Obama Officer Purge Established Military Deep State


John R. Houk

© November 17, 2019

 

President Donald Trump has pardoned three Military Service personnel convicted or facing trial for kicking enemy butt too copiously:

 

 

 

And guess what – some Pentagon are angry at President Trump – Quote from PJ Media:

 

This is so dangerous, nothing pisses me off more than these pardons,” a retired general officer fumed to ABC News after they were announced. “This undermines everything we have stood for — all my years of service goes up in smoke because we have a dictator who has no respect for the rule of law nor what we stand for.

 

Hmm… Isn’t that something? Some military brass are more concerned about American-hating Islamic terrorists who have signed ZERO conventions of war, than they are about American military personnel who saw a problem to solve and maybe did a little spiking the ball when the problem was solved, i.e. killing the enemy.

 

What could that be reminiscent of? Well, sounds like some Deep State military Officers still plugged into Obama’s rules of engagement are looking through the military lens of justice through Obama weak idiocy.

 

AND how could there be such a large contingent of Obama-phile military officers in America’s Service? WELL let’s take a look down memory lane shall we?

 

Military Purge: Obama Building ‘Compliant Officer Class’

 

By External Source

November 14, 2013

IsraelIslam&EndTimes.com

 

WASHINGTON – The extraordinarily large number of senior military officials being relieved of duty during the Obama administration – nine generals and flag officers this year alone and close to 200 senior officers over the last five years – is part of the creation of a “compliant officer class,” according to a U.S. Army intelligence official.

 

Since the ongoing coverage of what some top generals are openly calling a “purge” of senior military officers who run afoul of Obama or his agenda, some military personnel have been speaking out.

 

According to a veteran Army intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity, there is within the armed forces a major concern that a “compliant officer class” is being created by the Obama administration. So much so, he said, that it’s becoming harder and harder to find “senior officers with a pair of balls in there [the military] now that would say no to anything.”

 

 

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, a recipient of the U.S. military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, said that Obama’s agenda is decimating the morale of the U.S. ranks to the point that members no longer feel prepared to fight or have the desire to win.

 

“There is no doubt he (Obama) is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him” over such issues as “homosexuals, women in foxholes, the Obama sequester,” said Brady, former president of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society.

 

READ ENTIRETY

 

Many Leftist fact checkers tried to obfuscate the Obama Military Officer purge, but obfuscation doesn’t change reality:

 

Obama purged military of those who sought victory

 

By Daniel John Sobieski

September 10, 2016

American Thinker

 

It was not hyperbole when GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump said that under President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the U.S. military had been “reduced to rubble” and left floundering without a coherent strategy or meaningful capability to win wars.  It is a fait accompli, engineered by our commander-in-chief to reduce America’s global footprint, an America he has profusely apologized for, and one he blames for all the world’s ills.

… As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized:

 

We recognize President Obama is the commander-in-chief and that throughout history presidents from Lincoln to Truman have seen fit to remove military commanders they view as inadequate or insubordinate. Turnover in the military ranks is normal, and in these times of sequestration and budget cuts the numbers are expected to tick up as force levels shrink and missions change.


… We have commented on some of the higher profile cases, such as Gen. Carter Ham. He was relieved as head of U.S. Africa Command after only a year and a half because he disagreed with orders not to mount a rescue mission in response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi.

 

Rear Adm. Chuck Gaouette, commander of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, was relieved in October 2012 for disobeying orders when he sent his group on Sept. 11 to “assist and provide intelligence for” military forces ordered into action by Gen. Ham.


Other removals include the sacking of two nuclear commanders in a single week – Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, head of the 20th Air Force, responsible for the three wings that maintain control of the 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles, and Vice Adm. Tim Giardina, the No. 2 officer at U.S. Strategic Command.


,,,

 

As Donald Trump was making his remarks about our depleted and emasculated military, word came that President Obama wants to cut the Army further from its current depleted size of 475,000 to 450,000 by 2018. …

 

President Abraham Lincoln kept firing generals until he found the likes of Sherman and Grant, with the will and ability to win.  Somehow I don’t think victory anywhere is President Obama’s goal.  Donald Trump was right: President Obama has reduced the U.S. military to rubble.  READ ENTIRETY

 

The Alter of Deceit recaps the Investors.com story about the 197 Military Officer purge:

 

Obama’s Purge of the Military

 

Published August 17, 2018 by admin

The Alter of Deceit

 

I actually forgot about this. I also remembered how he went after the submarine command but, luckily, some one had the foresight to take precautions in case we got a complete asshole in the White House who tried to do something like this.  I do not know of the intricacies of this command structure and how it worked but it rebuffed Obama and kept him at bay.  Imagine what that Kenyan squatter would have done to our submarine fleet?

 

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/197-military-officers-purged-by-obama/

 

Obama’s Military Coup Purges 197 Officers In Five Years

 

10/29/2013

 

 

From Breitbart.com’s Facebook page comes a list of at least 197 officers that have been relieved of duty by President Obama for a laundry list of reasons and sometimes with no reason given. Stated grounds range from “leaving blast doors on nukes open” to “loss of confidence in command ability” to “mishandling of funds” to “inappropriate relationships” to “gambling with counterfeit chips” to “inappropriate behavior” to “low morale in troops commanded.”

 

Nine senior commanding generals have been fired by the Obama administration this year, leading to speculation by active and retired members of the military that a purge of its commanders is under way.

 

READ ENTIRETY

 

A list of Officers purged during the Obama years that Leftist fact checking probably won’t mention:

 

LIST OF NAMES — Military Purge High Officers — Terrifying

 

November 21, 2013 by IWB

Investment Watch Blog

 

 

Many of these below have spotless records, 25 and up years service, many medals and honors such as Brig. Gen Bryan W. Wampler and Command Sgt. Major Don B. Jordan.

Commanding Generals fired:

General John R. Allen-U.S. Marines Commander International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] (Nov 2012)

Major General Ralph Baker (2 Star)-U.S. Army Commander of the Combined Joint Task Force Horn in Africa (April 2013)

Major General Michael Carey (2 Star)-U.S. Air Force Commander of the 20th US Air Force in charge of 9,600 people and 450 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (Oct 2013)

Colonel James Christmas-U.S. Marines Commander 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit & Commander Special-Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force Crisis Response Unit (July 2013)

Major General Peter Fuller-U.S. Army Commander in Afghanistan (May 2011)

Major General Charles M.M. Gurganus-U.S. Marine Corps Regional Commander of SW and I Marine Expeditionary Force in Afghanistan (Oct 2013)

General Carter F. Ham-U.S. Army African Command (Oct 2013)

Lieutenant General David H. Huntoon (3 Star), Jr.-U.S. Army 58th Superintendent of the US Military Academy at West Point, NY (2013)

Command Sergeant Major Don B Jordan-U.S. Army 143rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command (suspended Oct 2013)

General James Mattis-U.S. Marines Chief of CentCom (May 2013)

Colonel Daren Margolin-U.S. Marine in charge of Quantico’s Security Battalion (Oct 2013)

General Stanley McChrystal-U.S. Army Commander Afghanistan (June 2010)

General David D. McKiernan-U.S. Army Commander Afghanistan (2009)

General David Petraeus-Director of CIA from September 2011 to November 2012 & U.S. Army Commander International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] and Commander U.S. Forces Afghanistan [USFOR-A] (Nov 2012)

Brigadier General Bryan Roberts-U.S. Army Commander 2nd Brigade (May 2013)

Major General Gregg A. Sturdevant-U.S. Marine Corps Director of Strategic Planning and Policy for the U.S. Pacific Command & Commander of Aviation Wing at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan (Sept 2013)

Colonel Eric Tilley-U.S. Army Commander of Garrison Japan (Nov 2013)

Brigadier General Bryan Wampler-U.S. Army Commanding General of 143rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command of the 1st Theater Sustainment Command [TSC] (suspended Oct 2013)

Commanding Admirals fired:

Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette-U.S. Navy Commander John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group Three (Oct 2012)

Vice Admiral Tim Giardina (3 Star, demoted to 2 Star)-U.S. Navy Deputy Commander of the US Strategic Command, Commander of the Submarine Group Trident, Submarine Group 9 and Submarine Group 10 (Oct 2013)

Naval Officers fired: (All in 2011)

Captain David Geisler-U.S. Navy Commander Task Force 53 in Bahrain (Oct 2011)

Commander Laredo Bell-U.S. Navy Commander Naval Support Activity Saratoga Springs, NY (Aug 2011)

Lieutenant Commander Kurt Boenisch-Executive Officer amphibious transport dock Ponce (Apr 2011)

Commander Nathan Borchers-U.S. Navy Commander destroyer Stout (Mar 2011)

Commander Robert Brown-U.S. Navy Commander Beachmaster Unit 2 Fort Story, VA (Aug 2011)

Commander Andrew Crowe-Executive Officer Navy Region Center Singapore (Apr 2011)

Captain Robert Gamberg-Executive Officer carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower (Jun 2011)

Captain Rex Guinn-U.S. Navy Commander Navy Legal Service office Japan (Feb 2011)

Commander Kevin Harms- U.S. Navy Commander Strike Fighter Squadron 137 aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln (Mar 2011)

Lieutenant Commander Martin Holguin-U.S. Navy Commander mine countermeasures Fearless (Oct 2011)

 

WAY MORE TO READ

 

Hmm … I wonder how there are some Pentagon voices that disrespect their current Commander in Chief in President Trump to echo the last Commander in Chief? BECAUSE OBAMA GOT RID OF OFFICERS WHO UNDERSTOOD HOW TO WIN!

 

JRH 11/17/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

 Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

 

I got this message from Fascistbook (11/13/19):

 

“You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups until November 20 at 7:05 PM.” So PLEASE share in your groups especially if you are from Oklahoma. My Conservative voice is currently in a restricted Facebook jail.

************************

Despite Pentagon Objections, Trump Pardons Three for War Crimes

 

By Rick Moran

November 16, 2019

PJ Media

 

Navy Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher embraces his wife, Andrea Gallagher, after leaving a military courtroom on Naval Base San Diego, Thursday, May 30, 2019, in San Diego. The decorated Navy SEAL facing a murder trial in the death of an Islamic State prisoner was freed Thursday from custody after a military judge cited interference by prosecutors. (AP Photo/Julie Watson)

 

Donald Trump pardoned three service members who had been accused of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan over the objections of the Pentagon, which believes the president’s actions undermine the military justice system.

 

Two of the three accused soldiers had been serving prison sentences, and one was still on active duty awaiting trial.

 

Army Lt. Clint Lorance had been serving 19 years at Fort Leavenworth for ordering a soldier to fire on an unarmed motorcyclist in 2012. Army Green Beret Maj. Matt Golsteyn had been charged with killing an alleged Afghan bomb-maker in 2010. And Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher was acquitted of killing a wounded Islamic State captive earlier this year, but was sentenced to four months of time served and a reduction in rank for posing with a corpse during a 2017 deployment to Iraq.

 

ABCNews:

 

“Today, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Grant of Clemency (Full Pardon) for Army First Lieutenant Clint Lorance, an Executive Grant of Clemency (Full Pardon) for Army Major Mathew Golsteyn, and an order directing the promotion of Special Warfare Operator First Class Edward R. Gallagher to the grade of E-7, the rank he held before he was tried and found not guilty of nearly all of the charges against him,” the statement read.

 

“The President, as Commander-in-Chief, is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the law is enforced and when appropriate, that mercy is granted,” the statement continued. “For more than two hundred years, presidents have used their authority to offer second chances to deserving individuals, including those in uniform who have served our country.”

 

The Pentagon appeared to stand behind the original verdicts of the courts martial.

 

“The Department of Defense has confidence in the military justice system,” said Jonathan Hoffman, the chief Pentagon spokesman. “The President is part of the military justice system as the Commander-in-Chief and has the authority to weigh in on matters of this nature.”

 

Others were less circumspect in their criticism.

 

“This is so dangerous, nothing pisses me off more than these pardons,” a retired general officer fumed to ABC News after they were announced. “This undermines everything we have stood for — all my years of service goes up in smoke because we have a dictator who has no respect for the rule of law nor what we stand for.”

 

Sounds like some general officers have been reading Democratic Party talking points.

 

I don’t think it’s necessarily dangerous, but on some levels, it’s disturbing. The case of Lt. Lorance appears inexcusable while Golsteyn illegally took the law into his own hands after the Taliban bomb-maker was freed by the U.S. military. Golsteyn followed him after his release and killed him. The sentence given Gallagher seems appropriate given the violation of protocol, although posing with a corpse is more a part of the ethos of the SEALs than any deliberate infraction.

 

And the Pentagon has a point too. Not only does the brass have to believe in the military justice system, but ordinary soldiers and sailors as well. But since the leniency showed to Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for desertion, ordinary soldiers have cause to distrust the judgment of the brass. They bowed to political pressure from a president who had celebrated his release after allowing 7 dangerous terrorists to be exchanged for him. Obama needed a win, and the military courts handed it to him.

 

Trump has his own political needs and pardoning the soldiers, while justifiable, filled them nicely.

+++++++++++++++++++

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

 

I got this message from Fascistbook (11/13/19):

 

“You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups until November 20 at 7:05 PM.” So PLEASE share in your groups especially if you are from Oklahoma. My Conservative voice is currently in a restricted Facebook jail.

______________________

Obama Officer Purge Established Military Deep State

John R. Houk

© November 17, 2019

_____________________

Despite Pentagon Objections, Trump Pardons Three for War Crimes

 

Copyright © 2005-2019 PJ Media All Rights Reserved.

 

Obama Military Conspiracy up to Lt. Clint Lorance


bho-purged-military-for-disagreeing

John R. Houk

© January 20, 2017

 

You should be aware that the Obama Administration has taken a hard line toward military servicemen from private to general for minor infractions, made-up infractions or policy direction opposite to the worst President in U.S. history.

 

Sgt. Gary Stein

 

The Marine sergeant facing discharge because of critical comments about President Obama says the board that recommended his dismissal ignored the law and instead relied on “personal opinion.”

 

 

Stein, 26, a nine-year veteran including deployment to Iraq, had been recommended for dismissal and an other-than-honorable discharge by his commander for comments posted on four Facebook pages.

 

In his postings, Stein called Obama a coward and an enemy, vowed not to salute him and called for his defeat in this year’s election. One of the websites was an Armed Forces Tea Party page on Facebook that was created by Stein. READ ENTIRETY (Marine who criticized Obama says hearing board ignored law; Posted by NewsEditor; USIF.net; 4/11/12)

 

Lt. Michael Behenna

 

On March 20th, 2009, Army Ranger 1st Lieutenant Michael Behenna was sentenced to 25 years in prison for killing Ali Mansur, a known Al Qaeda operative while serving in Iraq. Mansur was known to be a member of an Al Qaeda cell operating in the lieutenant’s area of operation and Army intelligence believed he organized an attack on Lt. Behenna’s platoon in April 2008 which killed two U.S. soldiers and injured two more. Army intelligence ordered the release of Mansur and Lt. Behenna was ordered to return the terrorist to his home.

 

During the return of Mansur, Lt. Behenna again questioned the Al Qaeda member for information about other members of the terrorist cell, and financial supporters. During this interrogation, Mansur attacked Lt. Behenna, who killed the terrorist in self-defense. The government subsequently prosecuted Lt. Behenna for premeditated murder.

 

Not only is this a miscarriage of justice on the behalf of Lt. Behenna, who was acting to prevent further loss of life in his platoon, it is demoralizing to the U.S. troops who continue to fight on behalf of the freedom and security of our nation. READ ENTIRETY (MILITARY PROSECUTORS WITHHOLD EVIDENCE; ARMY RANGER GOES TO PRISON FOR 25 YEARS FOR SHOOTING AL QAEDA OPERATIVE; DefendMichael.com)

 

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal

 

McKiernan was succeeded by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was in turn assigned to undertake his own 60-day assessment. But when word spread that McChrystal intended to propose a substantial new increase in forces, which Pentagon gossip initially put as high as 80,000 additional troops, waves of dismay spread through the White House. In late September 2009, a copy of McChrystal’s assessment was leaked to the Washington Post. Its bottom line was clear: If the United States did not pour significant additional resources into Afghanistan, and fast, the likely result would be “mission failure.”

 

… Furious at the leak—which they blamed on the Pentagon—and reluctant to accept McChrystal’s grim conclusions, senior White House aides engaged in strategic counter-leaks. In their version, McChrystal and the Pentagon were trying to box in the president by pushing to deploy tens of thousands more troops and refusing to consider other approaches.

 

 

… And less than a year later, McChrystal was forced to resign after a Rolling Stone profile quoted his top military aides mocking several senior civilian officials, including Eikenberry and Vice President Joe Biden. READ ENTIRETY (Obama vs. the Generals; By ROSA BROOKS; POLITICO; 11/2013)

 

General David Petraeus

 

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter is now thinking of retroactively taking away one or two of Petraeus’s four stars. The potential demotion in rank, opposed by the Army, is intended as further punishment for the misdemeanor to which he pleaded guilty last year. Petraeus accepted two years of probation and paid a $100,000 fine for allowing his mistress, Paula Broadwell, to read classified information for research on the biography she was writing about Petraeus.

Carter apparently wants to ensure that Petraeus is treated in the same fashion as other miscreant generals and admirals who have lost rank. Yet there is no evidence that Broadwell (who enjoyed a military security clearance of her own) ever shared the classified information with anyone or disclosed it in the biography.

That does not excuse the bad judgment of Petraeus. But it does invite an obvious comparison with former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. She not only sent classified information over her unsecured e-mail to several individuals but remains untruthful about that fact. READ ENTIRETY (The Obama Administration Needs to Abandon Its Petraeus Obsession; By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON; National Review; 1/28/16 12:00)

 

General James Mattis, USMC

 

… Mattis wanted to strike Iran in retaliation for killing U.S. troops in Iraq in 2011; however, President Obama refused to grant permission.

 

Iranian-supplied rockets killed as many as 15 U.S. troops per month in Iraq in the summer of 2011, and Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis had a plan to retaliate. I personally recall from my years of duty in Casualty Affairs at Dover Air Force Base during this same time period, that, along with the casualties from IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices with “shaped charges” provided by Iran that could penetrate our armored vehicles) the rockets killed many U.S. troops.  We were receiving the bodies of U.S. service members virtually every day, along with thousands of family members who came to Dover for the ceremonies honoring their loved ones.

 

Six U.S. soldiers were killed in a single such attack in early June of 2011, with another three killed days later. Mattis, then the commander of U.S. Central Command, had enough and decided the U.S. must retaliate before the Iranian rockets and IEDs caused further casualties. Coordinating with then Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey, Mattis proposed an attack inside Iran.

 

 

The White House received the strike proposal and subsequently denied it. President Barack Obama believed such a strike would infuriate the Iranians, possibly escalating the need for U.S. troops in Iraq, something he was trying so desperately to end. Some Administration insiders feared the plan would start a war with Iran, a country with which President Obama wanted to improve relations.

 

Of course, now we know President Obama had another reason to deny the strike request, though it was not publicly known.  At the time, the Obama Administration was secretly negotiating with Iran on its growing nuclear weapons program. READ ENTIRETY (What You Need to Know About General Mattis; By Wesley Smith; ACLJ; 1/12/17)

 

I haven’t found reliable confirmation, but some conspiracy site claim:

 

Was Fired After He Refused To Take Up Arms Against U.S. Citizens by Dave Gibson 02/17/2015. READ ENTIRETY (Obama purging top brass from the military; Posted by JS; Independence Day; 10/26/15)

 

Here is an article from FrontPageMag that lists several Generals and Admirals that paints a suspicious picture of an Obama purge of the military of Officers that may have found reasons to disagree with Obama’s military vision.

 

President Obama hasn’t just been hollowing out the military since taking office, he’s been gutting it, purging it of ideologically hostile personnel, and fundamentally transforming it into something other than a war-fighting force, military experts say.

 

Although few with military ties are willing to say it openly, it seems the administration is leading an orchestrated effort to seriously undermine the readiness of the military. Some reports indicate that Obama has purged 197 senior military officers since moving into the White House and that many of the retired officers have been harassed at their new civilian jobs for criticizing the president’s policies. The effects of these purges will be felt long after Obama leaves office. READ ENTIRETY (PURGING AND TRANSFORMING OUR MILITARY; By Matthew Vadum; FrontPageMag; 11/7/13)

 

Here is a list of the high-level Officers mentioned in the FrontPageMag article:

 

 

  • David McKiernan

 

  • Stanley McChrystal

 

  • David Petraeus

 

  • John Allen

 

  • Carter Ham

 

  • Admiral David Gaurette

 

  • Marine Gen. James Cartwright

 

  • Vice Admiral Tim Giardina

 

  • Major Gen. Michael Carey

 

The American Left will tell you these generals served their time and retired or were caught in unethical or illegal activities and were forced to resign or retire. The unethical/illegal dismissals appear suspicious to me because these guys became generals or admirals because of military smarts. This insinuates sophomoric actions that tarnishes credibility is way out of the ordinary, especially if their stars were earned in combat situations that led to command reliability. One general says this about the apparent Obama military purge:

 

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady told WND that President Obama has forced out so many military leaders who have doubts about his policies that the nation’s armed forces no longer feel prepared to fight or to try to win armed conflicts. (Ibid.)

 

By this point if I were you, I’d be wondering why I am thinking about the Obama purge story which has been around for most of Obama’s two terms of Office.

 

I received an email from the mother of a Lieutenant convicted of murder while on active duty in Afghanistan. The email is quite compelling and knowing how Obama has been ripping the military apart, my first thought was to jump on the sympathetic train.

lt-lorance-setenced-20-yrs-prison

Before I jumped on board, I decided to check some other sources to see the military’s case against the Lieutenant. AND WHOAH! There are two conflicting stories that makes the difference between truth and lies because those who testified against the Lieutenant were there and followed orders. And another issue for me is this. Perhaps the story told by the Lieutenant’s soldiers is accurate about the Lieutenant’s character and actions, BUT the military prosecutors obviously withheld exculpatory evidence that make the Lieutenant less of a murderer and more of a taking the enemy combatants out.

 

So, I am going to cross post the mother’s email and then at least an excerpt of the military’s case. And you can see what I mean.

 

JRH 1/20/16

Please Support NCCR

****************

My Son Deserves his Freedom

By Mr. Anna Lorance

Sent 1/17/2017 7:44 AM

anna-lorance-mom-lt-clint-lorance

I know we have never met. But if you have children of your own, you’ll understand why I’m writing you today.

You see, the young handsome man in this photo is my son, Lt. Clint Lorance of the U.S. Army.

Like any mother, I was so scared that Clint would be hurt – or even killed – after he was deployed to Afghanistan.

Then on July 2, 2012, it almost happened.

Clint was sent to a “hot zone” on a dangerous mission to replace a lieutenant who had been injured when the Taliban attacked his platoon just days earlier.

He was warned to look for multiple riders on red motorcycles – known as “spotters” who alert the Taliban when they see U.S. troops. And every soldier was on edge. They all knew about the earlier ambush – and that just days before a U.S. soldier had been shot in the neck in this very village.

Suddenly a U.S. helicopter radioed in to Clint that a group of motorcycle riders was sitting outside of the village near a road that was used only by the Taliban.

As Clint confirmed a clear description of the enemy, a motorcycle charged toward the platoon so one of the soldiers asked permission to fire a warning shot. Clint said, “yes.”

But the riders did not stop. Instead, they continued riding and broke through the troop’s formation, jumped off the motorcycle, and headed right toward our troops. With only a split-second to make a decision, Clint ordered his marksman to fire. Two of the riders were killed. The other was captured in the village.

Meanwhile, two other Taliban members were killed by Clint’s platoon and a second man captured trying to leave the village.

When Clint and his men arrived back at base, Clint ordered both of the prisoners to be tested for explosives residue. BOTH tested positive for residue on their hands, confirming Clint’s suspicions that the motorcycle riders posed a threat.

Yet instead of imprisoning and interrogating these men, military intelligence at Brigade Headquarters released the men back into the wild.

Then they fired Clint as platoon leader.

And one year later, Clint was sitting in a military courtroom on trial for murder.

Five other members of Clint’s platoon were also charged, including the marksman who had actually shot and killed the terrorists.

But all five were promised immunity if they would agree to testify against Clint.

Every one of the statements from these five soldiers changed from their initial statements. That’s right, not one of their stories was the same as the account they gave on the day of the attack.

But Clint’s account did not change.

And when asked for his only statement during the trial, he looked into the eyes of the jury and said, “I totally take all responsibility for my actions. I gave the order because I was the leader on the ground and perceived a hostile intent.”

My friend, I’m proud that my son gave that order.

Because only weeks after the ambush on Clint’s platoon, a motorcycle with two riders rode into a village where U.S. soldiers were patrolling and detonated explosives strapped to their cycle. That leader did not react as my son did – and American soldiers died.

But none of this mattered to the military court. Even though Clint never fired his weapon, he was found “guilty” and sentenced to 20 years in Fort Leavenworth Prison.

As soon as the verdict was read, Clint turned to us. He told his brother, “Be strong and promise me that you will take care of my Momma and Dad.”

Then he took me by the shoulders and said, “Momma I can’t leave here without knowing that you are okay.”

It took every bit of strength I had to not cry. I did not want Clint to see me in tears as they took him from the courtroom. Instead I told him, “We will get through this. God loves to walk the dark hills with us.”

Now, over three years later, I’m seeing just how much God is walking with us through this terrible time thanks to Major Bill Donahue of the United American Patriots. UAP helps provide legal defenses for soldiers like Clint who have been unjustly accused of crimes for making split-second decisions in the heat of combat.

Maj. Donahue is a Marine who survived three tours of duty in Vietnam – so he knows what it’s like to make decisions behind enemy lines. And he knows you can’t second-guess our young soldiers who have been trained to defend themselves in combat.

UAP is fighting to help Clint mount an appeal, a motion for mistrial AND secure a presidential pardon. But it’s a costly process – and money our son doesn’t have.

Clint was stripped of all pay when he was indicted. He was forced to sell his house. And he lost all 10 years of his Army pension.

All we can do now is rely on UAP and the big hearts of American patriots like you who support them and their mission.

UAP is a non-profit organization. They don’t receive a dime of federal funding. And Maj. Donahue doesn’t even take a salary for his work. He just wants to help soldiers.

If you can help with a tax-deductible gift of any amount, won’t you please send it to UAP today to help them fight for my son?

While politically correct government officials are going to extreme measures to protect the “civil rights” of terrorists who want to destroy our country, soldiers like my son are sitting in prison for protecting our nation from these terrorists!

On behalf of every mother of a U.S. soldier, thank you for taking the time to read my letter and for whatever support you can send today.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Anna Lorance

P.S. During a break in the trial, I walked outside to catch some air. The last soldier who had testified against Clint was standing on the sidewalk with tears running down his face. When he looked up at me he quickly dropped his head in shame. Clearly, he knows he helped the Obama Administration send an innocent soldier to prison. Thank you for helping UAP fight to bring him home!

 

+++

Hero or murderer? Soldiers divided in 1LT Lorance case

By Michelle Tan

January 12, 2015

Army Times

 

Shortly after the soldiers from 4th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment set out on patrol from Strong Point Payenzai, Afghanistan, a motorcycle carrying three Afghan men came into view.

 

Pfc. James Skelton reported the sighting to 1st Lt. Clint Lorance, his new platoon leader.

 

“He told me to engage,” Skelton said, according to the transcript from Lorance’s court-martial.

 

Skelton fired two shots. He missed. The motorcycle came to a stop, the men climbed off and began walking towards the Afghan National Army soldiers who were at the front of the U.S.-Afghan patrol.

 

“The ANA started telling them to go back, waving to them to return towards the motorcycle, to stay away,” Skelton testified. “They turned around and went back towards the motorcycle.”

 

Within seconds, two of them were dead. The third man ran away.

 

A gun truck that was accompanying the soldiers on foot had opened fire with its M240B machine gun.

 

“He was told to engage by Lieutenant Lorance when they had a visual,” Skelton testified.

 

“Did he ask the vehicle what the men were doing?” the prosecutor asked.

 

“No,” Skelton said.

 

“He just told them to engage?” the prosecutor asked.

 

“Yes,” Skelton said.

 

One year after that fateful July 2, 2012, patrol, in a case that has been controversial from the start, Lorance was convicted of two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder.

 

Lorance, now 30, is serving a 19-year prison sentence at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, but his case is far from over. Across the nation, thousands are rallying in hopes the baby-faced soldier can regain his freedom. They see him as a patriot, unfairly punished for actions taken to protect his fellow soldiers.

 

His own soldiers, however, paint a much different picture: They claim their platoon leader was ignorant, overzealous and out of control. That he hated the Afghan people and that he had spent recent days tormenting the locals and issuing death threats.

 

 

But as the fight for the young officer’s freedom has gained traction online and on social media, Lorance’s own soldiers are pushing back, they say, to make sure their side of the story is told.

 

Two sides of Clint Lorance

 

“All these petitioners need to be shown what kind of man [Lorance] really is,” said a soldier who served as a team leader in Lorance’s platoon, who asked to speak on background because he is still on active duty. “This isn’t a soldier that went to war and gone done wrong. This is a soldier that had a taste for blood and wanted to have that fulfilled. And he did, but in the wrong way.”

 

Todd Fitzgerald, a former specialist and infantryman in Lorance’s platoon, said he felt betrayed by the lieutenant.

 

“I don’t believe that he really understood what he was getting into,” he said.

 

Fitzgerald testified during Lorance’s court-martial.

 

“Us testifying against him, it wasn’t a matter of not liking him, it wasn’t a matter of any type of grudge or coercion,” he said. “It was simply we knew that his actions, based on our experience, having operated in that area for months, were going to breed further insurgency. If you kill local citizens, they’re no longer willing to help you.”

 

Testimony from these solders is in stark contrast to how Lorance’s mother, Anna, describes her son.

 

 

Fight for a new trial

 

Maher said he is disappointed in Clarke’s decision regarding clemency. He also said his client has grounds for a new trial.

 

“The defense has now identified information linking five of seven Afghan military-aged males on the field that day with terror,” Maher said. “Because the government has always had that information and did not disclose it to the command or the trial defense counsel, examining 1st Lt. Lorance’s decision-making takes a back seat. We never get to that question.”

 

Basically, the government is obligated to disclose evidence that could negate guilt, reduce the degree of guilt or reduce the punishment for the accused, Maher said, citing the Rule for Courts-Martial.

 

“The first day at the Army JAG school, we’re taught you turn over everything,” said Maher, who also is a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve.

 

The government made a “serious legal error” by not turning over exonerating and/or mitigating evidence contained in government computer databases, Maher said.

 

“Before the government can take away any soldier’s liberty, freedom, career, income, retirement, educational benefits, and full ability to get a job, the government must follow the rules,” he said. “Here, it did not.”

 

If that information had been turned over, the defense might have taken a different approach, or the case may not even have made it to trial, said Maher, who points out Lorance never fired his weapon that day.

 

“Clint did not initiate this, nor did he engage anybody directly,” he said.

 

Though he didn’t fire the weapon, he was convicted of making the call. He was also convicted of threatening a local Afghan; firing an M14 rifle into a village and trying to have one of his soldiers lie about receiving incoming fire; and obstructing justice by making a false radio report after the two men on the motorcycle were killed.

 

 

“Over about a three-day period, Lieutenant Lorance … committed crimes of violence and crimes of dishonesty,” said Capt. Kirk Otto, who prosecuted the case for the government, according to a transcript of the court-martial.

 

First, on June 30, 2012, Lorance threatened to kill an Afghan man and his family, Otto said in his opening statement.

 

The man, a farmer, and his child, who was about 4 years old, were at the gate to talk to the Americans about the concertina wire that was blocking access to his farm field, Otto said.

 

“He said, ‘You move the c-wire, I’ll have somebody kill you,'” Spc. James Twist, who was at the scene, testified during the court-martial.

 

Lorance then tried to have the Afghan turn in IEDs to the Americans, Twist testified.

 

“He was like, ‘You bring us IEDs or we’ll have the ANA kill your family,'” Twist said. “And Lieutenant Lorance was like, ‘Well, if we ever come onto your land and we step on an IED or we find an IED, I’ll have the ANA come and kill your family.’ And he pointed to the kid and said, ‘Do you want to see your child grow up?'”

 

The next day, Lorance directed one of the platoon’s squad designated marksmen to fire his M14 rifle from one of the Strong Point’s guard towers into the neighboring village of Sarenzai, Otto said.

 

“He directs harassing fire — illegal harassing fire — at villagers,” Otto said.

 

Lorance directed his soldier to shoot near groups of people, as well as at walls and vehicles, he said. The soldier, Spc. Matthew Rush, refused to shoot when Lorance directed him to fire near a group of children, Otto said.

 

“These villagers were not doing anything,” Otto said. “There was no demonstrated hostile intent. No one heard incoming shots.”

 

The soldier who served as a team leader in the platoon, who spoke to Army Times on background, said he has pictures of Lorance on the rooftop.

 

“He was out of control,” the soldier said. “We told him, ‘Sir, I don’t think it’s a good idea.’ He was like, ‘Oh, it’s a great idea. We’re going to scare these guys so they actually attend our shura, and we won’t lose anymore guys.”

 

Lorance later tried to have Sgt. Daniel Williams, who was in the tactical operations center, falsely report that the Strong Point received incoming potshots, Otto said.

 

“He told me to report up that they had taken potshots from the village,” Williams testified. “I told him that I wouldn’t … because it’s a false report. At least I thought so, sir.”

 

Williams also testified that Lorance said “he didn’t really care about upsetting them too much because he f**king hated them.”

 

‘Why isn’t anybody firing yet?’

 

The next day, as the soldiers prepared to head out on a patrol, a small group of three or four Afghan men met them at the gate.

 

The men were upset. They wanted to know why the Americans shot into their village the day before.

 

Lorance told them that if they had a problem, they could attend the shura, or meeting, he planned to have later in the week, according to testimony. The Afghans refused to budge.

 

“He told them to get out of there,” Skelton said in his testimony. “He started very aggressively yelling at them, and he started counting, and he pulled back the charging handle on his weapon and chambered a round.”

 

As the soldiers’ interpreter “panicked,” one of the other soldiers testified, the Afghans turned away and left.

 

The Americans and a squad of Afghan National Army soldiers began walking out on their patrol.

 

Just moments into the patrol, Skelton opened fire on the motorcycle and then Pvt. David Shilo, operating the M240B machine gunon the truck, killed the two Afghans.

 

Fitzgerald, who left the Army in August, said he was standing near Lorance when the men on the motorcycle were hit.

 

“I remember him asking, ‘Why isn’t anybody firing yet?'” Fitzgerald said, adding that Lorance then took the radio and ordered the soldiers in the gun truck to open fire.

 

The men on the motorcycle stopped when Skelton first opened fire, Fitzgerald said.

 

“At that point, they were definitely not any type of threat,” he said. “They weren’t coming at us.”

 

The patrol then pushed on into the village, where the bodies were quickly surrounded by crying and upset villagers.

 

First, Lorance prevented Skelton, who’s trained to conduct battle damage assessments, including READ ENTIRETY

 

+++

The Case Of 1st Lt. Clint Lorance

December 8, 2016

Military Votes Count

 

 

The Case Against Clint Lorance –

 

His own men testified against him. They said the guys on the motorcycles were not a threat. At first, they refused to fire, but Clint ordered them to open fire. They also claimed that Lt. Lorance threatened a local farmer that he and his son would be killed if the Taliban planted an I.E.D. (improvised explosive device) on their farm land.

 

If your own troops testify against you, that has to be given heavy weight; however, that four of the six troops were granted immunity places shade on their testimony.

 

The Case In Favor of Clint Lorance –

 

Clint Lorance was sent into a heavy Taliban-invested area to replace another leuitent that had been wounded. At the trial the government may not have disclosed that the men who were killed were Taliban IED terrorists. Following the trial, this evidence came out (and here). Clint also had information that his troops did not from overhead surveillance which indicated Taliban were closing in on his position.

 

 

The Takeaway –

 

If the government withheld exculpatory evidence, then the military prosecutors should be charged. I don’t know that they did that, but if they did.

 

There are two versions of this story. In one version Clint is a blood thirsty 1st Lt. who is out of control, who is killing the very people our troops were sent there to protect. In the other version, the people he killed were the enemy, and the government knew they were the enemy. In this second version, 1st Lt. Clint Lorance had good reason to believe they were the enemy.

 

There is READ ENTIRETY

 

Supporters of Lt. Clint Lorance that send email alerts:

 

Lt. Col. Allen West

 

TruthRevolt.org

 

United American Patriots (UAP)

 

UAP Petition (to Obama – hopefully changing to President Trump)

 

UAP Donation for Lt. Clint Lorance

_______________

Obama Military Conspiracy up to Lt. Clint Lorance

John R. Houk

© January 20, 2017

_____________

My Son Deserves his Freedom

SUPPORT CLINT LORANCE

 

United American Patriots is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. All donations are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.

Mailing Address: 121-F Shields Park Drive, Kernersville, NC 27284

© Copyright 2016, UnitedPatriots.org

___________

Hero or murderer? Soldiers divided in 1LT Lorance case

 

© 2017 Sightline Media Group Site

 

About Army Times

_________________

The Case Of 1st Lt. Clint Lorance

 

Copyright © 2017 Military Votes Count.

 

About Military Votes Count

 

Obama Administration Disrespects War Hero


(Then) CPT Matt Golsteyn Silver Star from Lt. Gen. John F. Mulholland Jr

(Then) CPT Matt Golsteyn Silver Star from Lt. Gen. John F. Mulholland Jr
 
John R. Houk
© February 10, 2015
 
I am a member of a restricted Yahoo Group that goes by ccpga which I have not actually visited for some time. So I don’t exactly recall how the acronym was decided upon but it stands for Christian Conservative Councilors. The group is restricted primarily to keep the trolls out. Now as if you were interested, I said all this about the group because a member sent info on Army Green Beret Major Matt Golsteyn. When the Major was a Captain he engaged in acts of heroism that resulted in the Silver Star which was expected to be upgraded to the Distinguished Service Cross which is only surpassed in honor by the Medal of Honor.
 
I’ll let the Washington Free Beacon and Allen West give the specifics of why Major Golsteyn was a hero in 2010. The rendition is truly worth the read. Apparently heroism doesn’t matter much to the Obama Administration when the hero is critical of the President and the civilian leadership pols in the Defense Department of which the Department of the Army of course has a role when it comes to that Branch.
 
HERO Major Golsteyn who won his Silver Star as a Captain was stripped of that medal. Why? Because Major Golsteyn was critical of the military strategy used in Afghanistan. To be more specific Golsteyn was critical of the Rules of Engagement (ROE) used in Afghanistan. AND that criticism quoted in a book by a Marine whose name is Bing West. The book’s name is “The Wrong War”.
 
Here is a bit of an excerpt from a book review of “The Wrong War”:
 
 While his book focuses at the tactical level, West has the contacts and background to evaluate top-level decisions. As the title indicates, he has concluded that population-centric counterinsurgency will not work for this war. He then asks the very important question, “Since it would be disastrous to pull out and we can’t win with the current strategy, is there an alternative?”
 
West sets out to answer that question by describing “the fighting, the objectives, the interaction with the tribes, and the different tactics our military has undertaken.” To provide background, West takes the reader through a years-long summary of key efforts in both the north and south of Afghanistan. In doing so, he provides context over time that pointedly illustrates both the grit of our forces and the failure of the current approach. (The Wrong War written by Bing West; Review by Col Thomas X. Hammes, USMC (Ret); Marine Corps Association & Foundation)
 
I understand it is against the Military Code of Conduct to be critical of the civilian leadership, especially the Coward … err … I mean Commander-in-Chief. The author Bing West is an ex-Marine that has made a career at being an author. According to the review I read, West’s classic book is “The Village” in 1972. So I think it is a pretty good guess that West didn’t think his book would be used to castigate an active duty member of the Service.
 
Here is an excerpt from a Time Mag online article from 2010 showing the time frame that then Captain Golsteyn faced in a do or die similar situation:
 
… Marines see an attack taking shape around them, the current rules of engagement mandate that they cannot shoot unless they are first shot at. The insurgents know this, so they often “drop and go”: firing from a distance, then abandoning their weapons. Sometimes Marines never get a single shot off in defense, an exercise in restraint that is especially taxing for the American military’s hardiest warriors. “It’s hard as hell holding back when you know what’s coming every time,” says a lance corporal from Lima Company, Third Battalion, Sixth Marines. … (Will Petraeus Change the Rules for Shooting Back? By Jason Motlagh; Time; 7/7/10)
 
By 2013 the ROE only get worse:
 
The new U.S.-Afghanistan security agreement adds restrictions on already bureaucratic rules of engagement for American troops by making Afghan dwellings virtual safe havens for the enemy, combat veterans say.
 
The rules of engagement place the burden on U.S. air and ground troops to confirm with certainty that a Taliban fighter is armed before they can fire — even if they are 100 percent sure the target is the enemy. In some cases, aerial gunships have been denied permission to fire even though they reported that targets on the move were armed.
 
The proposed Bilateral Security Agreement announced Wednesday by Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Secretary of State John F. Kerry all but prohibits U.S. troops from entering dwellings during combat. …
 
“U.S. forces shall not enter Afghan homes for the purposes of military operations, except under extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk to life and limb of U.S. nationals,” Mr. Obama pledged in a letter to the Afghan leader.

 
The rules of engagement today also place restrictions on dwelling assaults, but Mr. Obama’s language of “extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk of life and limb” sets the bar much higher.

… (Rules of engagement limit the actions of U.S. troops and drones in Afghanistan; By Rowan Scarborough; Washington Times; 11/26/13)

 
The planned ROE for 2015:
 
 the recent New York Times article is that the original plan was to allow U.S. military forces in Afghanistan to attack al Qaeda targets (the counterterrorism mission) but not Taliban, Haqqani, or other non-al Qaeda targets (the combat mission?).
 
… the article suggests that U.S. forces will continue in 2015 to have authority to attack at least Taliban targets…though not based simply on positive identification of their membership status. Rather than status-based targeting, in other words, the contemplated rules of engagement will be threat-based. An unnamed senior official explains in the article:
 
“We will no longer target belligerents solely because they are members of the Taliban,” the official said. “To the extent that Taliban members directly threaten the United States and coalition forces in Afghanistan or provide direct support to Al Qaeda, however, we will take appropriate measures to keep Americans safe.”
 
 
This leaves the question whether status-based targeting will be an option for al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan. I’ve not seen it publicly stated that the military’s ROE in Afghanistan currently provides for status-based targeting, though I’m guessing that it does. Nothing in the article suggests that this would change in 2015, and indeed the emphasis on changing from status-based to some notion of threat-based targeting for Taliban fighters in 2015 implies that the rules will be otherwise (i.e., will remain status based) for al Qaeda.
 
 
AND SO Major Matt Golsteyn save lives but didn’t check to see if the Taliban was shooting at his Green Beret unit and some Marine engineers that were tasked to clear Taliban land mines. In 2011, the Free Beacon reports, that Major Golsteyn experienced the beginning of a military criminal investigation accused of “… an undisclosed violation of the military’s rules of engagement in combat for killing a known enemy fighter and bomb maker.
 
The accusation was baseless and unofficially based on Golsteyn’s criticism of the ROE that was quoted in the West book. So they stripped him of the well-deserved Silver Star.
 
In the process of researching this outrage I just found out more crap is proceeding from the influence of the Obama Administration:
 
Separations proceedings were initiated against Army Major Matt Golsteyn on the same day that Congressman Duncan Hunter (R., Calif.) published an article in the Daily Beast highlighting Golsteyn’s case, according to a letter obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
 
The letter, signed by Hunter and addressed to Secretary of the Army John McHugh, states the investigation into allegations of wrongdoing by Golsteyn began on November 29, 2011, and concluded on November 24, 2013, with no charges being pressed.
 
Hunter’s original article appeared on the the (sic) Daily Beast‘s website on Tuesday, February 3, 2015. The Army initiated proceedings to eject Golsteyn from the military the same day, the letter states.
 
The letter also raises questions about whether Golsteyn was offered appropriate due process in response to the decision to revoke his Silver Star made late last year, noting that, “denial of [Golsteyn’s] appeal appears not to have been reviewed by the appropriate authorityunderscored by the fact that Matt was notified of his record change via a system generated e-mail on January 8, 2015.” Hunter goes on to ask McHugh to confirm that the appeal was reviewed by the appropriate authority and was not influenced by McHugh’s office.
 
The letter also suggested that there had been “questionable actions” on the part of investigators during the course of the inquiry into Golsteyn, and offers to share information regarding those actions with McHugh’s office.
 
 
Hunter’s letter concludes by noting that “from the beginning, I have urged the Army to bring a case forward against Matt should the full scope of evidence point to a crime.”
 
However, instead of criminal charges, Golsteyn has faced exclusively administrative actions that offer little chance for self-defense, now including the initiation of proceedings to eject him from the Army after thirteen years of service.
 
 
Here’s a copy and pasted of Duncan’s letter to the Secretary of the Army John McHugh which I extracted from a PDF file linked from the Free Beacon with a Scribd link:
 
February 9, 2015
 
Honorable John McHugh Secretary of the Army 101 Army Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310
 
Dear Secretary McHugh:
 
The Army’s case against Major Mail Golsteyn continues to lack clarity and consistency. I am especially confused by your decision to revoke Matt’s valor awards without substantive justification—when Army officials have said that all decisions related to Matt now sit with his command following the conclusion of the investigation. Several individuals within the Army have indicated that decisions regarding Matt are being influenced from outside his command. I hope this is not the case.
 
Matt’s situation demands objectivity, which I fear has not been provided. Most recently, separation proceedings were initiated by Major General Richard Mustion, Human Resources Command, on February 3, 2015—the same morning I introduced Matt in a Daily Beast commentary indentifying (sic) failures in leadership. Such timing is unlikely a coincidence, given that the Army’s investigation started on November 29, 2011, and concluded on November 24, 2013.
 
In fact, you will recall that the Commander of Criminal Investigation Command was surprised to see Matt at Will Swenson’s Medal of Honor ceremony, stating that he thought Matt was no longer serving in the Army.  He too must have been confused by his own investigation.
 
That same investigation is what the Army is imposing on Matt’s command. Unfortunately, the investigation fails to thoroughly account for some information—including Matt’s relationship to Swenson and the Army’s conduct with both individuals. Questionable actions by investigating agents continued throughout the investigation—and I am willing, once again, to provide that information at your request.  Bottom line: I have serious concerns that the investigation into Matt was neither fair nor objective, yet the command is being asked to make judgments, reportedly under influence from Army leadership, on that same investigation.
 
Moreover, when you revoked Matt’s valor awards under your authority, it was stated that Matt is entitled to an appeal, and that the appeal would not bear the Army’s mark in any manner. Though denial of the appeal appears not have been reviewed by the proper authority— underscored by the fact that Matt was notified of his record change via a system generated email on January 8, 2015.  As such, I ask for confirmation that the appeal was reviewed by the proper authority—and not influenced by your office.  I would also like to make an official request for a detailed timeline of communications between your office and HRC related to the valor awards you personally revoked. This includes any communications pertaining to Matt’s appeal.
 
Mr. Secretary, from the beginning, I have urged the Army to bring a case forward against Matt should the full scope of evidence point to a crime. It’s been over three years since the Army started its investigation and a high-level operator has been sidelined as a result. Still, Man has yet to be charged with a crime or convicted of any wrongdoing.  Yet the Army is going to great lengths to administratively punish him.
 
You are probably aware that I have made several requests to discuss the latest developments in Man’s case. I hope you will reconsider
 
Sincerely
 
Duncan Hunter
Member of Congress
 
As Representative Hunter wrote in his letter, Major Matt Golsteyn was NEVER charged or tried in Military Court. Hence mustering out is a top down order probably politically inspired by vindictiveness associated with public criticism shared in a book. A CHARGE NEVER BROUGHT AGAINST Major Golsteyn!
 
It is my opinion that Golsteyn is a victim of the Obama purge (See HERE Military Purge BHO version Mission Accomplishedand HERE) of anyone in the military that has a contrary opinion on President Barack Hussein Obama’s policy on winning or I should say – LOSING – a war that was started by Islamic terrorists who were protected by a strict Sharia ruled Taliban-Afghan government. President Bush was correct when he let Americans know we are at war with Islamic fascists. In the latter days of his Presidency massive criticism against the war in Iraq saw President Bush walk-back his thoughts on Islam.
 
 
We’ve gone from a Bush walk-back to an Obama nearly promoting Islamic fascism with lies about his connections to a Muslim past, association with Jeremiah Wright’s buddy Louis Farrakhan (See also HERE), supporting al Qaeda terrorists in Libya and then trying to send deposed Qaddafi’s armaments to other pro-al-Qaeda terrorists to Jabhat al-Nusra which probably made its way to the of ISIS (or ISIL or IS or DAESH and etc.). Then obscuring those arms deals and eventual Benghazi debacle during the 2012 election by blaming a poorly made movie trailer about Mohammed that was basically accurate but with crude acting. Then Obama supported Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood winning its election and criticized Egypt’s generals for giving the Muslim Brotherhood the boot. Not to mention all the secret meetings with Muslim Brotherhood operatives (See HERE and HERE) and the Iranian government securing a deal that allows Iranian nuke-armed missiles. O yes, did I mention the good President has been cozy with Muslim Brotherhood operative Malik Obama – the President’s brother. I am sure some of my readers could list even more BHO coziness to Islam while maligning Christianity and Christian values.
 
I don’t know the constitutional situation for this thought. If Major Matt Golsteyn is indeed drummed out of the Army due to criticism made public in a book that the Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan are bogus AND a recipe for defeat. Then the current Republican Congress should take steps to overrule the Secretary of the Army and just go ahead and award the Constitutional Medal of Honor to Matt Golsteyn.
 
JRH 2/10/15

Please Support NCCR

*********************************
Afghanistan War Hero Stripped of Silver Star
Feature: Army Major Matt Golsteyn betrayed by cowardly leaders
 
February 6, 2015 5:00 am
 
By February 20th, 2010, the Battle of Marjah had been underway for a week. In order to seize the Afghan district—an IED-infested, Taliban-dominated collection of villages and crisscrossing canals and tree lines that were a defending fighter’s dream—the U.S. military had divided its force into thirds. A task force of more than a thousand U.S. Marines, accompanied by Afghan soldiers, assaulted the northern portion of Marjah. Ditto for the central portion of the district.
 
And the southern third? It had been attacked by a single U.S. Army Special Forces team consisting of nine men, accompanied by a handful of Marine engineers tasked with clearing bombs from the roads and a few hundred Afghan troops that were more of a babysitting case than true partners. Such a light American footprint on at least part of the battlefield would “put an Afghan face” on the operation, as the lingo went at the time.
 
As the Special Forces soldiers wore Afghan Army uniforms, the Taliban concluded that there were virtually no Americans on their southern flank. The fighting there was intense.
 
Having secured a defensive position in the heart of the Balakino Bazaar (picture the Bakara market in the film Black Hawk Down, but more impoverished) the Special Forces team, led by a captain named Matt Golsteyn, repeatedly attempted to expand their footprint, but regularly met fierce resistance. On the 20th, one of the team’s assaults into Taliban territory took a turn for the worse. An Afghan soldier was wounded and a vehicle got stuck in the mud as insurgents raked the coalition formation with gunfire.
 
Under heavy fire, Golsteyn, as Dan Lamothe of the Washington Post summarized this week, “ran about 150 meters to the trapped MRAP to retrieve a powerful 84mm Carl Gustav recoilless rifle, an anti-tank weapon. While moving under gunfire, he coordinated a medical evacuation for the wounded Afghan soldier and then opened fire with the Carl Gustav.”
 
Running through the open despite the fact that the Taliban had successfully pinned down the rest of his men, Golsteyn looked like he “was alone fighting 30 enemy fighters out in the poppy fields.” He then coordinated airstrikes from F/A-18 Hornets and a drone, silencing the enemy. The battle lasted four hours.
 
For his actions, Golsteyn was awarded the Silver Star, and was told that the medal would likely be upgraded to the Distinguished Service Cross (the Army’s equivalent of the Navy Cross, and second only to the Medal of Honor) after review by the Secretary of the Army. I can confirm that this was true because I was present at the ceremony where Golsteyn received his Silver Star, and personally overheard Lieutenant General John Mulholland, then the commander of the Army’s Special Operation’s Command, say that an upgrade was under consideration.
 
In fact, I know Golsteyn—now a major—well. I served alongside him in Marjah for months (though not on the 20th of February—I was among the thousands of Marines fighting elsewhere in the district that day) and can attest that he is one of the most courageous, dedicated, and honorable officers I encountered during my service in the military. He would give his life for the men he led without a moment’s thought—and he very nearly did, on several occasions. When we returned from our deployments and honors began to roll in for Golsteyn, I reflected that it is nice to see the good guys get recognized.
 
It didn’t last long. In 2011, shortly after a book by author and Marine Bing West came out that detailed Golsteyn’s heroism and quoted him making critical remarks about the American strategy in Afghanistan, I learned that the Army had launched a criminal investigation into his actions during the battle. (Again, full disclosure: I was also interviewed for that book, The Wrong War, and make a brief appearance in it.)
 
The investigation, apparently, had nothing to do with the acts of bravery that earned Golsteyn his medal. Instead, according to the Washington Post, which cited officials familiar with the case, it concerned “an undisclosed violation of the military’s rules of engagement in combat for killing a known enemy fighter and bomb maker.” The investigation stretched on for nearly two years, during which time the Army effectively put Golsteyn’s career on ice. In 2014, Golsteyn and his lawyer were informed that the investigation was finally complete. No charges were filed, but Golsteyn still wasn’t released from administrative limbo.
 
Alerted about the controversy by another Army officer, Captain Will Swenson, Congressman Duncan Hunter wrote last year to John McHugh, the secretary of the Army, asking about the status of Golsteyn’s seemingly endless career freeze. Apparently the secretary did not take kindly to the inquiry, as he responded in a letter last November that not only would he not be upgrading Golsteyn’s Silver Star to a Distinguished Service Cross, but would be revoking Golsteyn’s Silver Star entirely, a fact that Hunter revealed publicly in an article for the Daily Beast published on Tuesday.
 
The revocation of an award such as the Silver Star is extraordinarily rare, and typically would happen in the case of the recipient being convicted of a serious crime that in some way dishonored his service. But not only has Golsteyn not been convicted of a crime—he hasn’t even been charged with one.
 
McHugh would not reveal to Hunter specifically why he was taking his action beyond submitting the innuendo that he was privy to “derogatory information” regarding Golsteyn’s record. What could this information be? Who knows? Having, according to Hunter, spent years threatening Golsteyn’s men, searching for and failing “to find one piece of evidence to corroborate the allegation” that launched the investigation, the Army clearly decided to punish Golsteyn anyway, through publicly dishonoring him in a manner that allows him effectively no recourse or due process.
 
Such institutional cravenness is even more extraordinary when one considers the circumstances of Golsteyn’s service. Commissioned in 2002 out of West Point, he has served combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and was already the recipient of valor awards by the time he fought in Marjah. There, he and his handful of American soldiers succeeded in securing a big chunk of one of the deadliest places on earth at the time, under constant and intense opposition from the Taliban. Working with the local tribes, Golsteyn came to be recognized as one of the most successful officers in Helmand Province. The Taliban tried to kill him and his men again and again, and found themselves driven back every time. What success there was in Marjah was in no small part due to him.
 
Such is the quality of American military leadership that generals and political appointees like McHugh will send courageous soldiers like Golsteyn into incredibly difficult (some would suggest impossible) circumstances, then invest years in second-guessing their actions after the fact—and then, finding no evidence of wrongdoing, still publicly dishonor the man without giving him a chance to defend himself. Never mind the fact that if a Taliban bombmaker did in fact die in a violation of the rules of engagement, then in what topsy-turvy universe is that a bad thing? The veterans who had to risk their lives because of these ROEs have almost universally criticized them. Established and enforced by men sitting safely in Kabul and Washington who never shared the daily risks of Golsteyn and his soldiers, the rules were wrong and self-serving to begin with, a politicized effort that has, without question, caused the needless deaths of many young Americans.
 
In any event, if the Army truly does believe that Golsteyn violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, then they should charge him with a crime. If they can’t do that, then we must conclude that insufficient evidence of a crime exists, in which case Secretary McHugh should give him the Distinguished Service Cross he deserves.
 
Congressman Hunter pointed out in his article that a recent survey conducted by the Military Times revealed only 27 percent of the military felt that their leaders were looking out for the best interests of the troops. Golsteyn’s situation illustrates why this is the case, and is of a piece with the case of Will Swenson, whose Medal of Honor package was “lost” after he bitterly criticized his chain of command over the ROEs, or of Jim Gant, one of the most successful special operators of the last decade, who was nonetheless drummed out of the Army after running afoul of his superiors.
 
Golsteyn, Swenson, Gant, and others like them are led by men who interrupt their political intrigues and email flirtations with wealthy socialites only to crucify the troops actually doing the fighting when, for whatever reason, they become politically inconvenient—preferably, as with Golsteyn, in a manner that allows for no response or appeal.
 
Most Americans would take one look at Golsteyn’s record of service and call him a hero. The men who will not share Golsteyn’s risks, but who will hurl innuendoes at him after the fact and publicly dishonor him in a manner that allows him to mount no case on his own behalf? There’s a word for them too: cowards.
++++++++++++++++++++
Army revokes Green Beret’s Silver Star for killing known enemy and bomb-maker
 
February 7, 2015
 
 
Just when I think the news cannot possibly get any worse and it’s gonna be hard for me to find something to talk about – we hit a new low. The U.S. Army is hiding a deserter — Bowe Bergdahl. We have Army Lieutenant Clint Lorance in prison for killing the enemy. And my Army finds a way to go even lower.
 
As reported by the Washington Post, “CPT. Mathew L. Golsteyn was leading a Special Forces team in Afghanistan in 2010 when an 80-man mission he assembled to hunt insurgent snipers went awry. One of the unit’s five vehicles sank in mud, a gunshot incapacitated an Afghan soldier fighting alongside the Americans, and insurgents maneuvered on them to rake the soggy fields with machine-gun fire.”
 
“Golsteyn, already a decorated Green Beret officer, responded with calm resolve and braved enemy fire repeatedly that day, according to an Army summary of his actions. He received the Silver Star for valor for his actions during a 2011 ceremony at Fort Bragg, N.C. Top Army officials later approved him for an upgrade to the prestigious Distinguished Service Cross, second only to the Medal of Honor in recognizing combat heroism by U.S. soldiers.”
 
But here’s the kicker.
 
The Post says the officer, a former member of the 3rd Special Forces Group and graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., was later investigated for an undisclosed violation of the military’s rules of engagement in combat for killing a known enemy fighter and bomb maker, according to officials familiar with the case.”
 
The investigation closed last year without Golsteyn’s being charged with a crime, but Army Secretary John M. McHugh decided not only to deny Golsteyn the Distinguished Service Cross, but also to revoke his Silver Star. McHugh cited a provision in Army regulations that if facts become known that would have prevented the awarding of a medal, the award can be revoked.”
 
Ok, here we go again. How does one “violate the rules of engagement in combat by killing a known enemy fighter and bomb maker?” What does Secretary of the Army McHugh recommend — sharing MRE recipes?
 
Now, unless Major Golsteyn killed this enemy fighter by dismembering his body while alive, I truly don’t give a doggone. Remember the Combat Restraint Medal that was once considered? Well, thankfully it was defeated by those combat veterans who made their voices heard. But what kind of Army do we have now when we revoke medals for heroic actions because the same fella killed an enemy fighter! Doggone Secretary McHugh, that is what happens in COMBAT! And this is what happens when we’ve turned these positions into nothing but political appointments.
 
I’m beginning to believe we should just eliminate the Military Service Secretariats — Army, Navy, Air Force. We should just keep the Secretary of Defense organization. Think about the cost savings in the defense budget.
 
But back to the story at hand, “The decision is still shrouded in mystery because of the secretive nature of the Army’s investigation into Golsteyn, who did extensive work with U.S. Marines in and around Marja in Helmand province. A spokesman for McHugh’s office, Lt. Col. Chris Kasker, declined to comment Wednesday, citing the administrative nature of the decision. But he released details of Golsteyn’s service record that show he no longer has a Silver Star and is not in Special Forces anymore. The major earned a Bronze Star and Army Commendation medal with “V” devices for heroism in earlier actions, Kasker said.”
 
“Golsteyn joined the Army in 2002. “The Army has been unable to present substantive evidence while an overwhelming number of first-person accounts provided to Army investigators uphold Matt’s record as a top-level operator,” said Hunter’s letter, which the congressman’s office released to The Post.”
 
I am still looking for something specific as to what Major Golsteyn did to violate ROE in killing the enemy. How is it that a decision can be made to revoke awards for the action for which he earned them? If there was an issue with Golsteyn, you don’t revoke something he’s earned, you suspend any positive actions for the Soldier. And it seems that there is nothing substantiated from the Army’s investigation, so why didn’t they reinstate his awards — and upgrade?
 
This is the Army — the America — in which we are now living.
 
But I wonder if Golsteyn’s critique of the Afghanistan mission in the past has anything to do with this kerfluffle. The Post says, “In the 2011 Bing West book “The Wrong War: Grit, Strategy and the Way Out of Afghanistan,” he is quoted as saying that the Americans were considered insurgents in Afghanistan who were “selling a poor product called the Kabul government.” West later wrote in a review of a book about another Special Forces soldier, Maj. Jim Gant, that the careers of Gant, Golsteyn and a third Green Beret, Dan McKone, were “terminated,” assessing that the Army failed them.”
 
A deserter named Bowe Bergdahl may walk with $300,000 in back pay. A Special Forces Green Beret officer who faced the enemy and killed them gets his awards for heroism revoked. So let me end this asking a simple question.
 
Secretary McHugh, whose side are you on?
 
And by the way, if you’d like a dose of heroism, here is the full account of what then CPT Golsteyn did:
 
Golsteyn’s Silver Star came for actions on Feb. 20, 2010. He assembled his unit after his base had come under sniper fire from an insurgent wielding a Dragunov rifle, according to an Army narrative of his actions. He directed his troops to launch an assault across 700 meters of open fields, but an armored truck known as a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle sank into mud under gunfire after about 175 meters. Under heavy machine-gun and sniper fire, Golsteyn ran about 150 meters to the trapped MRAP to retrieve a powerful 84mm Carl Gustav recoilless rifle, an anti-tank weapon. While moving under gunfire, he coordinated a medical evacuation for the wounded Afghan soldier and then opened fire with the Carl Gustav, said the Army narrative, which was obtained by The Post. Captain Golsteyn was alone running in the open through enemy gun fire that had over 80 men pinned down, and from the crow’s nest on top of [Forward Operating Base] McQueary, it looked like Captain Golsteyn was alone fighting 30 enemy fighters out in the poppy fields,” the award narrative said. Enemy reinforcements continued to arrive on the battlefield, so Golsteyn organized airstrikes by both F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets and a Predator drone. No American or coalition troops were killed in the battle despite a barrage of enemy fire that lasted four hours, the narrative said.”
 
_______________________________
Obama Administration Disrespects War Hero
John R. Houk
© February 10, 2015
______________________________
Afghanistan War Hero Stripped of Silver Star
 
©2015 All Rights Reserved [Washington Free Beacon]
______________________________
Army revokes Green Beret’s Silver Star for killing known enemy and bomb-maker
 
Copyright @2014. AllenBWest.com, in association with Liberty Alliance. All rights reserved