" (The) basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation."
Well, the General Ham Panetta refers to has been relieved of command with no official explanation but there is this account floating about the internet.
The information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.According to Fox News Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette who commanded the USS John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group was relieved of command in the midst of his deployment and replaced by Adm. Troy M. Shoemaker until an investigation can be completed. The Navy did not reveal details of the allegations, citing only an accusation of "inappropriate leadership judgment" that arose during the strike group's deployment to the Middle East.
General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.
It could be that Adm. Gaouette's "inappropriate leadership judgment" had nothing to do with Benghazi but when the Pentagon sacks two ranking officers in as many weeks and offers only vague explanations it invites suspicion that something untoward is afoot.
Update: General Ham is leaving the army. See this post.
Thank you for this.
ReplyDelete