An Old Colonel Looks at General Kelly

[daftandbarmy]

An Old Colonel Looks at General Kelly

A thousand years ago when I was about to begin my military career, a wise old retired Marine colonel, a veteran of the carnage at Tarawa, gave me some advice. Paraphrased here, he said:

So you want to be a career soldier? Good for you. But remember that the longer you stay in uniform, the less you will really understand about the country you protect. Democracy is the antithesis of the military life; it’s chaotic, dishonest, disorganized, and at the same time glorious, exhilarating and free — which you are not.
After a while, if you stay in, you’ll be tempted to say, “Look, you civilians, we’ve got a better way. We’re better organized. We’re patriotic, and we know what it is to sacrifice. Be like us.” And you’ll be dead wrong, son. If you’re a career soldier, you may defend democracy, but you won’t understand it or be part of it. What’s more, you’ll always be a stranger to your own society. That’s the sacrifice you’ll be making.

But that odd press conference has exposed Kelly’s emotional, personal disdain for the citizens he served in uniform and still serves in a sensitive political post. His remarks lead me to wonder if he really understands that soldiers are the servants of democracies, not some special race apart. A MacArthur or a George Patton, disdainful or ignorant of democracy but close to the president is dangerous to the Republic and is unbecoming his distinguished service in a profession that doesn’t need anyone’s pity.

Bob Killebrew was an Army infantry and special forces officer for 30 years. He is a member of the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/23/an-old-colonel-looks-at-general-kelly/?utm_content=buffer79348&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[tomahawk6]

I would expect that leftist analysis from Foreign Policy,CNN or the Washington Post where all the stories about Trump are negative. General Kelly rising to the defense of the President naturally makes him a target,despite the fact that he lost a son in this war. He is entitled to an opinion just as the other gold star parents. Unfortunately the left has decided to weaponize these grieving families for their own purpose. For me the fallen chose to serve their country maybe in spite of the views of their own family.A couple of quotes to keep in mind.

General Kelly was asked if the loss was worth it by a reporter with National Public Radio. He said, quote:
“I think what I tell families now is the only person really that has a right to answer that question – was it worth it? – is the young man or woman that lost their life. And I believe what they would say is that they were doing what they wanted to do. They were where they wanted to be. So that’s the answer, I think, to that question. It’s not for us that survived to answer it. I think it’s for those young people to answer. And I think they do answer it with their actions and obviously their lives.” – Unquote.

Dear Madam,
I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle. I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the republic they died to save.  I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon that altar of freedom.

Yours very sincerely and respectfully,
        A. Lincoln

 

[mariomike]

From the Original Post,

But that odd press conference has exposed Kelly’s emotional, personal disdain for the citizens he served in uniform and still serves in a sensitive political post.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders had this to say,

CBS: Can he come out here and talk to us about this at some point, so that he can get the facts straight?

SANDERS: I think he's addressed that pretty thoroughly, yesterday.

CBS: He was wrong yesterday, in talking about [Wilson] getting the money. The money . . .

SANDERS: If you want to go after Gen. Kelly, that's up to you, but I think that if you want to get into a debate with a four-star Marine general, I think that that's something highly inappropriate.

General Kelly was asked if the loss was worth it by a reporter with National Public Radio. He said, quote:

In that same 2015 NPR interview, he also said, quote:

"when you got your draft notice, you went down, and you took your draft physical."
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/21/460536746/gen-john-kelly-to-retire-next-month

NPR recently ( October 23, 2017 ) quoted Vietnam War hero John McCain,

"One aspect of the conflict, by the way, that I will never ever countenance is that we drafted the lowest-income level of America, and the highest-income level found a doctor that would say that they had a bone spur," McCain said, in an apparent reference to the diagnosis that allowed Trump to be medically disqualified for service in 1968."
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/23/559445251/mccain-takes-swipe-at-president-for-vietnam-bone-spur-deferment

 

[Pencil Tech]

From the Original Post,
SANDERS: If you want to go after Gen. Kelly, that's up to you, but I think that if you want to get into a debate with a four-star Marine general, I think that that's something highly inappropriate.

Well that's pretty terrifying. Is the US becoming a military junta?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Well that's pretty terrifying. Is the US becoming a military junta?

I hope so. Seeing the fantastic new uniforms they design for themselves will be worth it

 

[Pencil Tech]

:goblin:

I hope so. Seeing the fantastic new uniforms they design for themselves will be worth it

 

[Loachman]

Perhaps we can export some of our talented and experienced buttons-and-bows people southward, and gain a little respite from their ceaseless efforts.

 

[mariomike]

He is entitled to an opinion just as the other gold star parents.

Everyone has an opinion.

The White House Chief of Staff also has a responsibility to the facts.

Video Backs Wilson, Not Kelly
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/video-backs-wilson-not-kelly/
"Rep. Frederica Wilson said that White House Chief of Staff John Kelly got the facts wrong when he said that Wilson took credit for getting the funding for an FBI office in Miramar, Florida. The evidence supports Wilson."

 

[QV]

MM you have clearly missed the point

 

[mariomike]

QV you have clearly missed my point. 

 

[FJAG]

MM you have clearly missed the point

I'm not so sure he has.

Kelly's speech had two parts:

The first part dealt with the process of casualty handling, his own experiences and his advice to the President. All of what he said here I respected and didn't fault him for. I actually thought he did a very good job with that part. I can even sympathize with Trump on this one. Talking to a bereaved family member isn't easy and it's entirely possible that your best intended statement will be taken the wrong way. I actually gave Trump a by on that one.

The trouble for Kelly is in the second part of his press conference where he laid into Wilson. This was entirely gratuitous bull***ing. He criticized her "listening in" when she was in fact a friend of the family; he relegated her to being an "empty barrel"; and he falsely accused her of improperly taking credit for obtaining the funding for a building (I've seen the tape. If he was really at the event then he either has a very poor memory or was out and out lying about her. She never once took credit for that and was generous in sharing credit for what she was involved in, the naming of the building after two fallen agents)

If Kelly had shut his mouth after the first part--which, as I said before, he presented eloquently--then his reputation would still be intact. Having unfortunately continued on and gotten down into the mud with his boss, he has made himself a legitimate target for both criticism and disdain. It's too bad. I had really thought he was much better than that.

:cheers:

 

[QV]

Looks like you both missed the point. 

Kelly was suggesting Wilson is using this event to further partisan politics like she did before when she made sure to let everyone know her part in naming the building during that FBI event.  MM and you are focused on the detail of funding over naming the building which is a mistake but immaterial to the point. 

Perhaps if Wilson would have just kept her mouth on both occasions she wouldn’t look like the fool she does now. 

If you are willing to write off a person like Kelly over something like this then I would be interested to hear who you think would be a better replacement.

 

[mariomike]

If you are willing to write off a person like Kelly over something like this then I would be interested to hear who you think would be a better replacement.

Who said anything about writing anyone off? I live in Canada and don't vote in their elections.

Everyone has an opinion.

The White House Chief of Staff also has a responsibility to the facts.

Perhaps if Wilson would have just kept her mouth on both occasions she wouldn’t look like the fool she does now. 

Kelly versus Wilson
https://www.google.ca/search?rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&dcr=0&q=wilson+kelly+wrong&oq=wilson+kelly+wrong&gs_l=psy-ab.3...37103.38634.0.39093.6.6.0.0.0.0.170.850.1j5.6.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.5.749...0j0i22i30k1j33i160k1j33i21k1.0.0bywc_OjFY8

 

[FJAG]

Looks like you both missed the point. 

Kelly was suggesting Wilson is using this event to further partisan politics like she did before when she made sure to let everyone know her part in naming the building during that FBI event.  MM and you are focused on the detail of funding over naming the building which is a mistake but immaterial to the point. 

Perhaps if Wilson would have just kept her mouth on both occasions she wouldn’t look like the fool she does now. 

If you are willing to write off a person like Kelly over something like this then I would be interested to hear who you think would be a better replacement.

No one here is defending Wilson's bringing out what Trump said to the widow. If you read my post you'll see I'm even supportive of Trump on that one.

Where I take a different view from you is that Kelly was being a douche in the way he took on Wilson and in the lies he told about her. It was bush league. He's came off as a mouthpiece for Trump. He completely lost the high ground at the press conference and the argument when he in fact had taken it, and taken it well, in the first part of the speech.

Simply put, if he had stopped after the first portion of his speech he would have had the whole country behind him. On the other hand, since he took the cheap shot, he now faces criticism from many and only retains the respect of the White House fanboys.

Read this one. (I've posted it elsewhere but it's an opportune moment) Even Republicans can't stomach this behaviour anymore.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/24/politics/jeff-flake-retirement-speech-full-text/index.html

:knights:

 

[mariomike]

No one here is defending Wilson's bringing out what Trump said to the widow.

Sounds like the widow was not impressed,
https://www.google.ca/search?rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&dcr=0&biw=1280&bih=603&q=%22Myeshia+Johnson%22++%22very+angry%22&oq=%22Myeshia+Johnson%22++%22very+angry%22&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0.0.1321.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.O2TPDXxfD4I

Even Republicans can't stomach this behaviour anymore.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/24/politics/jeff-flake-retirement-speech-full-text/index.html

As long as Fox News does not turn on him, he will always have the base.

 

[FJAG]

Sounds like the widow was not impressed,

I don't doubt that she was. From my years dealing with clients in crises in the legal field, I often came across a phenomenon I called "selective listening" which effectively means that the listener is focused on hearing what they want to hear and not what was said. In this case it's not exactly the words that were said (which generally seem to be agreed on) but the message that the widow took from it. As I said before, I don't really blame Trump in this one, nor for that matter the widow--they came from different places on this.

As long as Fox News does not turn on him, he will always have the base.

Fox only has a million and a half viewers. Trump's base is much, much larger than that. I don't know where they go to get their information from but my guess is that many of them are predisposed to Trump's message and style and probably get reinforcement by way of sound bites amongst their social groups. My guess is that even if Fox became more critical of the administration it would make little difference amongst the base.

:cheers:

 

[mariomike]

From my years dealing with clients in crises in the legal field, I often came across a phenomenon I called "selective listening" which effectively means that the listener is focused on hearing what they want to hear and not what was said.

In family homes, while the client was ( usually ) still warm, and the family ( usually ) in shock, your facial expressions, tone of voice and hugs ( when appropriate ) were more powerful than words. Especially when English was the second language of a family. 

There was nothing  worse than an "attitude questioned" complaint from a family.
https://www.google.ca/search?rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&dcr=0&biw=1280&bih=603&q=%22Myeshia+Johnson%22++%22angry%22&oq=%22Myeshia+Johnson%22++%22angry%22&gs_l=psy-ab.12...5944.8748.0.12436.5.5.0.0.0.0.1690.3472.2-1j8-2.3.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..2.0.0....0.-zwa5tkKYbk

The trouble for Kelly is in the second part of his press conference where he laid into Wilson. This was entirely gratuitous bull***ing. He criticized her "listening in" when she was in fact a friend of the family; he relegated her to being an "empty barrel"; and he falsely accused her of improperly taking credit for obtaining the funding for a building (I've seen the tape. If he was really at the event then he either has a very poor memory or was out and out lying about her. She never once took credit for that and was generous in sharing credit for what she was involved in, the naming of the building after two fallen agents)

Even if we did not understand how the family was offended, we always did whatever we could to make the situation right.

That was usually in the form of an apology.

I don't know where they go to get their information from but my guess is that many of them are predisposed to Trump's message and style and probably get reinforcement by way of sound bites amongst their social groups.

Russian troll farms?

 

[Pencil Tech]

I'm not so sure he has.

Kelly's speech had two parts:

The first part dealt with the process of casualty handling, his own experiences and his advice to the President. All of what he said here I respected and didn't fault him for. I actually thought he did a very good job with that part. I can even sympathize with Trump on this one. Talking to a bereaved family member isn't easy and it's entirely possible that your best intended statement will be taken the wrong way. I actually gave Trump a by on that one.

The trouble for Kelly is in the second part of his press conference where he laid into Wilson. This was entirely gratuitous bull***ing. He criticized her "listening in" when she was in fact a friend of the family; he relegated her to being an "empty barrel"; and he falsely accused her of improperly taking credit for obtaining the funding for a building (I've seen the tape. If he was really at the event then he either has a very poor memory or was out and out lying about her. She never once took credit for that and was generous in sharing credit for what she was involved in, the naming of the building after two fallen agents)

If Kelly had shut his mouth after the first part--which, as I said before, he presented eloquently--then his reputation would still be intact. Having unfortunately continued on and gotten down into the mud with his boss, he has made himself a legitimate target for both criticism and disdain. It's too bad. I had really thought he was much better than that.

:cheers:

Absolutely spot on.