No Commentary About the Spencer/Esper/Gallagher Flap?

[InTheLight]

I find the lack of posts about the Secretary of Navy Spencer's firing (resignation?), Trump's tweets about it, Gallagher's dismissal of the thing as being about egos, and SecDef Esper's complaint about Spencer going behind his back, to be curious, given the number of veterans on this board.

Does anybody want to chime in?

For reference, here is an article about it:
Pentagon chief fires Navy secretary over SEAL controversy

 

[Benjamin]

I've been watching it. Early on, I said, whoever is responsible for setting up this review to take Gallagher's pin and go against the President needs to be FIRED. ...because their lack of loyalty is on display.

P.S. I've felt strong enough about this injustice that I donated to Gallagher's defense fund...
.

 

[Revmitchell]

I find the lack of posts about the Secretary of Navy Spencer's firing (resignation?), Trump's tweets about it, Gallagher's dismissal of the thing as being about egos, and SecDef Esper's complaint about Spencer going behind his back, to be curious, given the number of veterans on this board.

Does anybody want to chime in?

For reference, here is an article about it:
Pentagon chief fires Navy secretary over SEAL controversy

He needed to go. That is all

 

[StefanM]

He shouldn't have gone around the Defense Secretary. His letter only sounds like a disingenuous attempt at self-justification.

He doesn't have to like the decisions the President makes, and he doesn't have to like the decisions the Defense Secretary makes. But unless he is being ordered to take an illegal action and has already objected to the order, he has no business skipping up in the chain of command. If it isn't an illegal order, then his option is to execute the order or to resign.

 

[InTheLight]

It seems to me that SecDef Esper was out of the loop for the whole thing and seemed to react by trying to assert authority and fired Spencer.

I don't blame Spencer for not taking Trump's tweet saying Gallagher would not lose his status as official policy, considering there was a hearing set for next week on that very matter. Really, is the military supposed to accept Trump's tweets as official policy? Or consider his tweets as an order from the Commander in Chief?

 

[StefanM]

It seems to me that SecDef Esper was out of the loop for the whole thing and seemed to react by trying to assert authority and fired Spencer.

I don't blame Spencer for not taking Trump's tweet saying Gallagher would not lose his status as official policy, considering there was a hearing set for next week on that very matter. Really, is the military supposed to accept Trump's tweets as official policy? Or consider his tweets as an order from the Commander in Chief?

They should ask for clarification. Easy call here--ask the Defense Secretary if it is an order. If told yes, then act. If told no, then don't. If the Defense secretary says it was an order, then it becomes an order from the Defense Secretary.

 

[InTheLight]

They should ask for clarification. Easy call here--ask the Defense Secretary if it is an order. If told yes, then act. If told no, then don't. If the Defense secretary says it was an order, then it becomes an order from the Defense Secretary.

Yes, but Esper was in favor of the hearing to strip away his Trident pin (his Navy Seal status.) So Spencer was faced with Trump's tweet saying Gallagher would never lose his pin, and Esper's position that there would be a hearing on whether or not to take the pin.

Now suppose Spencer follows your suggestion. He goes to Esper and says, "Is this an order from the President not to take away Seal status from Gallagher?"

Now what?

You think Esper is going to ask Trump, "When you tweeted the other day about Gallagher, was that an official order not to have his pin stripped?" or "Should we cancel the hearing?"

It's possible Spencer (allegedly) went to the President for clarification in order to keep his boss Esper from being put in an embarrassing position. His reward was to get fired.

 

[StefanM]

Yes, but Esper was in favor of the hearing to strip away his Trident pin (his Navy Seal status.) So Spencer was faced with Trump's tweet saying Gallagher would never lose his pin, and Esper's position that there would be a hearing on whether or not to take the pin.

Now suppose Spencer follows your suggestion. He goes to Esper and says, "Is this an order from the President not to take away Seal status from Gallagher?"

Now what?

You think Esper is going to ask Trump, "When you tweeted the other day about Gallagher, was that an official order not to have his pin stripped?" or "Should we cancel the hearing?"

No, he wouldn't ask Trump. But it would be a clear order from a superior (the Defense Secretary).

No matter what, this is likely a job-ending situation. But if he follows the chain of command, he can at least claim that he was following protocol.

 

[Benjamin]

I don't blame Spencer for not taking Trump's tweet...

I do, it was an act of defiance that showed his distaste for his Commander in Chief. He had his answer, pulling this stunt about mouthing off about tweets again demonstrated his distaste for the President and rightly sealed his fate.

Anyone and everyone involved in pushing this defiant act in any way should get the ax.

 

[Revmitchell]

It seems to me that SecDef Esper was out of the loop for the whole thing and seemed to react by trying to assert authority and fired Spencer.

I don't blame Spencer for not taking Trump's tweet saying Gallagher would not lose his status as official policy, considering there was a hearing set for next week on that very matter. Really, is the military supposed to accept Trump's tweets as official policy? Or consider his tweets as an order from the Commander in Chief?

Sooo...you believe the only time Trump said anything about it was in a tweet?

 

[InTheLight]

I do, it was an act of defiance that showed his distaste for his Commander in Chief. He had his answer, pulling this stunt about mouthing off about tweets again demonstrated his distaste for the President and rightly sealed his fate.

Hang on a sec. So when Trump tweets, "Lock her up," and the FBI does not go and arrest Hillary Clinton, it is an act of defiance by the FBI? See what I mean? How can you take Trump's tweets as policy?

 

[InTheLight]

Sooo...you believe the only time Trump said anything about it was in a tweet?

Not necessarily. But that is what Spencer is apparently saying.

 

[Revmitchell]

Not necessarily. But that is what Spencer is apparently saying.

Well he has lost all credibility at this point. I feel confident there is far far more to the story than that.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Have we considered this angle? When a scapegoat case reaches the public eye, it's bound to give the organization a black one. Once the top man signaled his support for doing the right thing, they should have cleared every step with him—that's the loop. Anything else is essentially insubordination. Of course, it would have been better had they not created a scapegoat case in the first place.

"A lot of people were upset by this result, where Eddie Gallagher is the only person that gets punished, despite the entire platoon being in the picture, including his superior officer," Tim Parlatore, one of Gallagher's attorneys, told Task & Purpose.

Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher's Family Is Asking Trump for a Presidential Pardon​

 

[Adonia]

I find the lack of posts about the Secretary of Navy Spencer's firing (resignation?), Trump's tweets about it, Gallagher's dismissal of the thing as being about egos, and SecDef Esper's complaint about Spencer going behind his back, to be curious, given the number of veterans on this board.

Does anybody want to chime in?

For reference, here is an article about it:
Pentagon chief fires Navy secretary over SEAL controversy

At first I thought Trump was right in butting in, but then again he (Gallagher) had his day in court and from that point on in regards to him keeping his "Trident" and not losing any rank maybe those things should have been left for the military to decide. He was acquitted of the most serious charges and just left with the "posing with a corpse" charge. Surely that infraction deserved some punishment?

 

[Rob_BW]

Today's lesson, if you're telling the public one thing and your boss's boss another, you should probably let your boss know.

 

[carpro]

Not necessarily. But that is what Spencer is apparently saying.

Trump did not fire Spencer. Esper did.

Spencer jumped the chain of command and Esper asked Trump's permission to fire him and got it.

How this turns out if Spencer doesn't get stupid is anybody's guess.

But the actual facts of the firing are very straight forward.