UMilitary Resistance 11A20
“Eighteen Generals And Admirals Were Fired In Recent Years, And 10 Of Them Lost Their Jobs Because Of Sex-Related Offenses”
At Least 30% Of Military Commanders Fired Over The Past Eight Years Lost Their Jobs Because Of Sex Offenses:
“The Figures Reflect Only Officers Who Were In Command Positions”
Jan 20, 2013 By Lolita C. Baldor - The Associated Press [Excerpts]
WASHINGTON — Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair, fired from his command in Afghanistan last May and now facing a court-martial on charges of sodomy, adultery and pornography and more, is just one in a long line of commanders whose careers were ended because of possible sexual misconduct.
Sex has proved to be the downfall of presidents, members of Congress and other notables. It’s also among the chief reasons that senior military officers are fired.
At least 30 percent of military commanders fired over the past eight years lost their jobs because of sexually related offenses, including harassment, adultery, and improper relationships, according to statistics compiled by The Associated Press.
The statistics from all four military services show that adulterous affairs are more than a four-star foible. From sexual assault and harassment to pornography, drugs and drinking, ethical lapses are an escalating problem for the military’s leaders.
With all those offenses taken together, more than 4 in every 10 commanders at the rank of lieutenant colonel or above who were fired fell as a result of behavioral stumbles since 2005.
Eighteen generals and admirals, from one star to four stars, were fired in recent years, and 10 of them lost their jobs because of sex-related offenses; two others were done in by alcohol-related problems.
The figures show that 255 commanders were fired since 2005, and that 78 of them were felled by sex-related offenses. A breakdown: 32 in the Army, 25 in the Navy, 11 in the Marine Corps and 10 in the Air Force.
Anu Bhagwati, executive director of the Service Women’s Action Network, said there is more focus on this issue now than ever in the past, but that there really is no sufficient deterrent in place.
She said a major problem is that military commanders are responsible for deciding what cases should move forward.
She said military lawyers, who are trained and have a greater appearance of impartiality, should make such an important legal decision.
The statistics gathered and analyzed by the AP represent a very conservative estimate of the problem.
While the Army, Navy and Marine Corps provided details for all military commanders who were lieutenant colonels or commanders and above for 2005 until now, Air Force officials said they could only provide data for colonels and above from 2008 until today.
Also, the figures reflect only officers who were in command positions.
The numbers don’t include what could be hundreds of officers fired from other jobs, such as administrative or other military posts.
Military officials said they only collect data on officers in command who are fired.
The Army is the largest of the military services, reaching a peak of about 570,000 active duty soldiers at the height of the Iraq war.
It is supposed to cut 80,000 troops by 2017.
The Marine Corps is the smallest service, with about 202,000 at its peak during the wars and is set to slim down to about 182,000. The Navy has about 322,000 active duty forces and the Air Force has about 328,000.
UAFGHANISTAN WAR REPORTS
Polish Special Forces Officer Killed In Afghanistan:
“A Number Of Troops Were Also Injured By Incoming Fire From Insurgents”
23.01.2013 Polskie Radio S.A
UPDATED - Captain Krzysztof Woźniak was killed during an “anti-terrorist action” last night in the eastern Ghazni province in Afghanistan.
Captain Woźniak is the first Polish commando to die in action during a foreign mission.
The 36 year-old met his death as insurgents opened fire during an operation involving commandos from the Polish GROM special services, Colonel Miroslaw Ochyra, a spokesman for the Polish Armed Forces Operational Command has told Polish Radio.
Krzysztof Woźniak was on his third tour of duty in Afghanistan, where Poland currently has over 2,000 troops stationed, and has left a wife and three children.
Thirty five Polish troops, including a medic, have been killed in action in Afghanistan, with at least 100 soldiers wounded. (pg)
UPDATE – Captain Wozniak, who was a member of the special forces GROM unit, it has been confirmed, had served in the Polish armed forces for 17 years. A number of troops were also injured by incoming fire from insurgents, who were taken to a field hospital for treatment.
POLITICIANS REFUSE TO HALT THE BLOODSHED
THE TROOPS HAVE THE POWER TO STOP THE WAR
UFORWARD OBSERVATIONS
“At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. Oh had I the ability, and could reach the nation’s ear, I would, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke.
“For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder.
“We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake.”
“The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose.”
Frederick Douglass, 1852
The Nixon administration claimed and received great credit for withdrawing the Army from Vietnam, but it was the rebellion of low-ranking GIs that forced the government to abandon a hopeless suicidal policy.
-- David Cortright; Soldiers In Revolt
“We At Black Agenda Report Call The First Black President ‘The More Effective Evil’”
“‘A Decade Of War Is Now Ending,’ Said The Second Incarnation Of Obama”
“If He Was Talking About Afghanistan, That’s A Damnable Lie”
“There Is No Agreement To End U.S. Combat Involvement In Afghanistan, And No Intention Of Achieving One – Only The Stated Goal To Lower Troop Levels”
01/23/2013 By Glen Ford, Executive Editor, Black Agenda Report [Excerpts]
Like an abusive spouse who preys on the emotional desperation and dependency of his domestic victim, Barack Obama knows that all he need do is offer some cheap street corner flowers and a few sweet words, and the previous nights and months and years of beatings will be forgiven.
Just hum a bar or two of an old, shared song, and the battered partner will supply a full symphony of Barry White’s Love Unlimited Orchestra – because she needs to hear it, if only inside her own head.
After four years of chasing Republican skirts in search of a grand austerity bargain; of debauching himself in marathon binges of global lawlessness and aggressive war; of defiling the Bill of Rights through preventive detention and massive domestic spying; of callous neglect of the jobs and lost wealth crisis afflicting the most loyal members of his political family; and of brazen cavorting with the vile and filthy rich, sheltering them from incarceration for crimes against the national and global economy, Barack Obama slunk home on the morning of January 21, to be smothered with kisses.
Much of what passes for the Left, and for traditional African American leadership, agreed with the New York Times’ assessment that Barack Obama’s second inaugural address represented a firm embrace of “a progressive agenda centered on equality and opportunity.”
Significantly, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell echoed the sentiment: “The era of liberalism is back…the speech certainly brings back memories of the Democratic Party in ages past.”
It is in the mutual interest of corporate media and rightwing Republicans to move the bar of “progressive” politics ever rightward.
However, for African Americans and white progressives, it amounts to erasing their own political legacies from history.
Actuality, Obama embraced nothing: he merely peppered the speech with progressive buzzwords and references – just enough notes to get the faithful to fill in the empty spaces with their own internal music.
It was classic Obama.
“A decade of war is now ending,” said the Second Incarnation of Obama, sounding a false “peace” note. If he was talking about Afghanistan, that’s a damnable lie. There is no agreement to end U.S. combat involvement in Afghanistan, and no intention of achieving one – only the stated goal to lower troop levels.
The Pentagon is fielding contingencies to reduce U.S. troop strength to between 6,000 and 20,000.
(When Obama entered office there were 30,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, which he raised to about 100,000 in the “surge” of 2011.)
Although the administration line is that most of the remaining Americans will be “trainers,” they will include thousands of Special Forces troops to continue “counterinsurgency” and “counterterrorism” operations.
Special Forces are “trainers” and “force multipliers” by U.S. military definition, “training” native troops while engaged in combat missions.
U.S. air forces, drone and manned, will continue to pound targets.
Obama’s nearly completed “codification” of U.S. drone policies exempts the CIA from any clear rules for “targeted-killing” drone operations in neighboring Pakistan for at least a year, to allow them to do as much damage as possible in the quest for Obama’s version of peace.
But history may record Obama’s greatest crime against peace as changing the definition of war.
According to his unique doctrine, the U.S. cannot be in a state of war, or even “hostilities” with another people or country, unless Americans are killed in the process.
Thus, Obama refused to report to the U.S. Congress under the War Powers Act following eight months of bombardment of Libya, claiming no state of war had existed since no Americans had died.
By this logic, the U.S. is empowered to bomb anyone, anywhere on the planet at will, without the constraints of national or international law, as long as care is taken to protect the lives of U.S. personnel.
Obama rhetorically abolishes war while promulgating a doctrine of general immunity from the rules of war.
What, then, is the president’s meaning when he tells hundreds of thousands on the National Mall that “enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war?”
This, from a man who makes war on language itself.
“This Administration’s Jobs Policy, Like The Republicans’, Consists Almost Entirely Of Tax Incentives To Business: Trickle Down”
“An economic recovery has begun,” said Obama. Not for Blacks, whose official 14 percent unemployment rate is more than twice that of whites (6.9 percent), and whose median household wealth has fallen to one-twentieth that of white families – a catastrophe of historical proportions.
The “recovery” is mainly confined to Wall Street, which is awash in cash, thanks to more than four years of free money (for banks, only). This administration’s jobs policy, like the Republicans’, consists almost entirely of tax incentives to business: trickle down.
The One Percent’s “rising tide” has lifted only their yachts.
Obama admits that “a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it,” but has done nothing to curtail the hegemony of Wall Street, the mighty engine of economic inequality.
Quite the opposite.
His Justice Department has granted blanket immunities from prosecution in both “Scandals of the Century” – the LIBOR interest rate rigging scheme and mortgage robo-signing – letting the mega-crooks off with fines.
Nevertheless, liberals were heartened when Obama fixed his lips to say “the free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play” – as if there were even a hint of substance in the verbal exercise.
As much as 80 percent of the public supports Social Security and Medicare, including the entirety of the president’s Democratic base. Yet, it was Barack Obama who began the current austerity offensive in the weeks before delivering his first inaugural address, informing the New York Times and Washington Post editorial boards that all entitlements would be on the table for chopping during his administration.
Only last month, he offered to alter the way Social Security benefits are calculated – as an opener to negotiations. Obama has shown, by word and deed, that he poses the greatest threat to Social Security in its history – far greater than George W. Bush, whose assault on the New Deal program met ferocious Democratic resistance.
Obama will carry much of the Party with him – which is why we at Black Agenda Report call the First Black President “the more effective evil.”
So, when Obama uses a ceremonial occasion to declare that: “The commitments we make to each other through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, these things do not sap our initiative, they strengthen us” and “…a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune,” it is only cheap rhetoric, signifying nothing.
Obama claims he wants to “reform” entitlements in order to “strengthen” them – which is precisely the Republican line.
By cheering the inaugural speech, progressives are only encouraging Obama’s gaming and mendacity.
And so it goes. The Great Deporter becomes the great protector of immigrant rights.
The man who killed the Kyoto Agreement is heralded as a champion of the environment because he expresses respect for “science” and pledges to somehow “respond to the threat of climate change.”