Forum Thread

Adding Insult To Psychic Injury


Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The first main issue is Fox Noise disclosing the name of the author of the soon to be published account of the mission to snatch Osama Bin Laden, which is a heinous breach of journalistic integrity, but they make these kinds of breaches on an almost daily basis. Fox Noise needs to be shut down as a news organization, and recognized solely as an entertainment property.

    I don't begrudge this man if he really put his life on the life repeatedly for trying to collect a kings ransom on his life's travails, 'cause his pension sure isn't much of a prize as a retired Chief. But we haven't seen the book yet, so the info is not known even as fact or fiction, and he's not vetted yet to be a poser or not, "simply" a support person etc. There is some question as to his motives, since he has also been reportedly involved in the wargaming industry, allegedly. "It’s unclear whether or not Bissonnette was paid for this advisory work, though it was performed under the umbrella of Silent R, a consulting firm he seems to have founded just last year." (Drummond 2012)

    But the recent politicizing of the OBL event and accomplishment is also morally wrong, and against several codes of honor. As a retiree, I concur with the Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Dempsey that this needs to stop immediately. There's a world of difference between a prominent elected official sharing celebratory remarks with his constituency, and whining from alleged veterans and disgruntled CIA officers who should know better. Better than anyone, if they are who they claim to be.

    Not only to respect whoever is the Commander in Chief especially during wartime (!), but also to just grin and bear it. That's inherent in the understanding of the oaths you've made, serving the American people, and to protect the Constitution, not intending to stretch it's meaning to the breaking point. You "got to serve somebody" which is not to just pick and choose whom you wish to respect. Back in the Dark Ages the chivalric code of the knight demanded that he assume the obligations of "noblesse oblige",  to stay true to his king or cause, to remain responsible for honorable and generous behavior even in face of intolerant ideology, political fanaticism, or even death. The same concepts of duty, honor, and loyalty from this Western concept remain in place until this very day, even for non-commissioned officers.

    The Enlistment Oath of an American Serviceperson, which traces its origins to that of the Continental Army in 1775 includes the following:
    "I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

    Although I am not a member of the United States Navy, but another service, nevertheless I am pleased and obligated to show what I recently found to be part of the "code" of being an American serviceperson:
    "The Sailor's Creed
    I am a United States Sailor.
    I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and I will obey the orders of those appointed over me.
    I represent the fighting spirit of the Navy and those who have gone before me to defend freedom and democracy around the world.
    I proudly serve my country's Navy combat team with Honor, Courage and Commitment.
    I am committed to excellence and the fair treatment of all."

    The above axioms are to still be followed by persons employed in the miitary and and I'm certain there is an equivalent version regarding the intelligence services of the United States. Anyone retiring from the military is also permanently subject to the Unified Code of Military Justice (USMJ). 

    I understand the analogy of the need to safeguard protected information, but the POTUS did NOT "leak" anything. He shared with us what we needed to know, and nothing more. Operational security (which I taught) is just a basic universal concept, not some "holy grail" as the purveyors of the video seem to elevate it to. I lost several ex-partners on 9/11, almost lost the first responding EMS unit on scene (that I just left a couple of months prior), lost my first line supervisor (an officer) in the Army Reserve unit I was in, lost the mayor's husband of the city I was living in at the time, lost several other Reservists that I had either worked with closely or just in the same section (including Warrant Officer Bucca), and nearly lost my girlfriend who was working right on Wall Street at the time.

    So I needed to hear SOMETHING about the operation and what the end result was, a successful mission, and I remember how our nation shared in the celebration after the announcement. It may have been bittersweet for many of us affected directly by the tragedy, but I know how the rest of the nation shared our grief and that we shared some closure.

    I also know to who some of the credit actually belongs, and primarily it's to the other 22 members of Seal Team 6 that lost their lives in the later aviation accident, whether or not they were actually some of the "boots on the ground" in the OBL mission (as well as the 3 USAF Tactical Air Controllers, a dog handler and his dog, and the helo crew). I have heard NO ONE acknowledge their sacrifice to date in this current affair. God Bless them all.

    Refs:
    (Drummond 2012)

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiedrummond/2012/08/25/navy-seal-book/

    (Dozier 2012)

    http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/08/ap-mcraven-tells-troops-pipe-down-082412/

    (Herb 2012)

    http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/244741-gen-dempsey-kno...