Rumors of General Ham Being Relieved Could be True

Family Security Matters

Rumors have been swirling about General Carter Ham, commander of Africa  Command located in Stuttgart,  Germany, ever since Secretary of Defense Leon  Panetta announced that President Obama has nominated General David Rodriguez to  replace him. Those rumors have been adamantly denied by the Pentagon.

While on active duty as an army reservist during 2011 at the Special  Operations Command Europe, also headquartered in Stuttgart, I met newly arrived  General Ham at the annual Army Ball. He had just arrived in country and took  over Africom the day NATO initiated military air operations in Libya. Most  command tours of duty are at least three years unless the commander elects to  retire. I haven’t read anything about Gen. Ham intending to do so. He has only  been the commander of Africa Command less than 18 months.

I was forwarded an email from someone associated with the U.S. military in  Stuttgart. The email claims that when Gen. Ham was notified of the attack on the  U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, he took immediate action to send operational  forces there, only to be told by the Pentagon to “stand down.” As commander of  Africom, he would have been receiving the same information the CIA, Pentagon,  White House and National Security Council did from the U.S. embassy in Tripoli.  One of Africom’s missions is to conduct NEO’s (non-combatant evacuation  operations) in its area of responsibility. He rightfully voiced his objections  to the stand down and gave orders to deploy U.S. forces there anyway. When he  did, his deputy commander “apprehended” him and then relieved him of his  command. When I read the email description of this, I thought this was a scene  from a bad war movie.

Apprehending someone in the military is the equivalent of a civilian arrest.  Disobeying a lawful order is punishable by two-years of confinement and  reduction of rank, according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It would  be highly, highly, extraordinary for anyone to relieve a four-star general, let  alone “apprehend” him.

A week ago, Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette, Commander of an aircraft  carrier strike group positioned in the Middle East, was sent home to Washington  State pending the outcome of an undisclosed investigation. Coincidence? I hardly  think so. The admiral was most probably reading the same message traffic and  voiced his objections to “standing down.” Why else send him home for a tune up  by his superiors?

If the rumors are true, either Secretary Panetta gave the order to “stand  down” or he was told by the president to have General Ham do so. Whoever it was  obviously was above a four-star general’s pay grade.

Regardless, what happened in Benghazi is exactly why the army has various  military commands around the world. If this administration won’t use the assets  it has to protect U.S. personnel and one of its own ambassadors from harm’s way,  then why even have them?

If my sources of information are correct about the chain of events leading to  Gen. Ham’s departure, it further illustrates why liberals should never be  allowed to be in charge of national security. They simply do not have the  stomach for it.

The President and Secretary of State Clinton wanted to put a nice face on the  country’s relationship with the newly established fledgling Libyan government.  They portrayed the attack on the consulate as a spontaneous outburst by  protestors that got out of hand stemming from an obscure video defaming the  Prophet Mohammad. In reality, it was a  preplanned terrorist attack on the  anniversary of the September 11, 2001.

The word “terrorism” has essentially been erased from the vocabulary of this  administration, especially after the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Having an  attack by al-Qaeda factions on a consulate in a country the administration took  credit for liberating does not fit the template of a foreign policy success. A  cover up was launched, putting a lid on information until after next week’s  election.

Don’t count on the media asking hard questions about why Gen. Ham left his  command early and Rear Admiral Gaouette was sent home on “temporary duty.” The  answer to those questions would only amplify this administration’s limp-wristed  reaction to terrorist events and foreign policy failures. It would also further  demonstrate that President Obama has managed to severely deteriorate relations  in the Middle East.

Read more: Family Security Matters http://familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/rumors-of-general-ham-being-relieved-could-be-true#ixzz2B5RjlvJd Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

One thought on “Rumors of General Ham Being Relieved Could be True

  1. Does ANYONE really have an idea of just how GUILTY sotero is and just how far he is going to hide his treasonous acts and assure his reelection… PLEASE GET OUT AND VOTE….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s