieutenant general, currently on hold in the Senate, be rescinded. He also recommended that Sturdevant receive a letter of censure from Mabus.
Both men have been told to submit their retirement letters.
In a statement, the Marines said Amos praised the generals for pursuing the U.S. combat goals, but "concluded that the commanders, in overseeing the camp's force-protection plan, did not exercise the level of judgment expected of general officers."
Amos made a subtle reference to the question of whether the Marines had enough manpower on hand." While I am mindful of the degree of difficulty the Marines in Afghanistan faced in accomplishing a demanding combat mission with a rapidly declining force, my duty requires me to remain true to the timeless axioms relating to command responsibility and accountability," Amos wrote in endorsing the investigation's findings. "Responsibility and accountability are the sacred tenets of commandership."
Amos found Gurganus "made an error in judgment when conducting his risk assessment of the enemy's capabilities and intentions."
He also found Sturdevant, who commanded the aviation unit, failed to protect the airfield properly.
The airfield was operated by British forces but Sturdevant remained responsible for using U.S. Marines who were assigned to protect personnel and aircraft.
Britain's Prince Harry was with his Apache helicopter crew at the time of the attack but was moved to a secure area, officials said at the time.
@natlsecuritycnn on Twitter
It's an amazing paragraph in favor of all the web visitors;
they will obtain benefit from it I am sure.
Thanks on your marvelous posting! I certainly enjoyed reading it, you will be a great author.I will be sure to bookmark your blog and will eventually come back down the road. I want to encourage continue your great job, have a nice morning!
hardly a compensation to the parents of the dead marines, finally the higher ups are force to own up!
I believe in command responsibility, but the blame goes much higher than the commanders in the field. The Washington morons who forbid aggressive measures to protect our bases out of fear of "offending" the local raghead warlords are equally responsible-not to mention the "Idiot-In-Chief" and his rush to withdraw and leave the grunts in the field hanging. Let's spread the responsibility around a little more evenly.
LOVE MY MARINES HAVING DATED ONE MYSELF HE IS A RETIRED MARINE MAJOR. "LA DI DAH"
HEY CAPTAIN CAPSLOCK
TMI, MOVE ALONG
Hey alice, did you hear about the new acronym earned by you "beloved" Marines? The USMC is now equal to the UCFA( Urinating Clowns From America)!!! They well earned it in 2011 by urinating on the dead Taliban which was a dastardly gesture which almost all of us saw on that disgusting video. They need to hang their heads low!!!
Thank you, George. You hit the nail on the head over those Marines urinating on those Taliban corpses. That was a very des picable gesture indeed and it almost puts me to shame as an American. Are we losing our moral compass or what?
TIKI JONES WHY DONT YOU ASK (THE OBAMA) WHO IS GOING TAKE THE BLAME FOR BENGHAZI AN AMERICAN AMBASSODOR IS DEAD TAKEN AWAY FROM HIS WIFE AND KIDS HE WILL NOT BE HERE TO SEE THEM GRADUATE HIGH SCHOOL OR WALK THEM DOWN THE ALE FOR MARRIAGE. A WIFE DOES NOT HAVE HER MAN ANYMORE TO HOLD. " WHO DONE IT, WHO STOLE MY BABY" A GROUP TARVARES SONG THIS SONG IN THE MID 70'S, SO WHO DONE IT MISSY.
TO ALL SERVICE MEN AND WOMEN OF ALL MILITARY BRANCHES THANKS YOU FOR PROTECTING AND FIGHTING FOR THIS CONFUSED COUNTRY NOW, THANK YOU FOR PUTTING YOUR LIFE ON THE FOR ME AND OTHERS AND GIVING UP TIME AWAY FROM YOUR OWN FAMILIES TO SERVE WHICH WAS ONCE A GREAT COUNTRY TO LIVE NOW NOT SO SURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND FOR THE TWO MARINE GENERALS MY HATS TO THE BOTH OF I LOVE YOU GUYS!!!! AND JUST TRUST IN GOD HE WILL BRING THE HIDDEN THINGS THE LIGHT.
JOHN I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU..................................
Finally, some accountability! Those generals are getting exactly what they deserve, no promotions, and I don't even think they should get retirement. That money should be used to replace the loss of life and aircraft. However, I am aware that when you retire as a general you lose rank and pay anyway. I have heard that you go back to a one star regardless?
The Commander In Chief should be fired . What happened to the buck stops here ????
That's right, Bill "Responsibility and accountability are the sacred tenets of commandership." Let the CIC be judged.
Rest in Peace Sgt. Bradley Atwell. You are missed.
How about fire the idiots at the pentagon that make policy that ties the Military in the field's hands
Why, why, can't we have these results with Sen. & Cong. as well as the executive branch. Talk about bad decisions, how about out & out malfeesens. Intentionaly doing wrong to our country for personal gain. IT GO'S ON EVERY DAY IN WASH. We are losing our Republic.
USA
America and England have always attacked other countries and promote combat and war in other countries.
England from very beginning had a hostile policy, separated Iran into two countries, Afghanistan and Iran.
Helped Iraq to fight against Iran, In Saudi Arabia they created Vahabiat or Vahabi to fight against Islam.
Vahabi, people who chop off heads for heaven and those suicide bombers, first supported by England.
This immoral, unhumanitarian and ferocious policy caused the world to suffer. The world is in chaos because of policy, human kills human, human rules make some rich and some poor.
Now in Afghanistan and other countries, America and England are trying to find Uranium, oil, gold, historical monuments and treasures and other Natural Savings, violating many rules, killing many people, and let their ownselves to be killed.
A strange post, almost completely meaningless. I'm not sure you understand that England (or, more correctly, UK) has ever controlled Iran or Afghanistan. There is no way that UK was involved in the Iran/Iraq conflict. If you're going to rant, please research what you're posting.
Did the Marine Corp issue crystal balls to the generals when they received their respective commands? Probably not? Just another example of politicians looking for a scapegoat. What better scapegoat than someone who has to follow orders and risk losing retirement benefits to defend themselves. What does Semper Fi mean to the upper echeleon brass?
Politicians didn't fire them, the Marine commandant and a Marine investigation did. Learn to read.
Mike, you're right! If you use concrete thinking instead of deductive reasoning. Now, hold my hand as I walk you through the chain of command...President-VP-Secretary of Defense-Assistant SOD-Secretary of the Navy-Commandant. I'm sure there are a few others as well, definitely a few well funded lobbyist and politicians that want attention diverted away from their own egregious malfeasance. What better scapegoat, than a career military man, disciplined enough to follow ambiguous orders, and not question or defend himself under duress, with the threat of losing his pension or worse. How does someone become a General in the USMC? Do they give the position away? Apply the Peter Principle to promote them? No, they earn it. If allowed, the military seems to do a fine job of conducting business and policing itself, only when politicians, civilians, lobbyist and...you Mike, when you all get involved, the mission becomes convoluted.
John, the Commandant had it right. With commandship, comes forethought, foresight and the safety of everyone/every vehicle (aircraft or land transport) under their command. If you weren't there you should reserve your judgement. I was there and witness some of this lack of commandship myself from Flag officers and senior FGOs. Accountability has its consequences and its rewards. Neither of the O-8s will loose their retirement benefits. And it shouldn't matter about the reitrement benefits. What matters is that the mission was not taken care of adequately, thus the Commandant has acted appropriately.
The last post directed to me seemed reasonable, and I appreciate the point of view. But, I'm feeling argumentative and defensive for some reason. Why wasn't the mayor of New York fired? Did the airline withhold benefits from the pilot's and crew member's families after 9/11? How about the manufacturers of the box cutters, were they held accountable? Now, I realize how ridiculous this sounds, but its just to make a point. And yes, as was stated, the General's retirement/pension shouldn't have anything to do with it, but it does! Just like their freedom! The military is not a democracy?!? Accountability starts at the top, and like its close cousin, flows downhill. The point is, while the soldier's deaths are both sad and a tragedy, how reasonable is it to tie someone's hands, throw them in the water, and expect them to swim? Unless you're a Seal of course. I know from what ...little experience I had in the military, the public in general has no idea how things are done. You get orders, and you follow them with the resources given. Yeah, you could be a conscientious objector, but then you wouldn't be a Marine Corp General. It just rubs me the wrong way, when the masses jump on the bandwagon, ready to blame the military, it reminds me of the Salem Witch trials. And while I don't have first hand knowledge of what actually happened, I'm almost positive no-one posting in a public forum would be allowed to do so, if they did. I'm done, I realize the futility of subjective reasoning. (mine)
Agree, Agree, Agree. For too long FP issues took a back seat at Bastion. I was out of the Marines by the time this happened, but I wasn't surprised by it. I'm glad these guys are out. Good FP requires discipline above all else and that had been lacking at Bastion/Leatherneck for sometime. FOBs are not safe places. This attack was completely preventable.
Thank you for your service!!
Former FP,
While I'm sure the GOs probably attended FP meetings (or one of their subordinates), do the Americans have ANY control over Bastion? Who mans those towers.....it's not Marines is it?
They would never confirm this, but if the 8 aircraft had not been destroyed and it was just the two dead Marines, the two generals would still be on the job.
You could be right, but they were killed on the airfield so it's safe to say that had the aircraft not been the target, than they would not have been killed.
You make an assumption sound like a fact. Any references for that claim?
Former FPO, I too was at Leatherneck when we first stood it up in '09. I did a year in Helmand. I have to ask based on your billet, what did you do to educate the command on their vulnerabilities in reference to the threat posed? Commanders make decisions based on information provided by their staffs and the FPO is responsible for identifying vulnerabilities to the commands physical security and make pertinent recommendations to mitigate those risks. If security and FP was as lacks as you imply then you as the FPO had a responsibility to speak up and make solid recommendations to General Gurganus or whomever was the CG at the time, it had to be either Nicholson, Mills, Toolan or Gurganus. I recently retired as an 0210 with 32 years and am intimately familiar with the roles and responsibilities of the FPO, G2, G3 and all who had a part in this. I agree that ultimately it is the CG's responsibility to ensure the safety and security of his Marines but if the FP posture is as bad as you claim during your deployment and you were the FPO then you had a responsibility to speak up and be heard. Now, I don't want to point the finger at you, maybe you did speak up and maybe you did identify to the command those vulnerabilities and they chose to ignore them but this failure goes beyond one or two General Officers, others in the CoC had a responsibility and failed the command and those Marines killed and wounded in this attack. With that said, I believe the punishment metered out to both Generals was fitting and deserved.
With Prince Harry in harms way a very high someone had to take the blame, maybe a couple. What a shame of resources, those Generals virtually take a life time to produce. Prince Harry should have never been in the war zone and this would have been not even honorable mention on a report. Sacrificial lambs to appease and overseas defunct monarchy.
The State Department should take a lesson from the Marine Corps. This is what accountability looks like, not get promoted to the next higher govt appointed position
oorah brother
Amen to that. My best friend was killed at Korengal a few years back by friendly fire. The CO and LT were both promoted but the specialist that was following orders had to go in front of a court martial (he was found not guilty thankfully). People that have a direct and major impact on situations should be held responsible for them. Regardless of rank.
I'm on the fence about this story, my main concern would be for the loss of life! We can make more air crafts, we can't do so with people. The Marines are expected to the impossible with few bodies, and they do their job well, but we need to stop cutting the budget for our armed forces in order to prevent this from happening. The Generals have a tough job and I respect them, but it seems to me that is, that they lose their jobs due to politics. At the same time, I would hope that they did their best to safe guard our valued Marines. Semper Fi.
Wow, this is unbelievable. People attack in wars. People are attacked in wars. People are wounded in wars. People die in wars. I mean really. That's why the armed forces issue, well, weapons....its a warzone.
It's undoubtedly due to the loss of aircraft.
Neither Rice or Clinton were fired over their gross negligence and blatant cover-up of Bengazi and now Clinton has the balls to make a bid for president! The Corp is bound to Honor and Duty, sadly the garbage currently running our country is not.
You're quite right about the "garbage" currently running this country, Ykuos. This is why they keep on getting us into all these useless and unnecessary wars as they meekly carry out orders from the M.I.C. in Washington. However, I disagree about the USMC always being as honorable as you claim. Did you see that disgusting video about those Marines urinating on that dead Taliban about a year and a half ago? I did and I found that less than honorable and a national disgrace!
So they peed on a few dead Taliban. Big deal ! If the Marines were allowed to do what they were trained to do, kill them... we would all be a little safer. And the enemy would lose their will to fight. I say pee on all of them, then cover them with Pig blood and broadcast it around the world..... Nuke Mecca.... Nuke Medina..... Drop pig bombs on all of them and tell them to kiss our behinds
There is also some previous garbage that got you in this mess. Or have you forgotten that?
Oh BTW, I hate the repubs as much as the dems. They all a piece of trash...The only diff is that they get thrown out on different days.
Hey, President Cheney and his puppet george werent arrested for war crimes, so whats your point?
If one were to use "the Google" one would find that an unusual number of highly-decorated commanding officers, particularly in the Marine Corps, have been fired since Obama took office. This appears to have accelerated since gays have been allowed to serve openly. It makes one wonder if we suddenly have a rash of incompetent officers or if there is an agenda being executed and some officers are not playing along and so must be removed to allow that agenda unfettered progress.
Libs, call me a liar...then look it up for yourselves.
Marcus Porcius
The Conservative Review
Even if true, correlation does not imply causation.
It does if you're signing things "Conservative Review" and you're trying to make a statement against a Democratic president.
what both CNN and MSNBC fail to report is that Gen Garganus repeatedly asked for more troops to guard the airfield and was denied those troops. inconvenient facts like that somehow never make it into CNN and MSNBC reporting; ever wonder why readers?
That would be so the same guy who labeled the Fort Hood shooting "workplace violence" so he couldn't be linked to a terrorist attack won't get blamed. But he did personally find and kill Bin Laden, you know..in between holes at the nearest golf course.
Though the general had previously requested, and was denied, additional guards for the towers, one month before the attack, Gurganus approved a reduction in perimeter patrols outside Leatherneck and Bastion. That is why he is being held accountable. Would be nice if you included all of the information rather than attempting to pick and choose to make some lame ass political statement.
If the standard is what is claimed, who is being fired for Ft. Hood; DC Naval; World Trade Center; Pentagon; Etc.?
I find it ironic that we fire Marine Generals but NOT one leader or responsible person lost thier job over Benghazi and the hundreds of US weapons that made it into the hands of terrorists in that attack.
ONLY the Pentagon takes reaponsibility whilts the rest of this LOUSY, CORRUPT administration avoid any sort of responsibiity and try to rewrite history as it unfolds.
What a joke this has become.
I find it ironic that you had a thought.
How many people in the Reagan Administration lost thier jobs after a suicide truck bomber killed over 200 Marines in Beirut, a known war zone?
The marines in Lebanon did not have loaded weapons. Whose birght idea was that ?
House Republicans voted to cut nearly $300 million from the U.S. embassy security budget. When asked if he voted to cut the funds this morning on CNN, Chaffetz said, “Absolutely“:
And that explains why we had more security in London than in Benghazi...yep, you got us alright. Besides which, those "cuts" were from Obama's budget "request"..not from the previous year's budget...which went up. Oh, and when Democrats had Congress in 2010...they "cut" over $140 million from embassy security too.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/barbara-boxers-claim-that-gop-budgets-hampered-benghazi-security/2013/05/15/d1e295cc-bdb0-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html
Actually Ken, there was more than $1.2 billion of unused funds available for security in the State Department that no one wanted to use. Money or lack of it had nothing to do with the security failures at Benghazi.
to Marcuspork, The reason London had, and has, more security than ANY temporary diplomatic facility (of which Benghazi was one) should be obvious to the all but the most casual observer. 7/11 ring any bells?
BTW, the late Amb Stevens bears much responsibility for his own death and the 3 others at Benghazi.
First, he choose to travel to a very lightly-defended temp facility in a country which had virtually no central government, much less security, on the anniversary of 9/11.
Secondly, the "local forces" contracted to escort him to the facility were on strike due to a wage dispute and were therefore absent from the security forces. Yet, he still traveled to the temp facility.
Third, assuming the Amb was even peripherally aware of the overall lack of security in the country, he must have known how tenuous the situation in Benghazi was due to reports from our own forces of recent, direct attacks on the Benghazi compound in addition to reports from the UK mission of attacks on their diplomats and upon the international school in the area.
Lastly, the local police, who where supposed to provide a security force on that day (which took off minutes prior to the attack), were also known to be completely compromised.
This tragedy had nothing to do with a lack of security. NONE of our non-embassy facilities are manned, or planned to be manned, to withstand an attack by 50+ aggressors. The real reason for the attack was hubris....again.
Ironically, exactly the same attack occurred at Benghazi 50 years earlier, except then the fire was not set and no one died...all else exactly the same. I would think the Amb would have known that.
ummmm...the Secretary of State was forced to resign after that. Yeah, remember her? Fan or not, I'd say that's a pretty big deal.
She wasn't forced. Not officially, anyway.
If one were to use "the Google" one would find that an unusual number of highly-decorated commanding officers, particularly in the Marine Corps, have been fired since Obama took office. This appears to have accelerated since gays have been allowed to serve openly. It makes one wonder if we suddenly have a rash of incompetent officers or if there is an agenda being executed and some officers are not playing along and so must be removed to allow that agenda unfettered progress.
Libs, call me a liar...then look it up for yourselves.
Marcus Porcius
The Conservative Review
Maybe the difference is Afghanistan is an active combat zone, with US military forces deployed against KNOWN hostiles. Libya had no US deployment of forces, just civilians caught in a gun battle. In one case hostilities are KNOWN to occur and our uniformed troops ARE THE TARGET. Failure to adequately protect them is a derilection of duty. I only know what I read, and that is apparently what happened.
We expect more of Marine Generals than we do of those in charge of security in Benghazi. Why should this be surprising?
can't speak bad myself about the General because I am an active Duty Marine but they did get what they deserved for not protecting the base good enough and underestimating the enemy.
As the father of an active duty Marine, I say they got off easy. Thank you for your service.
Brendan, as a former Marine, I agree and disagree. One needs to know the situation on the ground. The FACT that the generals had requested more resources (more marines) in able to adequately defend the area, and it was denied, does not make it the Generals fault. They, like many time before, were put in a position to fail by the leadership in Washington. Lets not also forget that it wasn't the loss of life that caused the actions of dismissal, but the loss of the aircraft. Washington does not care about 2 dead warriors, but the destruction of aircraft costing millions. THAT is the disgusting fact.
Thank you for your service!!!
Though the general had previously requested, and was denied, additional guards for the towers, one month before the attack, Gurganus himself approved a reduction in perimeter patrols outside Leatherneck and Bastion. That is why he is being held accountable. Might want to include all of the FACTS. The request for the additional troops occured at the end of March after Gurganus arrived and was denied. 4 months later Gurganus, himself, authorized the reduction in guards and on the night of the attack the tower closest to the Taliban point of entry was unmanned per Gurganus's reduction in personel requirements. These accounts are directly from the official transcripts of the investigation rather than some politically motivated news source.
The true story was being answered conrrectly! They don't about the dead military.
Thank you for your service!!!
why was no one fired over attack on consulate in benghazi where our ambassador was murdered?
Because no jets were lost there....
Hey, let me try that!
Uh, uh, because, uh (searching for something stupid to say)...
Because most Americans see the Banghazi story as nothing more than a desperate attempt by Republicans to use dead Americans to score political points.
Tell that to the families of those murdered, I doubt they will agree with you.
@Dave: Tel that to Issa, who despite his best efforts, wasn't able to find reasonable evidence to fire anyone. Maybe the dopes who voted to cut the budget for protecting our diplomatic corps, perhaps?
Because the obama administration never takes responsibility for it's failures.....
The military has to follow the orders of the President...it's not like they have a choice, other than mutiny, which is reprehensible.. Learn some facts before you make moronic statements like that.
Exactly. Esspecially us United States Marines. We are under direct control from the United States President, he can use us within a 24 hour window to do what must be done around the world. He is our commander in Chief. At least the military still gets paid with the government shutdown thank god to the bill that got passed yesterday
Active troops will always be paid, regardless of what passed failed yesterday. Troops are considered essential.
It is great our troops are going to get paid. However, I remember back in the early 80's during the Reagan admin. government shutdown, We still got our military checks, however no bank nor check cashing place would honor those checks. Until the govt. stepped in a few days too late for some whom missed paying some bills on time. Who runs the banks the big an rich republicans.
Taliban must be gloating.....
Are these Taliban, sandal-wearing and cave-dwelling, really humans or super-humans. How can they take on the most "advanced" military and give them a bloody nose?
Because sooner or later you eventually throw enough bodies into the meatgrinder that it starts to clog.
In 12 years of War we've lost less than 10,000 military personnel.
Compare that to Vietnam, or even to Korea or World War 2.
Dude, let's put it in perspective. How much are you spending on your military per year? Close to a trillion $ (750 BIllion to be exact) and what is the Taliban's budget... Insignificant compared to the USA's. So who's really winning this war?
To USA #0: Put it in perspective yourself.
The DoD budget (as you said near $750 B) goes to far more than just Afghanistan or fighting the taliban. They maintain a presence all around the world. They have multiple carrier task forces constantly positioned to allow the President to order a strike just about anywhere within a day or two. They have at least one battalion task force ready to depart within a few hours notice to jump anywhere in the world on the President's order. And their R&D contracts and constant training & re-evaluation of tactics has prepare a fighting force capable of wiping out the 4th largest army in the world within just 3 weeks.
Today's U.S. combat hardened military is the very reason the Chinese have decided to invest so much in technology. They've realized that even their large numbers are no match for the U.S. military.
That doesn't come cheaply.
Being a Marine I can tell you one thing. These are hard men, they know what they are doing and they can do it with little or no technology.
I beg to differ. The US army is so dependant on their gadgets that they would run from the field if it was taken away from them.
And the Marine Corps wouldn't, even though we have just as advanced technology these days as the army and even better vehicles, we don't run. We fight. We have a reputation to uphold and you come at us, we'll come at you. Running isn't the Marine way.
By the way I was talking about how the Taliban are hard men when they fight us with little or no technology btw, just FYI
Thanks for the clarification but I still say that US forces would run from the field if all their gadgets were taken away. The Taliban have conviction that the US forces do not have. They are willing to die for their cause unlike US forces who will run from the field if they feel they are overpowered.
To USA #0: I beg to differ.
The U.S. military never refuses an order just because they don't have the equipment. They assess what they do have, and prepare their plans to work with whatever they're given.
You obviously haven't served in the military.
I think its self evident that USA#0 is a tool.
No, I take that back. Tools are useful and serve a purpose.
Brendan USMC
... Running isn't the Marine way.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Funny, my son told me he did a LOT of running at Parris Island! Thanks again for your service, young man.
I think that goes hand in hand with UNDERESTIMATING the enemy. With extensive funding from the drug trade and other illicit activities and support from Iran and others the Taliban isn't just a bunch of "goat hearders". They are actually a semi-sophisticated criminal group. It seems to work for them to attack and then hide in the population. Only criminals can survive doing that.
When you think Taliban/terrorist, you think of some cavemen trying to learn to make fire. What you don't imagine is anarchist that can even code, encrypt and create programs that allow you to send send messages avoiding "monitored" sites.
Well so they are getting fired, does it matter, will the families of those that were under his protection and got killed going to be able to take him to court and collect money from his retirement? No they will not, but he will still collect his retirement from the government, so it goes to show that you can kill someone so long as you have some star power and you can get away with it.
You don't understand one bit on how the military works, the commanders didn't protect the compound good enough yes and the Taliban got through but the families have already colleged 400,000$ from the SGLI after the death of their loved ones so no, Retirement Pay should not be alloted to the families. Not to mention, I am a United States Marine, been on active duty for the past 8 years. We all take risks and know that death is a possibility. Commanders and Non-Commisioned officers take charge in making sure everyone is secured and comes home safely, but sometimes things don't go according to planned. Your a civilian so I wouldn't expect you would understand.
I fought in Desert Storm, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq. I retired two summers ago after over 21 years of active duty service. To say the families got the $400,000 and shouldn’t be allotted retirement pay is kind of crass. All that have served understand the risks and voluntarily accept them, however in this post Desert Storm zero casualty world, no of us plan on dying on a deployment. When an incident happens, somebody must be held responsible, from the Air Force General that got hammered for Kohbar Towers, to the Navy Captain for the USS Cole, to these two Marines. While your comments are correct, think about how you phrase them, because it might be somebody else saying that your family, or your child, that they got the $400K and need to move on.
I guess you think that the CEO of BP was directly responsible for the Gulf Oil spill. There are a lot of decision makers on the ground who made decisions that led to the events. The Commander is ultimately responsible for EVERYTHING that happens. Even though he made not have made that decision directly that allowed this evernt to occur.
"Britain's Prince Harry was with his Apache helicopter crew at the time of the attack but was moved to a secure area, officials said at the time."
The two US Marines we lost didn't share Harry's luxury. Pretty certain he's on record saying he wants to join in the fight. The real fight, as it's always been, Harry, is on the ground. Where were you???!!!
Not only was the royal brat wisked off to safety he probably had a platoon around him for security. A total waste of manpower....
He's a pilot, bro. Pilots as a general rule are used to greatest effect when.. piloting aircraft.
Would you pitch a fit if a United States Air Force pilot rushed to get airborne and join a fight utilizing the expertise and skillset the military trained him in.. or would you demand he picked up a rifle instead?
When 6 aircraft get destroyed due to a security breach somebody is going to get fired.
The two generals we're probably ordered not to comment on the issue. They may have requested additional security forces for the base and aircraft, but it was denied by the pentagon brass or even the Secretary of Defense himself...we'll never know for sure. In exchange for their silence, they were offered retirement. Happends all the time. Enlisted personnel serve at the pleasure of the officer corps. When they screw up they're court martialed and sent to prison or dismissed from the military under less than honorable conditions. In my opinon, it's just another screw up like Syria that got four top officials killed. The abassador requested extra security personnel a month before the attack, but it was denied by Secretary of State Clinton, although she denies it; afterall, she wants to be President and carry on the Clinton public service dynasty that made them rich.
Dusty, I assume that you are referring to Libya, not Syria, where 6 Americans died.
They are getting retirement with honorable discharge and no court martial, FYI
Not to mention, the Commandant has the right to fire them because they General's had the resources to make sure the base was secured and MORE then enough Marines to protect that base. I know this to be a fact, being a Marine myself. The Generals got COMPLACENT and thought well.... the Taliban aren't going to attack the base, so this area should be good.
Thats why we say in the Marine Corps, Complacency Kills
I think that you're making comments beyond your pay grade. You don't know or understand how leardership at that level works or what the Generals were being told by thier subordinates as to how things were being handled. So your comments on that are probably baseless. You should stick to what you know.
You make totally baseless assertions like "They may have requested additional security forces for the base and aircraft, but it was denied by the pentagon brass or even the Secretary of Defense himself...we'll never know for sure."
Equally baseless would be that they were offered additional security forces but declined because they didn't think it was necessary.
It's one thing to have an opinion about something; it's something else to essentially make accusations against people such as the pentagon brass or SecDef by pulling something out of thin air; I suppose you agree with Cruz's equally baseless assertion that Hagel might have received money from North Korea.
I believe the RAF was partially responsible for perimeter security at this location. It is also being reported that Major General Gurganus reduced the number of Marines patrolling the perimeter from 325 to 100 one month before the attack. This reduction of security personnel sounds somewhat like the situation leading up to the Benghazi attack.
And yet our government is unable to hold someone accountable for Benghazi.
there is a big difference between unable and does not want to. it is the latter in that case
I believe that issue has been settled; sorry if you didn't get the memo... Al Qaeda and a totally messed up "secret" – that the entire world knew about – mission by the CIA were held responsible and accountable. Darrell Issa was the mastermind of the entire FUBAR!
So, just what the hell were those two doing if not their job up there???!
Probably voting republican.
spoken like a true democrat that would have had the peace corps patrolling the perimeter. stand watch or sit down
That doesn't make any sense....if they voted Republican, then they'd be getting the job done.
Sweet.
We should not even be in that swamp now.We have suit cased enough American dollars over there.We have no friend there that money can't buy.
No disrespect to your rank Mike E8(Retired), you are out of order.You should never wish that the President's daughter be put in harms way.You are retired,he is still your Commander-in-Chief.Why don't you send your daughter or maybe your wife to fight on the front line?
I think you missed the man's point, Willie. I read it as it was foolish to have Prince Harry on the front lines due to the security riisks by basically painting a big target on the whole operation. It doesn't sound like he's aqdvocating putting Obama's daughter. His final sentence puts it all together:
"the true problem is "Prince Henry" should not have been there to begin with. Why not just put Obama's daughter in there? Because the political ramifications and "VIP" treatment and security cost too much energy and time."
It begs the question though. What about the rest of the chain of command? Why are they not gone too? A second lieutenant or a private for that matter could have discovered this hole. They probably did report it up the chain but was ignored. As a result Marines got killed.
Not enough people got fired for this one, especially the lower brass "on the ground".
"Taliban fighters got through an unguarded part of a fence "
That's the issue. Who is ultimately responsible? Please... no "Obama haters" on this.
Bush's Fault. For invading in the first place.
No deals with Muslim terrorists. These generals were too soft and did not hit the Muslim terrorists hard enough.
There are no real American generals
Let's be real here...Soldiers and Sailors have been dying in that wars for years behind dumb mistakes from top brass...this is only as big of an issue that it is because the loss of those aircraft. Sad...but true.
WE HAVE AN UGLY PATTERN GOING ON HERE- this is no coincidence. We have a tyrannical angry white hating American hating militant in the white house, that is purging his political rivals (military leadership), And the media, doing everything it can to trivialize it- first McChrystal then Petraius- then other now this- . WHO IS GOING TO REPLACE these leaders- Id like to see some focus on this. I GUARANTEE the replacement will be politically motivated, and be a left wing Obama yes man – guaranteed. Read up on Stalin military purge – to eliminates his rivals. This scary stuff going, on especially, since there seems to be no political will, to confront it.
You need serious therapy dude, and a much better tin foil hat.
LMAO – That's how he tunes in Ancient Aliens.
this has nothing to do with the president , this is two generals not doing their job PERIOD. THIS ISN'T A PURGE OF THE GENERAL OFFICER CORP THIS IS PLAIN AND SIMPLE DO YOUR JOB CORRECTLY ARE RETIRE. ENLISTED PERSONNEL GET RELIIVED EVERYDAY IN THE MILITARY IS IT THE PRESIDENT FAULT OR IS IT THEIR FAULT. WAR IS SERIOUS BUSINESS. JUST DO YOUR JOB AND QUIT BLAMING THE PRESIDENT FOR EVERYTHING THAT GOES WRONG.YOU HAVE PEOPLE IN ALL BRANCHES OF THE MILITARY THAT SHOULDN'T BE IN A LEADERSHIP POSITION BUT SOME HOW THEY SLIPPED THROUGH THINK ABOUT SOME OF THE E-7 THROUGH E-9 THAT WAS A TOTAL LOST WAS IT THE PRESIDENT FAULT THAT THEY GOT PROMOTED.NO THEY JUST PUNCH THE RIGHT TICKET AND THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN FIRED A LONG TIME A GO PERIOD.
Stop yelling.
The replacements can ONLY come from the ranks below. NO POLITICAL APPOINTMENT POSSIBLE at that level. Get some better facts.
I hate to make it sound personal against the commander in chief, but it is a valid point, and the credibility of our country is more important. Even if it was time, for these generals to go, I could have been done via reassignment, or otherwise quietly- I doubt anyone really believe this is about military discipline. Also when reading about Stalin's purge, don't forget the chapter about how any disagreement with communists, lead to labeling as crazy and sent off to ' insane asylums' (Siberia)- don't forget to read that part.
Stick you book about Stalin up you a_.
Why should this be done quietly? The two generals are being held accountable for their actions, or inaction, in this case. Unless it is clear that there are consequences of their actions, how does doing this quietly help? Everyone in the military should understand that this is what happens when you don't do your duty.
As for reassignment, why on Earth would they choose that option? If they are ineffective and not qualified for their current positions, they should no longer have the job...anywhere. Their mistakes cost lives and was beneficial to the enemy.
Right on, Dierdre. You go girl.
If we fired generals everytime, an incident happened in WWII, Korea or Vietnam – we would be a defenseless country. This sacking of general after general after general in unprecedented. This is appears to be the first time, in history we have a Commander in Chief hostile to the US Military- and if you care about the USA (I am sure that is a big IF)- you should be very very concerned.
The replacements can ONLY come from the ranks below. NO POLITICAL APPOINTMENT POSSIBLE at that level.
You can shriek and throw your tantrums all you want- this is not an isolated incident. It's a pattern, of dismantling the military- general after general after genera getting tossed out. It's not a coincidence or situation based on it's merits, in my opinion. It's a power struggle between, a tyrannical egomaniac and the traditional establishment, Same as Stalin, Hitler- all of them- this is the same scenario playing out before our eyes.
""made an error in judgment when conducting his risk assessment of the enemy's capabilities and intentions.""
Complacency kills.
Why is it officers are told to resign but enlisted get busted down and serve time in Leavenworth, ultimately ending up with a felony conviction? The officer? Retires, takes a pension, gets an overpaying job.
Same old military I put up with for 27 yrs. Protect the officers at the expense of enlisted and morale, use the enlisted at all costs.
Same in the corporate world. CEO runs a company into the ground, so to speak, and he gets lucrative retirement or severance package.
You have made many good points there ChickenHawk. It just tore my mind up, when all those CEO's who ran their companies into the ground, stole from the American public, and...received BONUSES!!! PURE BS!!! We are forever reading about stuff in the military, and comments like " IF THAT WAS DONE IN THE CIVILIAN WORLD THEY WOULD HAVE GOTTEN FIRED!!" hahahahaha well, not always. During the BUSH & OBAMA administrations they handed those A S _ H _ _ E S bonuses!!
And I think it was you who made the point of it being such a big deal due to the aircraft being lost, RIGHT ABOUT THAT TOO. How many screw ups, bases over run ( Wanat ) and other missteps have taken place, with NO forced retirement, but, lose $50,000,000+ in aircraft, and HEY...SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE!! hahahahah funny how that works isn't it.........well, not really 🙂
Hmmmmm
And the last sentence is the most important, the key to the whole puzzle. The Corps was embarrassed that Prince Harry's life was put in danger. It's impossible to predict with 100% certainty what any enemy will do & attacks like this one are not uncommon. I'd be willing to be a steak dinner these two men were scapegoats.
Agreed, these men are the epitome of scapegoats to cover the butts of people higher up in the military. You cannot predict everything that a enemy might do nor can you protect every single place.
Bless Harry for wanting to be there, it speaks very highly of his character, but the fact is he was a target.
It may be "unfair" but they lost men and aircraft in their charge, and the investigation showed it ws due to linadequate security. I've no respect for General Amos, he forfeited that with some blatant command interference int the courts martial of those Marines charged with urinating on a Taliban corpse, but here he is right. You cannot ask Marines to put themselves in harm's way and not hold their superiors accountable. This is way overdue.
Next, we need a way to get rid of the politicians holding flag rank.
So you are saying that the military cannot predict an attack from the enemy in a war zone?
the true problem is "Prince Henry" should not have been there to begin with. Why not just put Obama's daughter in there? Because the political ramifications and "VIP" treatment and security cost too much energy and time.
Whoah. Karen, you say that "attacks like this are not uncommon". Then such an attack was completely predictable, and any complete maroon could see that the base needed to be protected better than it was.
Why do we have our Marines doing this "nation-building" nonsense anyway? Every Marine I have met has been a super nice guy, but let's face it, they love fighting, and they are good at it. What a waste to put them into these bases and pretend to be out there peacekeeping. Sorry, they aren't built for it, no offense Marines but it's not your job to walk around and hand out candy. Send them in and let them wreck the place and then get them the f out. They are a fighting machine not a police force, and shouldn't have been setup to be hit like this in the first place. God bless the warriors out there protecting all of us.
Protecting us? I hate to tell you but is the military who are making us LESS safe and LESS protected today by allowing the President to send them overseas to countries with no direct connections to the attacks against us and killing innocent people over there.
We should have focused on assassinating Al-Qaeda people or capturing them, with the latter situation being the gold standard.
"Allowing the president?"
Like the military has a choice over what the COMMANDER IN CHIEF says, idiot.
The military follow order from the President on down, no service member of any branch want war. why? Because while your at the mall shopping their on the battlefield fighting. You have no clue what they go through for you. If you don't know what your talking about you should not post nonsense. You should be proud of what our service member are doing, not only the one in combat area but all over the world for you can sit at home, safe and secure.
Unfortunately, you have a very limited understanding of how things work. The military does not ALLOW anything. They take their "ORDERS" and follow them out! Plain and simple, as they have no choice. If they were ASKED for an opinion, which..hahahahah 99% of the time they are NOT, then they may have some input. But, for the most part, it is not a democratic process in the military, you take your orders and follow them out. As for the GOLD STANDARD, well, AGAIN, have you every heard of GUANTANOMO BAY!! Who wants to capture these knuckleheads, and then FEED, CLOTHE, HOUSE and gie them MEDICAL services for the rest of their lives. Why be stuck with them, screw that. The GOLD STADARD is to get rid of the problem. Unlike in the civilian world, where we have perpetrators who are not able to be rehabilitated ( i.e. serial killers, child molesters, ), the military does have a few options, and for one, I think that capturing most of them, is NOT the solution to the problem! 🙂 That is...IMHO of course.
What nation building? This was a camp of Marines in a war. No nation building here. Please stick to the topic.
Well I thought the objective was to capture and kill Osama Bin Laden. That was done a long time ago so why again are our people there running patrols and trying to win over the locals?
Tell'em Ted
As a former navy Commander I agree with the USMC Commandant,s decision, the bigger they are the harder they fall ! There are NO excuses for incompetency and that is exactly what it was !
Well then, you sir, appear to be in the minority on this. Most intelligent comments on this board show compassion for good men doing difficult work. Some even accuse the Commandant's of scapegoating. which i personally believe may have played a hand as well...
The tone of people who "agree" with you, seems to be more the like of namecalling and just "agreemnent without investigation"."
Given the two types, I have had mixed luck with the latter... but just plain bad luck with the former.
Are you kidding me? Retirement is the punishment? They retain all benefits of their rank until they die..."Hey, you screwed up big time". Here, let's stop you from working and pay you $10,000 a month with full benefits". If a Corporal screws up, he goes to jail. If a general screws up, he's retired.
They probably know something about the attacks that they have agreed not to 'make public' and therefore that is why they are getting this sweet deal.
Was anyone besides Prince Henry, moved to a "secure area"? Is anyone else offended by this b.s.?
When an American head of state has a kid in a warzone you yanks will have some credibility on this subject. Until then shut up.
Ooooooh the prince was put in a secure location? What a warrior. 🙂
Well played, Mate.
Our Vice President, Joe Biden, has a son named Beau who was deployed to Iraq in 2008-2009.
Can somebody tell me why the F* we're still in Afghanistan after 12 years?
Momentum.
You, da man.
Why are we in Afghanistan? The Military Industrial Complex makes billions of dollars every week we are at was or a conflict. Money rules in the USA.
The Taliban will return to power and then support state sponsored terrorism. Any other questions?
War is a big money maker for certain people and industries.
Okay, Now lets get down to business concerning the Benghazi attack. Their is the same arrogance circling that attack that needs attention now. Get these lazy clowns representing our country exposed and out of the way. There is no excuse for such losses of life due to derelict of duty.
God bless America
The downfall of the US military is going to be that it's personnel and supporters are full of themselves. They're so proud after a firefight with rag tag militias who don't have anywhere near matching capabilities as the US military. They think theyre so awesome for being able to call in airsupport against a bunch of villagers running around in sandals. They think their battles are like those of WW2.
Just what is your record of service in the United States Marine Corp? I'm sure that with your expertise you could correct their problems on the ground, right?
The truth is, Mark, that you have neither the guts or emotional stability to honorably serve your country. Billy Joel wrote a delightful song about guys like you ("Angry Young Man"), and every time I read a ridiculous post like yours, I am chuckle at the obvious lack of courage, overdose of self-importance, and the poor attempt to smear the names of those whose jocks you could not carry. Semper Fi. PS – please don't post now that you "have served"...you haven't.
I am chuckle, too.
your comnment COMPLETELY IGNORANT!!! Your ignorant tail wouldnt be saying all that if you were over here in the middle of this mess.
You really don't have a cue, do you?
You really don't have a clue, do you?
Mark, sorry, I don't see no "downfall" possible. You seem to have a problem with the US forces being superior and arrogant. Since when is that ever a problem? Do you believe that we should be inferior?
Mark, be careful with what you say about these things. While not being a Marine (Greatest Respect) I did serve a US Army Field Artillery man/ Infantry in Iraq, Sunni Triangle, 2003-04. I assure you, bullets, mortars, rpg's and bombs dont care how well you are equipped or un equipped. I cant speak for other wars, but I can tell you that I do know why a fire fight is called an engagement, and thats because engagements usually end up in a manner described as till death do us part. Congratulations to all of us who survived, prayers for the loved ones of all who didnt...and mercy for those that dont know or understand with hope that they never do.
incompetence is usually the result of overconfidence.....and the unwillingness to humble ones important self....to making sure the situation is secure...... as in oh yeah we have it all under control.... right... !!!!
All of these military genius tribunals are getting a bit sick. But because the military is holding the gun to defend your right to give it, you can say whatever pointless statements you want; go right ahead. Maybe even try something constructive rather than, "I'm o.k. because they're worse than I am." I'm certain that you would crumble under the pressure that I platoon sergeant faces, let alone a major general.
Does this mean they were not dishonorably discharged? so they can work at Wal-Mart now?
Officers are not discharged because they are not enlisted. They are resigned or relieved because they are appointed to their positions. The letter of censure and the forced resignation will have the same result as any other than honorable discharge.
Thank you! Somebody knows what they are talking about!
If you read you will see the line "they were told to submit a letter of retirement" any questions?
Congratulations Amos – you must be fighting for the Taliban – because you just took out more Americans this month from the Corps than the enemy has. Amos needs to go – his illegal actions in tampering with the justice system alone should have had him booted. Then he wastes all those funds on the F-35 with gross mismanagement – and that was the whole reason hew as put in place as a fly-boy running the Marine Corps. He is tanking a Major's career and potential freedom because that Major dared to report Amos illegal actions. And no press or congressman or senator gives a darn. PLEASE – keep your son or daughter out of the Marine Corps – it is far too dangerous to be in while the enemy is running it.
The site of the base that was attacked was situated in a valley surrounded by mountains where the bad guys could see EVERYTHING happening on the base. It was clearly a tactical error deserving of punishment. Even the Marines KNEW it was against all military doctrine. It is about time the worthless brass, NOT ALL BRASS, but those who are unable to plan and execute basic military doctrine are dealt with in such a manner. They get full pay, over 12k a month, plus will sign up with GE or Lockheed Martin. Don't feel bad for them.
Interesting they are just being forced to retire, rather than dishonorably discharged. Now they get to live out the rest of their lives playing golf on the tax payers dime.
@whitesides,
They did nothing deserving of a dishonorable discharge. They just didn't live up to their rank. To get a dishonorable discharge, someone must commit a felony. They are being allowed to retire instead of being kicked out because they have a life of service. A Marine officer must be one of the best in order to achieve the rank that these two men achieved. Their failures are enough to end their career, but not enough to completely erase the service they have given to the country and thrown in jail.
Too many people think that dishonorable discharge just means "thrown out for doing something bad." A dishonorable discharge is only used in the worst violations, like murder, rape, kidnapping, etc. Also, a dishonorable discharge only applies to enlisted men and women, not officers like these generals. The equivalent would be a "dismissal," and like a dishonorable discharge, would only be for some serious, felonious breach of duty, not a mistake.
Thank you Josh for a clear and accurate summation.
Gotta agree with @josh. Well said. Career military don't deserve dismissal for establishing insufficient security levels if the security they establish are within the span of their duties.
This punishment does seem rather harsh. War is hard and sometimes stuff happens. I think the whole area is best left alone.
One of the reasons that it's a tough sell to get women into combat ranks is the type of emotional, non-factual, unspecific diatribes that you offer against the USMC Commandant. Every time a woman goes off on a rant like the one posted, combat soldiers (wrongly) get the notion that this is the same level of the lack of coolheaded thinking that will be brought onto the battlefield, endangering the lives of American troops and the mission. It would be well to remember what TV detective Joe Friday used to say: "Just the facts, ma'am."
Good comment 1st Sgt...
Seems like our president provided the example (Syria, Russia, Iran) that they followed.......
"Amos found Gurganus "made an error in judgment when conducting his risk assessment of the enemy's capabilities and intentions."
Gee, you are really dense.
You do realize the attack on this base was prior to Syria and Russia? Just saying...
Each offense that the last two presidents in particular have exercised to send our military to war without the benefit of Congressional review are impeachable. However the sheeple have spoken.
Neither president did anything impeachable. Bush had congressional approval and Clinton never took us to war. He can do a certain level with the military without approval.
Pilgrim thinks he has intelligent conclusions whenever he includes the words, "sheeple" and "impeachable offense". Sheeple, sheeple, impeachable offense, impeachable offense. Afghanistan and Iraq Wars BOTH had Congressional approval. Remember? Hilliary Clinton's vote in the Senate to approve damaged her in the 2008 Dem Pres primary. Get better facts, dude, seriously.
About time...
This is the one thing in the military that has always really bothered me. These two men have been found responsible for a lapse in protection that cost two servicemen their lives and maimed 8 others. WHY do they get to retire rather than be put before a general court martial and put into the brig like enlisted personnel would have? It is an existing double standard that should not exist. Rank has its privileges but also its responsibilities. The higher up you are, the more damning the charges.
Who says enlisted personnel would be brought before a court martial for a mistake like this? An enlistee would probably only receive an administrative discharge at the worst, not jail time. There is no "double standard" at play here. We don't throw military personnel into "the brig" for mistakes, even when they cost peoples' lives. It's 2013, not 1913.
Just popped in to see if Tea Partiers are predictably analogizing this occasion to Benghazi. Yep, they sure are. Imagine that.
IS there a rug big enough for you democrats to sweep Benghazi under?
Tea Baggers: Worthy of a drone. Light'em up.
I don't like tea party either but they are still our American brothers and sisters. People like you are pure trash.
Seems like a huge over reaction and waste of two valuable personnel to me.
2 Soldiers killed...millions in tax dollars destroyed...yeah your right probably not worth the typing to make the article. Force Protection is no joke and its about time Generals be held accountable for their subordinate bases in Afghanistan and not just the ones they reside at.
Both of these Generals did live on the base attacked. Obviously you know nothing about what you are talking about. Maj Gen Guganus was an outstanding leader that was doing exactly what he was supposed to do. Sometimes Soldiers and Marines die in war. That's reality. Its not pretty and I dont like it but its true. There are a lot of politics and national caveats involved on a British base that has US servicemembers on it.
That's why you are not in charge of anything @Prefer Not To Say – you can't distinguish dealing with a failure of leadership from an 'overeaction'.
The fault lies with the folks that decided to draw sown the forces before the battle filed was won. Troops in the mist of battle have little chance of success given the reality of the political situation in the USA. We should all be ashamed that we allowed this to happen.
The battlefield cannot be won without killing millions of Afghans. Are you okay with that? Time to leave. Fool.
I am OK with that.
They should have done that in 2002. The U.S. should a standing policy; you attack us, we nuke you.
Should have enforced that policy from day one.
Is this about the Afghan Taliban or the Tea Party Taliban here in the US?
Well, because they actually got something done, it is clearly the Afghanistan Taliban.
While the generals are subsequently responsible I am sure this was delegated to others and they were the ones responsible. The Marines just do not seem suited to guard a post. Loss at US Embassy, Benghazi, Iran, Beirut Bombing (No commander was relieved over that).
The Marines are not suited to guard a post? Do your homework before making such stupid statements, incidents happen regardless of who's guarding what. I know that by making such a statement you are not in the military. So either shut up, or sign up!
NATIONAL SECURITY OR NACIONAL RESTAURANT HUMAN BUSINESS.
QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQpgiorg.blog.comQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
NATIONAL SECURITY OR NACIONAL RESTAURANT HUMAN BUSINESS.
QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQpgiorg.blog.comQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
NATIONAL SECURITY OR NACIONAL RESTAURANT HUMAN BUSINESS.
QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQpgiorg.blog.comQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
NATIONAL SECURITY OR NACIONAL RESTAURANT HUMAN BUSINESS.
QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQpgiorg.blog.comQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
NATIONAL SECURITY OR NACIONAL RESTAURANT HUMAN BUSINESS.
QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQpgiorg.blog.comQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
NATIONAL SECURITY OR NACIONAL RESTAURANT HUMAN BUSINESS.
QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQpgiorg.blog.comQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
Clearly you weren't in the military, specifically the Navy or the Marines. It is a long-standing tradition that the commander is ultimately responsible for his command. If the brand new ensign runs the ship aground while the Captain is sleeping it's still his ship and his responsibility. The ensign will likely be nailed too...a Letter of Admonishment (which means no more promotions) and such. In this case, the situation was well known to everybody in the chain of command but the Generals didn't act to fix it. That allowed the attack to succeed. That's different than a situation where an outpost, suitably manned and protected was overwhelmed by a much superior force...say a couple dozen Marines facing a 1000 Taliban. Other than extraction there's really not much that can stop the outcome in that situation.
Ms Starr – This story seems to fail on the basic who/what/when/where/how. One has to wait until the 3rd from last paragraph to find out the position of one of the two generals (aviation commander of some sort), and the position of the second is never mentioned. Pretty amazing. Given that they were fired for HOW they did their jobs, the need to tell the reader – pretty early in the story, preferably – WHAT jobs they held should be pretty obvious.
And just think, we have a muslim president.....
You're an idiot..
What country are you hailing from? The US has a Christian capitalist President. Look up the definitions of both of those descriptions, because you are just showing why your side is more and more unelectable by the day.
Obama bin Laden went to a Madrassa as a child and has a Muslim styled name.
He'll negotiate with Iran and Syria but not republicans.
What are we supposed to think?
James Savik, hmm that sounds like a Russian styled name. Are you communist symp? You people are idiots. On a separate topic, ever wonder how Ted Cruz can talk for 20+ hours without a bathroom break? I'm guessing it was during the Dr. Seuss reading that he was filling out his depends.
Good. These generals were becoming too soft on Muslim terrorist in Pakistan. Need to send a clear message to the Military leadership that there needs to be a zero tolerance policy. Shoot Taliban first and then ask questions.
Agreed.... Wish we could could do that in the U.S.
"We should shoot people."
"We should not worry about gathering intelligence from them."
That's basically what you just said. You aren't much of a thinker, are you?
well well well....who got fired for getting Chris Stevens and his team killed?
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Duh.
Q: Who got fired foe the 60 US consulate deaths during the Bush administration? A: No one. It is OK for republicans to drop the ball (Bin Laden, the economy, the environment, unemployment, the stock market.....)
You are all retarded if you can't say anything smart then shut up
Blow me.......
Hey dick rick-–you are indeed one pathetic person-–please adult up
Let me fix that for you:
You are all retarded. If you can't say anything smart, then shut up.
Retard.
so some military personnel dies, two generals get fired.
why was this notable?
Prince Harry was present during an attack.
i'm i drawing hasty conclusions here? how many times in the past have generals been fired for an attack? what the F, it's a warzone, why would royalty be there? i thought they were busy making money off of wartime profits. oh well.
I think it has more to do with the loss of millions of dollars of assets than it does with the loss of life. Perhaps, The Princes safety has something to do with it.
All of that is answered in the article. Read it.
I think you missed the point i was trying to make.
Was anyone fired after the attack at CAMP HOLLOWAY in 1962. Is that what the article refers to? The article says largest loss of marine aircraft since Vietnam. If no one was fired, then why is anyone being fired now if the mistake was so much smaller resulting in less damage than Camp Holloway?
What, the equipment was more expensive due to inflation so it's worth mentioning?
Furthermore, the articles mention the Prince by name, not the two people who died from it. Don't you think the entire point is to draw attention to the fascist prince being in the military for people to fawn over?
Give them opportunity to take revenge on Taliban.
Marines are better at the offence than the defence.
you're a twit
"Britain's Prince Harry was with his Apache helicopter crew at the time of the attack but was moved to a secure area, officials said at the time."
Were other Apache pilots moved to a secure area as well? Or, was it just Prince Harry?
I certainly don't think that they just sat in their aircraft waiting to be shot, do you?
Wonder if this has anything to do with Gen Amos trying to cover up his illegal influence regarding Maj. Weirick and Lt. Gen. Thomas D. Waldhauser?
The GQ had a great article on this event: The Untold Story of Battle of Bastion
Who really cares about the generals? Big deal. They have to retire, oh boo hoo, with big fat pensions. They messed up and needed to go. Makes some room at the top for others to be promoted. It is refreshing to see anyone high up in government fired for incompetence, as it happens so seldom. It certainly doesn't happen in civil service very often and there are lots of people who need to be fired. There are also way too many people with computers and time on their hands.
When something goes wrong, it always has to be someone's fault.
Not so in Benghazi....
Well Dan,when it comes to the GOP it is always their fault.
Why was the Secretary of State and the President (Commander in Chief) not also held liable?
Why would the Secretary of State be held responsible? This was on a military post, not a diplomatic one.
How exactly would they be held liable? Do you have any idea how stupid your statement is? There is an big chain of command between the embassy and the Secretary, plus a chain of command for the guards. In any case, all U.S. embassies and those of other countries are dependent upon the security services of the host country. Have you EVER EVER heard of U.S. Marine guards or anyone else actually opening fire to protect an embassy? Even in Saigon, the SV security forces were obligated to protect the embassy, never mind that they were cowards and ran away. Did the guards open fire when the U.S. Embassy in Tehran was over-run? Where were they then? Did you ever hear of one Iranian killed in the takeover of our embassy from U.S. forces there? Who was punished for that? NOBODY you moron.
Because neither the Secretary of State and the President (Commander in Chief) were in charge of the base camp force protection measures, and just to think you are a "Colonel."??????...................SMH
I'm guessing he's not a real Colonel .Just a guess, BX warrior.
For the same reasons that Bush and Cheney weren't held responsible.
It's already been stated, but why would you think the Secretary of State, a diplomat, would be remotely responsible for force protection on a military base? You're doing a disservice to the real Colonels in our military.
You're more like Colonel Sanders, right??
Exactly!
i'm so happy the Prince was taken care of
Are you talking about Prince Harry, doug? He shamed England by bragging about his killing people while he was in Afghanistan. If I were English, I'd hang my head in pure shame!!!
i was being sarcastic-why should he be secured?
fake George, but you're a muslim, and they don't believe in shame.
Score one for good sarcasm.
there are really cracking down on leaders after the MALL attack bye the Taliban!
I hope English isn't your first language.
later!
The only reason they were fired is because of the destruction of aircraft. The DOD could care less about Marines dying just the expensive cost of replacing six Harriers.
Utterly stupid post.
Quite true Joe Blow, quite true! No matter how you slice it, we're spending way too much on the military and this needs to stop big time!!!
What a stupid and heartless comment Joe. If you feel that way, maybe you can go ask the Taliban for protection
Any serious breach of security, loss of life, or substantial loss of materiel will normally result in disciplinary action. You may be right that the equipment loss was the greatest factor in the final determination.
I do wish this site had up or down vote buttons ...easier to critique the ignorant that way ... CNN , please consider this...
Tie their hands then expect them to do the job F the pentagon and politicians
Please BudW, do skip the filthy Tea Party lingo. It has no place here. In fact, those two generals should never have been sent to Afghanistan in the first place as we have absolutely no right to be there! Let's put the blame exactly where it belongs and that's on George W. Bush and his henchmen!
You're an idgit.
It was their responsibility to defend their post regardless of where it is. They failed and where held accountable. Can't we hold professional soldiers with stars on their shoulders responsible for doing their jobs and not blame Bush for everything ! The rank and file soldier deserve better.
In WWII these guys would have just been canned immediately, not a year later. General Officers are accountable for results, good or bad. No excuses. You either get the job done or they will find someone that can or will. After Marshall left after WWII the General Officer corps of the military devolved slowly into a bunch of manager and politicos. It is shameful that with thousands of lives in their hands, the one thing they couldn't do was guard some fence in the middle of nowhere. With US Marines available to you? Really? Pathetic that anyone would express anything other than anger that this did not happen a year ago.
The Corps protects its' own when needed , and disciplines its' own when necessary ...
Gen Amos is the one who needs to go – he is dismantling the Corps like crazy – and breaking laws to CRUSH Marines (his words). How our President allows this illegal Gen Amos to keep operating is beyond me. One of his own prosecutors turned him in for breaking the law – and below is the article out today on what the General's henchmen are doing to that poor guy. WAKE UP America! Your kids are not safe with this General in command!
http:// http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/29/marine-corps-whistleblower-faces-vengeance-from-su/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
do troll on ...
Because the president is really wanting to disband the better officers and men in the military service of the USA.
It is shameful for those who failed to protect & plan anti forces attack defense of US troops in Afghanistan. It needs to be investigated, planed and strategy obtained for similar surprise attacks on US forces. No commander or General deserves for failures to protect forces in foreign deployment more so against terrorists. It is a humiliation of uniform and rank they hold.
you need an interpreter.
Time to bring the troops home ASAP.
Azzcrackistan serves NO useful purpose, except as a killing ground for American soldiers.
It is this line of thinking after the Soviet withdrawal which gave rise to Taliban and OBL. So, think before you recommend.
It is American interference that gave rise to the Taliban and OBL.
"ADAM4X4
It is American interference that gave rise to the Taliban and OBL."
ADAM4X4,
Yes, you had to grow 2 snakes to kill the enemy. Once that was accomplished, you should have stayed to properly dispose of the snakes. Instead, by leaving, you created a snake breeding ground.
Palaniappan Rajaram: I didn't do anything. I don't have to do anything. Why are you trying to blame ME?!
I agree with you logic and facts, but after the CIA operations in Afghanistan expelled the Soviets, what legal basis did the U.S. have to operate there?
Hilarious, the apparent foreigner, Pallaipi Rami, whatshisname, knows more about this than the American, Adamboy. Soviets invaded Azzcrackistan. Azzi nationals and patriots assembled guerrilla forces to expel Soviets. Charlie the crack smoking Congressman organized a CIA secret war supporting the Azzi nationals against the Soviets. Osama Bin Laden was among the Azzi nationals and received training in military tactics including long rang artillery and radio communications. Soviets retreated from Azzistan after they couldn't fly aircraft past the missiles Charlie the crack smoking Congressman provide to OBL et al. Power and security vacuum created by Soviet retreat. Taliban rose to power in Azzistan. OBL provide a safe haven to operate in Azziland. OBL attacked NYC.
doesn't it seem odd? Fewer lives lost, yet who retired because of Beghazi?
We weren't occupying Libya. Diplomatic mission defense is usually the responsibility of the host nation. And the risk is understood.
Yet knew the embassy was under attack, disreguarded a cry for help, then lied to the American People with a phoney story. Shame on Hillary and Obama
Wait, what did you say? Our all volunteer armed forces don't understand the danger but a civilian ambassador and a few security personnel need to rely on the Libyans for security? I have never heard of an Embassy without their own Countries troops protecting it.
Vad: Those Marines are there as security guards more or less. Besides that Benghazi was essentially a CIA operation. The White House and Hillary tried to keep it as hush-hush as possible because of the inherent secrecy. Unfortunately, it was even more a political decision.
Do I want to hang Obama or Hillary for it? No, these things happen. I'm sure they are more pained about it then you or I . War sucks. Politics sucks. I am extremely grateful that there are people strong enough to deal with these things even when it makes them look like liars who don't care about the fallen.
Lives are lives.. marines or Foreign Service .. everyone is the same. However, one is political/diplomatic and the other one is HUGELY strategic. The attack on the base, a place from which offensive operations take place, is far more serious. It degrades the ability to take the fight to the enemies, which is probably why 3 investigations were conducted and 2 heads had to roll.
Tell us Ted,tell us.
Ted, two top career officials that testified before a Republican Congressional hearing for the purpose of discrediting the President, stated and provided written testimony that in their opinions security levels were adequate in Benghazi. Get some better facts.
Almost as good a tax-payer given retirement as those government hating Tea Party Congressmen will get after a just a few weeks spouting in The Capitol.
You truly have no clue, do you?
Now, what about the idiots who gave us Combat Outpost Keating? If that's not the height of incompetence, I don't know what is.
Interesting Wikipedia read on this; thanks Andre for the reference to Combat Outpost Keating.
The Marines expect more from their General Officers than the Army does. Combat Outpost Keating was to be closed before the attack but the Army then delayed it due to higher priorities elsewhere. Any finding against a senior Army Officer would have served to highlight poor planning of Army HQ, which obviously can't happen. Instead, the Army gets two more live Medal of Honor winners, one of whom almost immediately left the Army and the other with PTSD – great recruiting material.
As shockiing as the story of Combat Outpost Keating is, I fear it's not an isolated case. Basically, they set our guys up as sitting ducks and then try to kill their attackers. This was done many times in many ways in Iraq and Vietnam. Good to see somebody high up get called up on it. Years ago I met a Vietnam combat vet who told me he shot his battalion commander's helicopter down while the CO was using a bull horn to order them into sure slaughter. I thought he was full of it but then I read his paperwork asking for an upgrade of his discharge. Not only did he shoot that copter down but at his initial disciplinary hearing he showed up with two live grenades, pulled the pins, set them on the tables in the front of the hearing and left. His charges included attempted murder on X individuals and the destruction of a helicopter, tent, various chairs, tables, filing cabinets, typewriters, etc.. He was for real. Years later, he was convicted of killing a Vietnamese neighbor who wouldn't shut his mouth. My buddy couldn't stand hearing somebody speak Vietnamese. He warned the guy repeatedly but he ran his mouth anyway. Some people think my buddy was nuts, etc.. To me he was a hero who didn't take any crap. He's the kind of guy that we expect to fight these wars. God bless him and his family.
Is it even comparable to the battle of Hill 937(Hamburger Hill,1969 S.Vietnam) resulting in the deaths of 72 Americans? I doubt any officers were relieved of command after that strategic blunder.
thanks GW Bush for your wars that destroyed so many and your useless war of lies and deceit regarding Iraq – THE BUSH LEGACY LIVES ON!
Umm if you learned how to read instead of just bashing a person that you don't like you would see the story isn't about Iraq.
You do realize he got us into Afghanistan also, right?
Moveon.org called. They want their village idgit back.
Dude, President Obama is more of a war monger than G. Bush and Cheney combined; and this man earned a PEACE PRIZE, no less.
A commander did need to be held accountable. Several lower ranking soldiers paid a far higher price for the generals' errors.
Why stop there? Why not jail all the congressmen and senators who supported these demented wars?
Question; Does the USMC have a dedicated full time force that's primary mission is to provide airfield security and resource protection, similar to the USAF Security Forces?
No. Every Marine is trained to be a rifleman. There may have been a security force, but most likely it was augmented by Afgahns.
Marines train to be riflemen but that is a distance from the training of an 0300 MOS group. A couple weeks in ITR surely doesn't qualify a "Marine" to be a "good Grunt".
That statement is a little misleading.
Sgt USMC 03xx
66-69
RVN 68-69
2/5
I would think that personnel assigned to a USMC aviation unit would have other full time jobs and the concept of everyone being a rifleman may not be good enough. It sounds like in the USMC airfield security is an additional duty at best. I would think the USMC would want full time, dedicated, and trained folks performing airfield security. Maybe this security weakness in the way the USMC defends airfields is why they were targeted.
jody alt, astute observation. Just as in the Libya embassy security situation. Those in charge have to be ready for any possibility. How many men can the enemy muster?. What kinds of weapons are available to them? I think an 8th grade kid could have made that assessment accurately. Regarding Marines and their capabilities to be riflemen or airfield security, isn't Marine basic training, including marksmanship, above that of the others? Here's your weapon, there is the perimeter, those are the other guys working with you, that is your perimeter security technology. Piece of cake, unless force levels are low, security technology is weak, the fence line has holes in it. Management screws up more than front line, almost every time.
Sgt, I went online to Marines website. 0300 IS Marines fighting forces, 0311 rifleman, 0331 machine gunner, etc. Further, "Infantry Marines are able to secure and defend self and vital terrain by repelling the enemy's assault by fire, maneuver, and close combat". I don't see any reason why Marines couldn't defend an airbase, unless physical and electronic security was lacking as was probably the case here.
They do have to guard their own outpost which may include an airfield just as any regular army or special operations unit would. They may have all been trained as riflemen, but that is also part of a rifleman's job.
Even the elite special operations have to guard their outposts and they are trained as riflemen too.
I have been there when they have been fully dedicated to it. After the Rangers jumped into Kandahar in 2001 and seized the airport and surrounding areas, a few days later, the Marines came in and held it so the Rangers and other spec ops could focus on combat operations.
May not be the grunts main job, but combat is a grunts main job and the true reality of combat is not fighting 24hrs a day 7 days a week. Everyone would be shell shocked, some of that time is dedicated to guarding your post which is apart of the primary job of combat.
It was a British post with some troops from Denmark.
Mr Airbornevet187.. So well explained. To bad these know-it-all people still do not understand. I'm sure that they have so studied the military. So much they could run a base/post! Lol
The link to this is misleading. Two generals "fired" is NOT the same thing as two generals "force to hand in retirement papers"
Finley are you really that dense?
With all the golden rewards implied
Generals cannot be fired like a civilian can or understands. Resignation is the way they're dismissed. In your small mind you may find this unfair or without retribution, but I'd personally rather be fired than remembered in the history books and taught to all future officers as a failure for all time to remember.
You obviously haven't served. Forced retirement is getting fired in military; just the way it is. Additionally, neither of them will get their lucrative post-military positions. As Marines they will carry the shame of their failure and those that died due to their negligence will haunt them for the rest of their lives.
Very few non-military/non-service jobs carry that kind of lifelong responsibility.
BRAVO ... and Semper Fi ...
Nope. Theyll be getting their pensions. No court martial was involved.
Well said Sean, well said.
My guess is they want to put a couple of gays in charge.
The perimeter defence would have been fabulous.
Wow, that was an intelligent comment.
do troll on kid ...
They could put on a burlesque show and the Taliban would probably drop their weapons, shave their beards, and pubic areas and apply for jobs on the post.
Which two,Buddy? Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham?
I'm figuring Buddy and his boy friend would do.
they were outplayed so they needed heads to roll. sounds good to me i guess.
....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
.........."...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...
Anger management issues, bro.
same to you XSherH
A sign of immaturity no doubt.
young children are SOOOO creative ....
Good grief XSherH, you must be a Tea Partier by posting that kind of salute!!! I too am angry about us being in Afghanistan and say that we need to vacate that country as soon as possible!
What do we have like 20 names do we.........???? I've seen this childish crap all over the blogs and it just shows your brain capacity is not very high...... I guess they have a couple of people coming to see you about this actually. Quite a number of people have complained.
Viet Vet: What are you saying? No one has a clue.
Here's this jerk Phunnie boy again, doing his best to tear down Gen. George Patton's good name by posting his nonsense under it for his own personal amusement! Kick Taliban's back and break the teeth in their mouths.
Yooooo, that is pretty cool. How do you do that?
XSherH is dreaming of his appointment to see the proctologist.
that is awesome use of graphics...wow...never seen that..i might copy your work!
Way back when, heads would have rolled in the literal sense.
USA
America and England have always attacked other countries and promote combat and war in other countries.
England from very beginning had a hostile policy, separated Iran into two countries, Afghanistan and Iran.
Helped Iraq to fight against Iran, In Saudi Arabia they created Vahabiat or Vahabi to fight against Islam.
Vahabi, people who chop off heads for heaven and those suicide bombers, first supported by England.
This immoral, unhumanitarian and ferocious policy caused the world to suffer. The world is in chaos because of policy, human kills human, human rules make some rich and some poor.
Now in Afghanistan and other countries, America and England are trying to find Uranium, oil, gold, historical monuments and treasures and other Natural Savings, violating many rules, killing many people, and let their ownselves to be killed.