David Petraeus On Renaming U.S. Military Bases
BY Herschel Smith
3 years, 10 months ago
As I have watched Confederate monuments being removed by state and local governments, and sometimes by the forceful will of the American people, the fact that 10 U.S. Army installations are named for Confederate officers has weighed on me. That number includes the Army’s largest base, one very special to many in uniform: Fort Bragg, in North Carolina. The highway sign for Bragg proclaims it home of the airborne and special operations forces. I had three assignments there during my career. Soldiers stationed at Bragg are rightly proud to serve in its elite units. Some call it “the Center of the Military Universe,” “the Mother Ship,” or even “Hallowed Ground.” But Braxton Bragg—the general for whom the base was named—served in the Confederate States Army.
The United States is now wrestling with repeated instances of abusive policing caught on camera, the legacies of systemic racism, the challenges of protecting freedoms enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights while thwarting criminals who seek to exploit lawful protests, and debates over symbols glorifying those who fought for the Confederacy in the Civil War. The way we resolve these issues will define our national identity for this century and beyond. Yesterday afternoon, an Army spokesperson said that Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy is now “open to a bipartisan discussion” on renaming the bases. That’s the right call. Once the names of these bases are stripped of the obscuring power of tradition and folklore, renaming the installations becomes an easy, even obvious, decision.
I wonder if this has weighed on him as much as his decision to become an adulterer and be unfaithful to his wife, violating her trust, his own vows, and God’s laws?
I wonder if this has weighed on him as much as putting into place a set of rules of engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq that killed and maimed American boys?
I wonder if this has weighed on him as much as his involvement in creating the completely bogus talking points about Benghazi, or leaving those American fighters there to perish without help?
I wonder if this has weighed on him as much as the violation of his oath to the constitution by advocating gun control?
I wonder if this has weighed on him as much as divulging classified information to Paula Broadwell?
Pardon me if I don’t give a rat’s ass what Petraeus wants to do concerning the names of military installations.
|
|
On June 24, 2020 at 10:56 pm, Randolph Scott said:
Well said, petraeus is a prick.
On June 25, 2020 at 12:57 am, Georgiaboy61 said:
The late Colonel David L. Hackworth (U.S. Army), one of this nation’s finest ever combat soldiers and a formidable leader and judge of men, coined an apt-descriptor of such creatures as David Petraeus. He called them “perfumed princes,” and went on to describe them as courtiers in uniform, bureaucrats and time-servers who happened to have stars on their epaulets and gold braid on their officer’s caps. Guys who didn’t take a crap without holding their finger aloft to see which way the political winds were blowing. Low and venal men with no firm set of principles save their own advancement and success. Weak, cowardly and corrupt men.
Petreaus is deserving of contempt for any number of reasons, many of which have been outlined already. But one deserves special mention: his betrayal of his officer’s oath of office to uphold and protect the U.S. Constitutional and Bill of Rights from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Specifically, Petraeus calling for gun-control, and the disarmament of ordinary Americans.
Going off somewhat at a tangent, Petraeus looks – if you will pardon the old-school language – to have “gone native,” vis-a-vis Islam, while in Afghanistan and in the Middle East. The term comes from the British; a long-time resident of colonial India, for example, who was there so long that he became more-Indian than British, would have been described as “going native.” T.E. Lawrence, a.k.a.Lawrence of Arabia, is the classic example of the phenomenon.
All of those earnest sermons to his troops reminding them to handle the “Holy Koran” with white gloves and the utmost respect, the cultural sensitivity training regarding his Muslim hosts, and all of the rest of it. The watershed moment came when he commanded U.S. forces in theater in Afghanistan, and a shipment of Bibles was sent in-theater by mistake. Petraeus could have quietly ordered them shipped back from whence they came, but instead ordered them destroyed – burned – to mollify his hosts. Burn a Koran? Never in a million years! That would be culturally-insensitive! Burn a Bible, that’s no problem for the good general….
Last seen, Petraeus was flogging the wonders of doing business with the Arab world on behalf of the K.K.R. Global Institute, an arm of the Kohlberg, Kravis and Roberts, Co. L.P. investment house.
The late Colonel John Boyd (U.S.A.F.), perhaps the finest military theorist this nation has ever produced, and a tireless advocate of military reform in his retirement, was famous while still on duty for button-holing young “blue-flamers” – junior-mid-level Air Force and other officers with rank-heavy futures on the horizon, and telling them that they would soon face a consequential choice: To be someone, or to do something.
Boyd would explain the fork in the road which would soon face the young up-and-comer: In one direction lay notoriety and fame, high rank and wealth. In the other, the chance to make a genuine contribution to the service, the nation and the national defense, but without the rank, pay and adulation.
Guys like David Petraeus, which are unfortunately of a type common to the armed forces, become “perfumed princes” and choose rank, prestige, notoriety and wealth over the road less-traveled by the iconoclasts, reformers, and others who want to get something of value done, even if it means they never make general/flag rank and don’t become famous or wealthy.
John Boyd was a man of such moral rectitude that he refused to take any gift or other form of payment which he thought would compromise his reputation for incorruptibility. He and his family lived in a small apartment when he could have chosen a much more-lavish existence for the cost of compromising himself once in a while. That’s where one of his nicknames came from, “The Ghetto Colonel.”
Petraeus wasn’t alone in his betrayal. He was joined around the same time by another much-celebrated “warrior” – former U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal, another guy who decided that the right to keep/bear arms wasn’t that important after all.
Inquiring minds want to know: Did these men betray their oaths willingly, or did someone have to do some arm-twisting or perhaps some blackmail? Or, as they say in Old Mexico, were they offered a choice between “plata o plomo” – silver (money) or lead ( bullets)?
On June 25, 2020 at 6:25 am, penses said:
“Did these men betray their oaths”….Does a bear s—t in the woods.
“The Praetorian Guard (cohortes praetoriae) was, in the Roman Republic, a commander’s personal bodyguard and then, in the imperial period, an elite force assigned to protect the emperor and Rome. Over the years, the guard would become a dangerous threat to imperial power and emperors were forced to gain its favour in order to ensure their reign. In the 1st and 2nd century CE many an emperor was murdered with Praetorian Guard involvement, and once one of their number, Macrinus, was even declared emperor. The body specifically created to protect the emperor’s person had become his greatest liability.”–ancienthistory.eu
Remember a few yrs ago a West Point Cadet had a Che Tshirt on at graduation. Tip of the iceberg. Most of your military are leftists educated at government think tanks run by the deep state. The Marxist march through the institutions included the military academies. Hackworth and Boyd were right. Now they are entrenched, allied with the deep state, and nothing but a full blown revolt will get them out.
The United States is not a country. Countries have borders. It is an Empire, interestingly enough, run by the British, but that is a whole ‘nother website.
Empires have Praetorian Guards. Up until now the FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA, SS, have functioned in that capacity, responding to their masters bidding and not (that piece of paper with words scribbled on it) the Constitution. The recent coup for example and the “riot theater” are deep state black ops which were common in ancient Rome. Sooner or later a modern day Praetorian Guard will emerge and start playing the role of “King Maker.” You’ll still have (that piece of paper with words scribbled on it) the Constitution. Peruse it at you leisure. Go ahead and save a copy. A few hundred yrs from now some of your decedents might dig it up and say, “Gee, that looks like a good idea.” Heaven forbid that ever happens. One Constitution is enough for humanity.
On June 25, 2020 at 7:46 am, Fred said:
@Penses, what makes the common era common?
On June 25, 2020 at 9:16 am, Herschel Smith said:
B.C. and A.D. is the proper way of referring to historical studies regardless of what they teach in colleges these days.
On June 25, 2020 at 9:24 am, Frank Clarke said:
Are you referring to Gen. David Betrayus?
On June 25, 2020 at 9:26 am, billrla said:
Might as well adopt the Soviet naming convention: State Military Installation No. 1, State Military Installation No. 2, State Military Installation No. 3, etc.
Everything is belong to the state.
On June 25, 2020 at 10:59 am, penses said:
Fred said: “what makes the common era common?” CE and BCE are the elimination of God as the fulcrum* of civilization. Don’t use the terms myself and never have. Never had much use for BC either. Ancient is my preferred got to; i.e., “In Ancient times God walked the earth with Enoch, and Abraham.” BC could be taken by some people to mean before God, which is never.
*The main thing needed to support something or to make it work or happen.
On June 25, 2020 at 11:37 am, NOG said:
Such things don’t weigh on the sociopath. It’s all about themselves and what they want. They don’t “feel” anything other than whats they want. His behavior is textbook. Most at the top exhibit the same. That is what one of the founders feared “Madame, a Republic if you can keep it”. That is why this government will fail.
On June 25, 2020 at 12:35 pm, Herschel Smith said:
@penses,
The point of referring to eras of history as B.C. and A.D. is the recognition of the fact that the advent, Crucifixion and resurrection are the focal points in all of history. History before then looked forward to that, history since then has been a function of that.
Without this context, history is skewed and its understanding is wrong.
I’ll always use B.C. and A.D. just as my church history professors did.
On June 25, 2020 at 6:56 pm, MW said:
As one who studied both Latin & the Classics in high school, circa the late 1960’s, I still prefer B.C. & A.D. (Anno Domini). I really despise all this historical revision nonsense that has proliferated in the early part of the 21st century. It seems history itself has been bastardized by both political correctness & leftist politics.
On occasion, I like to use the Latin I learned well over a half century ago. One day, I was talking to a paralegal on the phone and injected the phrase modus operandi into the conversation which is actually New Latin. I could tell she had know idea what it meant. Well, I defined it for her. It’s Latin for a method of procedure. Her reply, “what’s Latin?” Not to be outdone, several years ago, I bought a few items at a discount store. Took them to the very young cashier and told her to do the arithmetic. She looked at me somewhat puzzled, and said what’s that? Enough said!
On June 27, 2020 at 9:07 am, Todd said:
Saint petraeus is now trying to be woke. Positioning himself for a top spot in the Biden administration perhaps? Are there any generals and admirals left that adhere to their oath of office anymore? Any with a moral,compass? Any who understand communism and Islam? Any Christians left in uniform?
On June 27, 2020 at 9:15 am, Todd said:
Excellent share georgiaboy. The choice, here is how petraeus and politicians justify their choice: I can’t “do something” f I’m not “someone.” pols say they need to become a swamp creature to effect the changes that their electorate put them in office to do. Once the satanic types in/around the levers of power get their claws in you (tapes of you falling for a honey trap, taking bribe money, or even good old fashioned lynching via the media) They are owned, never to wander off the plantation until death. You ever wonder why Biden types stay in office forever? Why Hillary had to win? Gotta pay back your blackmailers. Ever wonder why politicians are morally defective? They are the easiest to find leverage on.