Obama’s uneasiness with Generals
A hallmark of dictators is the purging of senior military officers in the hope of eliminating any viable opposition to future tyrannical actions. A large number of senior military officials–around 200 flag officers–have been relieved by the Kenyan Muslim in Chief in the last five years.
Obama is working diligently to create a totally obedient, Democrat Party-controlled military. After the Arab Spring uprising overthrew the old government and installed Muslim Brotherhood President Muhammed Morsi in Egypt, both Morsi and Obama expected Egyptian Military officers to subordinate themselves to the whims of a tyrant with Washington and terrorist connections. Obama watched that experiment closely because it was essential to his roadmap to total power in the United States.
Compliant Officer Class
The blogosphere is becoming keenly aware of an ongoing purge of Generals and Admirals in the US Military who are not in lock-step with Obama’s agenda. Senior military officers are being intimidated against speaking out. The real damage will be created if the left create a “compliant officer class” to carry out the wishes of America’s first elected dictator of the modern era. What is going to stop the Kenyan from ordering the Armed forces to suppress insurgent Tea Partiers?
Obama has a history of destroying any opposition, and the mainstream press has always been more than willing to help him out. If Obama succeeds, leaders of the U.S. Armed Forces will not have the backbone to tell the political class “no” to future commands. Even today, there are few combat Generals in the ranks; most senior officers are political animals. That is why there was little opposition to the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. If any officer spoke up, they were first booted out of the cocktail parties and later drummed out the military. In the service, this is called a “Soft kill” of someone’s military career.
Retired Army Lt. Gen. James Dubik told Politico Magazine that “There are several basic models of civil-military relations.” The first is the traditional one of separate spheres of authority: “Civilians do policy; the military executes”—but still decides the means of execution. In a second model, “Civilians are the principals, the military are specialized employees. The military can advise, but they must do what the boss says in the way the boss wants, no more and no less.” He points out the separation of the military from civilian leaders where the leadership sets policy and the military executes.
Unfortunately, too many politicians expect military officers to be their unquestioning loyal servants. This breeds discontent among the ranks. Politicians tend to be short-sighted, whereas the traditional military must plan for all contingencies. The Obama administration does not have a grasp of this concept, nor will they. As in Syria, Libya, and Egypt the administration didn’t have a clue as to the long-term effects of their policies. They were interested only in focusing on favorable political spin for Sunday morning talk shows. But bombing something or killing someone as a symbolic gesture has consequences.
Gen. Paul Eaton sums it up best when he said “The military does not take kindly to people asking them to do things without thinking them through.”