Pentagon chief asks for Navy secretary’s resignation over private proposal in Navy SEAL’s case
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper asked for the resignation of Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer on Sunday after losing confidence in him over his handling of the case of a Navy SEAL accused of war crimes in Iraq, the Pentagon said.
Spencer’s resignation came in the wake of the controversial case of Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who was accused of war crimes on a 2017 deployment. He was acquitted of murder but convicted in July of posing with the corpse of a captive.
Esper asked for Spencer’s resignation after learning that he had privately proposed to White House officials that if they did not interfere with proceedings against Gallagher, then Spencer would ensure that Gallagher was able to retire as a Navy SEAL, with his Trident insignia.
Spencer’s private proposal to the White House — which he did not share with Esper over the course of several conversations about the matter — contradicted his public position on the Gallagher case, chief Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in a statement.
Esper said in the statement that he was “deeply troubled by this conduct.”
“Unfortunately, as a result I have determined that Secretary Spencer no longer has my confidence to continue in his position," Esper said. "I wish Richard well.”
Spencer’s spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Esper and Army Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, learned of Spencer’s private offer to the White House when they spoke with President Trump on Friday, Hoffman said.
Spencer’s proposal to the White House came after Trump intervened in the cases of Gallagher and two soldiers on Nov. 15. Countering Pentagon recommendations, the president issued pardons to Army Maj. Mathew Golsteyn, who faced a murder trial next year, and former 1st Lt. Clint Lorance, who was convicted in 2013 in the murder of two unarmed men in Afghanistan.
Trump reinstated Gallagher’s rank after the SEAL was demoted as punishment for posing for the photograph with the corpse. As a result of the actions over the last few days, Hoffman said, Esper has decided to let Gallagher keep it.
Spencer made his private pitch to the White House in conversations before a Thursday tweet by Trump, in which the president publicly pushed back against the Navy launching a review that could have stripped Gallagher of his Navy SEAL status.
“The Navy will NOT be taking away Warfighter and Navy Seal Eddie Gallagher’s Trident Pin,” Trump wrote. “This case was handled very badly from the beginning. Get back to business!”
Hoffman said that Esper has suggested to Trump that Kenneth Braithwaite, a retired Navy rear admiral who is currently the U.S. ambassador to Norway, be considered as the next Navy secretary.
Tags
Who is online
206 visitors
Another one bites the dust.......
"This case was handled very badly from the beginning. Get back to business!" DJT. ( bone spurs has spoken. You will obey. )
Trump doesnt care about any of this, except as it helps his political standing.
He would spit in an admiral's face if he thought the MAGA's approved.
This was another avoidable crisis and situation had Trump stayed out of it. Had he let the military handle the situation then this would never have happened. Trump, like Rudy, fucks everything up when he gets involved.
Truman fired MacAuther
MacArthur exceeded/violated his orders, and showed contempt of his civilian leaders. Being relieved of his command was justified.
That's what we were all taught in school. While it is true that the President is the Commander-in-Chief and has the final say over the military ( equally true for Truman AND Trump), one could argue that MacArthur was right. We had the Bomb then and China didn't. Think of how different the world would have been today if we had rid it of Mao's regime?
The President has the final word over the military. It's that simple.
As MacArthur used to call them these temporary occupants of the White House!
Thankfully cooler heads prevailed in this.
First off the power of the atomic bomb in 1950/51/52 wasn't the powerful deterrent that it became later on. The geographical size of China an the population would have made the use of it, other than killing a lot of civilians, a political disaster for the US.
How would we deliver it. If you believe that we had complete control of the air over NK you should read the book ''Mig Ally''...We could have lost a huge number of bombers.
If you think that dropping atomic bombs (we had a very limited number at the time) would have forced China or Mao to quit/surrender I would say that you're badly mistaken. The history of the Chinese fighters is well documented. The book, ''The Long March'' is the perfect example of the determination of the Chinese Army.
There is an old adage, ''Never engage in an Asian land war''...We have had two examples to look at. The Korean War and Vietnam. Neither of those is something that we should repeat.
I will add a personal note. The fighting in Vietnam was close combat, down and dirty. If, for one minute, anyone believes that the Asian (Chinese/Vietnamese/Japanese/Koreans) are not great fighters and will fight to the end I would suggest that they have never faced them in combat.
At the end of WWII, it's true, Patton wanted to cross the Elbe river. IMO, there is no way that he/US would have wiped out the Russians. We would be fighting on their territory and at the end of WWII, Russia had a very powerful army/air force. They would be defending Mother Russia. Understanding the Russian (Slavic) mindset on the motherland is very important. Both Napoleon and Hilter found out the hard way...At the Battle of Stalingrad, the Russian held on for a year against the Nazis. They lost more soldiers, actually double what the total US losses were in all of WWII, in one battle..
If Patton had gotten his way the number of American dead would have been unacceptable to the Amerian population.
There is an old Russian (Slavic) saying.
можете Вы умирать с вашей винтовкой на стене
Translation, ''May you die with your rifle on the wall''. This is a huge insult and explains the Russian mindset. Never/ever quit, die fighting. This is something that the US faced in both Japan in WWII and Vietnam.
Actually, that isn't correct. Stalin moved his factories east of the Ural mountains and started producing heavy weapons. Tanks/Arty/Planes.
At the Battle of Kursk, the Russian deployed 1.3 million men, 20,000 arty pieces, 2400 planes and 3600 tanks. It is considered the largest tank battle in history. The German Army was destroyed there.
During WWII the Russian produced 35,120 T34/76 light tanks. 48,950 T34/85 heavy tanks. Plus thousands of tank destroyers, and various other armor.
They also produced tens of thousands of planes.
Indeed the US and to some extent Britan supplied weapons at the beginning of the war to Russia.
1,676 M3A1 light tanks. 443 lost at sea.
4,102 M4 Sherman tanks.
At the end of WWII the Russian army was over 6 million strong with a large amount of armor and aircraft.
The cost of taking on Russia in an all-out assault would have been catastrophic in terms of Americans KIA/WIA.
That is correct but the Russian mindset was much the same. Also the Russian had years to concentrate and dig in so to speak.
My point on this was that the Asian armies and fighters are first class. They don't quit and their endurance is in the extreme.
I'm sure that you head that we'll bomb them back to the stone age. Well, that didn't work out so well. The mistake of underestimating our enemy has cost us untold number of casualties.
Agree. I was there. 68-69.
61/62 and 64/65 for me.
Thus we have this standard of coexistence with these brutal regimes out of necessity.
In other words if Hitler's Germany had developed the bomb in the early 40's we would have the same relationship with Nazi Germany.
The U.S. has coexisted with many brutal regimes over the years. In fact, we've been supportive of some of them.
You are aware that the US didn't declare war on Germany. We could have long before Japan attacked us but we didn't. The US was very much an isolationist nation at the time. In fact, there were a number of prominent Americans that sympathized with Germany. (Germany declared war on us)
The Bund was quite popular in the northeast just before we entered the war.
So, you tell me, what would we have done if Germany had the bomb first?
Here is an interesting article on how the Norwegian underground stopped the Nazi's development of the bomb when they destroyed the Nazi's heavy water plant in Norway.
Very much aware. Germany declared war on the US after their ally (Japan) attacked Pearl Harbor. Had they not done that FDR would have had a hell of a time explaining to the American people why he would send send most of the US military might off to Europe while assigning the US Navy the task of defeating Japan - and YES, I believe he would have done that with or without the German declaration.
So, you tell me, what would we have done if Germany had the bomb first?
I was trying to get your opinion on that, but since you put it to me, I believe we would have had the exact same relationship with Nazi Germany that we now have with Communist China, the brutal regime in North Korea, the new Russian menace and the religious fanatics who control Iran. I listed them in order of importance.
Sorry, I should have put in what my thought was before I asked you for yours.
Actually my opinion is exactly the same as yours. IMO, there is no way that US would have tried to attack Nazi Germany if they had the ''bomb''...We would live with it.
I hope the Admiral realizes that there is still room under the Trump bus.