Tag Archives: Martin Dempsey

There’s this from a former Joint Chiefs chairman …

Donald J. Trump’s self-congratulatory tweet about Memorial Day seems to have produced a fascinating reaction from another prominent American.

This comes from retired Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Dempsey tweeted:

This day, of all days of the year, should not be about any one of us. No matter how prestigious or powerful, no matter how successful we perceive ourselves to be. Rather, this day should be about those who gave their lives so that we could live ours in freedom.

Do you think Gen. Dempsey had anyone in mind when he wrote about how the day “should not be about any one of us”?

Sure he was!

Here is what Trump said:

This is how you honor fallen heroes? Nope

You figure it out.

Iraqi slope getting slippery

That slope that leads into Iraq is getting more slippery all the time.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, said it is “possible” that American ground troops will be brought back into Iraq to fight the Islamic State.


I believe this is the kind of thing the commander in chief, President Obama, said won’t happen.

“To be clear, if we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I will recommend that to the president,” Gen. Dempsey said in a testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Will the president heed the advice of his top military adviser? Therein lies the stickiest of wickets possible for the president.

His critics say the United States cannot defeat the Islamic State with just air power. They also suggest that our coalition-building, which worked pretty well in advance of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, is insufficient as well.

So, does the president act on his instincts and stay the course, which means “no boots on the ground” in Iraq? Or does he follow the advice of a team of four-star military brass — all of whom have substantial combat experience — and send “advisers” in with Iraqi troops to root out ISIL terrorists?

Can you say “conundrum”?

It’s my fervent hope that whatever “boots” hit the ground in Iraq remain on the feet of advisers and not on those of infantry or other troops trained in the combat arms.

Meanwhile, keep dropping bombs on the bad guys.

Let's hear plan? No, wait … that'll tip off the bad guys

These guys are killin’ me.

Critics of the president of the United States now say they want to hear his plans, in detail, on how he intends to “finish off” ISIS, the terror group running rampant in Syria and Iraq.


Do you get it? They want Barack Obama to reveal to congressional Republicans the precise manner in which he intends to battle the hideous terror organization. Then what? Will they blab to the world whether the president is on the right track or wrong track? Will they reveal to the ISIS commanders what they’ve learned? Will they tip our hand, giving the bad guys a heads up on where we’ll attack and how much force we’ll use?

I get that the critics want to be kept in the loop. I also get that they need to some things about how an international crisis is evolving.

There seems to be a limit, though, on how much a commander in chief should disclose to his political adversaries — let alone his allies — on how he is deploying military and intelligence assets to do battle with a sworn enemy. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., noted that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey are speaking out, but he wants to hear directly from the president.

Mr. Chairman, the defense boss and the Joint Chiefs chairman are speaking on behalf of the president. I’m betting they’re saying what he wants them to say.



Iraq terrorists 'beyond anything we've seen'

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has laid it out there.

The monsters who killed journalist James Foley comprise a group that surpasses any terror organization Americans have seen since the war on terror began.


We’re in for yet another fight for our lives. We’d better get ready.

This, I submit, is what we got when we declared war on international terrorism in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

“They’re beyond just a terrorist group,” Hagel said. “They marry ideology, sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess, they are tremendously well funded. This is beyond anything that we’ve seen. So we must prepare for everything. And the only way you do that is take a cold, steely, hard look at it and get ready.”

Hagel is referring to ISIL. They’re fighting in Syria against an enemy government and in Iraq against a friendly government. They’re vowing to bring the fight to the United States, which prompted Texas Gov. Rick Perry to suggest this week that the terror organization might already be lurking in this country.

I’m not going to suggest that we shouldn’t have declared war on terrorists after 9/11. They struck hard at us on that Tuesday morning in New York and Washington and we responded as we should have done.

Matters worsened when we invaded Iraq in March 2003 on the false premise that Iraqis possessed weapons of mass destruction that they would use against us and Israel.

What now? Do we re-enter the fight in Iraq with ground troops? Absolutely not. Do we invade Syria? Again, no.

President Barack Obama is deploying significant air power against the terror organization in Iraq. Reports indicate the strikes are working. Yes, the war must continue for as long as monsters keep killing innocent people.

Critics of the current strategy should recall the lessons of Vietnam. We fought tooth and nail there for nearly a decade. We left eventually and the communists took control of the country we fought to defend. We can commit ground troops in Iraq until hell freezes over, leave that country and the chaos we’re witnessing today will erupt.

What’s the solution?

Intense vigilance here at home against forces that seek to harm us. Yes, keep up the attacks on the Sunni extremists whom Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey describes as “an organization (that) has an apocalyptic, end-of-days strategic vision, and which will eventually have to be defeated.”

The question remains: How will we know — in this new age of open warfare — when our enemy is beaten?