McRaven, former SOCOM head, resigns from Pentagon board following Trump criticism

| September 14, 2018 | 199 Comments

mcraven

Talk about a flaming crash and burn. He’s got a choice gig at a pricey Defense think tank, and in a fit of, what, stupid?, he penned a scathing op-ed at the Washington Post, slamming President Trump. To no surprise, a few days later and he’s out the door, suffering from self-inflicted wounds.

McRaven resigned from the Defense Innovation Board, a group of technology leaders and innovators tasked with advising the secretary of defense on pertinent issues, on Aug. 20, four days after he posted a scathing op-ed in the Washington Post calling out Trump for revoking the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan.

“Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation,” McRaven wrote to Trump in the Post. “If you think for a moment that your McCarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken. The criticism will continue until you become the leader we prayed you would be.”

McRaven’s photo has been removed from the DIB website, and Lt. Col. Michelle Baldanza, a Pentagon spokeswoman, confirmed that McRaven resigned from his post on the DIB. She added that “The Department appreciates his service and contribution on the board.”

Never met the man, all I know of him was what I viewed in media. I have problems with his comments, especially the “..divided us as a nation..” which came about some eight years before Trump’s election. A Four-Star in the Obama administration? That alone smacks of Perfumed Prince syndrome.

You may view the rest of Defense News’ article Here

Category: "Teh Stoopid"

Comments (199)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. SgtBob says:

    McRaven thinks a lot of himself.

  2. 26Limabeans says:

    Bye Felicia

  3. Yef says:

    Lol, I literally fell to the floor laughing.
    Check this out:

    McRaven, William H. (2017). Make Your Bed: Little Things That Can Change Your Life…And Maybe the World. Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 1455570249.

    Did you get it?

    • AW1Ed says:

      The book mirrors his speech.

      Mcraven’s University of Texas at Austin 2014 Commencement Address

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      “Little Things You Can Do” – I’d love to give him some little things, but that involves the use of a tent needle and thread.

      Not getting enough attention, is he? Too sad.

    • RGR 4-78 says:

      “Make your bed”, well, he has certainly done that, I wonder how much it will change his life.

      • Tony180A says:

        Former JSOC CDR, CINC USSOCOM, UT System Chancellor. Resigning from DIB won’t affect his life at all.

        • 2/17 Air Cav says:

          Tony 180A. Then being a member must not have affected him either. So, why was he a member. He clearly didn’t need the item on his resume, as you listing suggests. He was a member for yucks? Because he was bored? Or did he hope to assert some influence in the decision making and now that hope is gone? I’ll take door #3 myself.

      • Thunderstixx says:

        He will now be a huge part of the liberal smear machine and will now be part of every lousy MSM talk show.
        He will be a darling of the clown news network and the rest of them too…
        We have to vote this time or we will either lose the country or end up in a hot civil war, and that is something that nobody wants…

        • NHSparky says:

          I won’t pretend to speak for those who wear the Trident, but I will say this, and YMMV:

          He’ll be pimped on most of the usual outlets as FORMER NAVY SEAL (which he certainly is, and has earned) as the end-all, be-all, authority, despite the fact he hasn’t pulled a trigger or led anyone in the field since a year starting with a “1” in it.

          Again, just my .02 worth.

          • Tony180A says:

            Show me a Flag Officer thats breaching doors and I’ll show you a plan that has gone to shit.

            • 11B-Mailclerk says:

              Korea. MG William Dean, commander 24th ID

              Killed a tank with a grenade, amoung many other actions, while personally leading a series of desperate delaying actions, against overwhelming odds.

              MoH and CIB.

              A whole lot of “plan gone to shit” in that war.

              • Tony180A says:

                Yes, the walking General. No doubt about the plan going to shit. Actually it was the bazooka gunner who took out the tank but MG Dean acting as his spotter was close enough to probably feel some ricochet.

                • 11B-Mailclerk says:

                  Still, a pretty high standard for personal conduct of GO/FO, and one that should be pointedly reminded to any others.

                  That man didn’t have “quit” in him.

                  • Mason says:

                    You’ve also got the example of Ted Roosevelt (TR Jr.) who demanded to lead the troops onto Utah beach, despite needing a cane to walk.

                    Instead of trying to get to their assigned locations from where they landed he said, “We’ll start the war from right here!”

                    He got the MoH for it, which joined his DSC and silver stars from the first world war.

                    • Hondo says:

                      You don’t say. (smile)

                      https://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=32999

                      In addition to the MoH, TR Jr. was also awarded the Silver Star for heroism in action during World War II. He died in theater – of a heart attack in his sleep. Orders appointing him commander of the 90th Inf Div were on Eisenhower’s desk awaiting signature at the time of his death.

            • NHSparky says:

              True, but my (admittedly limited) experience with the ratified air in which flag officers dwell is that the farther one is removed from said operational days, the greater the disconnect.

              Again, I’ve seen guys who were incredible JO’s and LPO’s, but by the time they became Squadron or above dwellers, they really did forget about what it was like at sea (or just stopped caring.)

  4. Tony180A says:

    After writing the OPED I find it completely understandable that he resigned from the DIB. Fairly safe to say he’s sitting on a few boards so this won’t hurt him.

  5. Jeff LPH 3, 63-66 says:

    As I’ve commented the same thing before and it goes like this- Any bird can lay an egg but not anyone can lay an egg. Stan Laurel quote from the flick “Out West”

  6. Mason says:

    Don’t feel bad for him, he’ll land on his feet. Plenty of leftist “news” organizations will be happy to give him money for expert commentary. He’s such a bootlick to the agenda that he might even get a VP or SecState nod if a Democrat ever cons/schemes/cheats/steals their way into the White House again.

  7. Timothy B Catha says:

    “Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage”

    It would have been more appropriate to address those comments to his fellow “warriors” who gave us the clusterfumble in Niger and other places.

  8. Ex-PH2 says:

    He seems to want attention rather a lot. The best thing to do is NOT give it to him.

    I’d bet a donut he’d knock on your cubicle wall if you didn’t give him attention.

  9. Cthulhu says:

    Yeah, we definitely can’t have anyone working in anything related to government criticizing the president or his policies.

    I mean what kind of country does he think this is? A free one? A democracy?

    I mean seriously, he should have known better. Our greater leader should never be question, criticized, or disobeyed.

    • David says:

      I wonder if you notice how many people gave not one flying fuck at your hamhanded excuse for sarcasm?

    • W2 says:

      Sorry dude, you’ve hit the echo chamber. Prepare to be dog piled by thinking out of the box and questioning the pathological liar (who isn’t really a pathological liar, it’s just the lamestream media and fake news). Now, if you want to talk shit about President Obama, the big dog or hildecankles you’ll find a receptive audience.

      • Tony180A says:

        Surely no one on TAH would get a wedge up their ass over anyone disparaging President Trump or calling him disrespectful names… Those are the rules right??

        • AW1Ed says:

          As long as you’re not accusing him of causing hurricanes or other idiocy. If you have a valid point, fine. You’ll catch flak from the usual suspects, of course, but you know and expect it. LC comes here all the time with different viewpoints.

    • rgr769 says:

      Hey Cunthulu, are you our new proglodyte troll?

    • Fyrfighter says:

      Sorry Cthulhu, that administration that shall not be questioned ended over a year.. stiull waiting to see what the hell he got the nobel peace prize for…

    • desert says:

      You go to hell socialist!

    • timactual says:

      There is no lack of criticism of Trump, one more is not going to raise an eyebrow. Did you ever think the subject of the criticism might make a difference? All that bile over revoking the clearance of a former civil servant who doesn’t need it anymore? Folks here are right, it’s just some former somebody going “Look at me! See how important I am!” trying to be relevant again. It’s tough giving up all those Admiral perks and status and becoming just another bureaucratic hack looking for an ego boost.

      • LC says:

        All that bile over revoking the clearance of a former civil servant who doesn’t need it anymore?

        Generally speaking, high level people who have decades of experience keep their clearances (not carte blanche access to information) not for their sake, as they can’t access anything without being read-in, but so that whomever has taken over for them can call on them to draw on their expertise. In the IC, operations can span decades, and many times things depend on nuance that isn’t fully captured by op reports.

        We let people who can help our protect national security keep their clearances for our sake, not theirs.

  10. Garold says:

    Why does Brennan need a clearance again? Oh, that’s right, in case Trump seeks his advice.

  11. Club Manager, USA ret. says:

    Ummmm, Mr. McRaven, please keep our safety policy in mind when leaving the building and don’t let the door hit you in the ass.

  12. W2 says:

    Glad nobody can disagree with anybody else. How’s life in that echo chamber? The sound of like minded voices must be so comforting.

    • Hondo says:

      Private disagreement with the POTUS is one thing. Public disagreement of this nature by a senior member of that Administration is a different matter entirely.

      As a member of the Defense Innovation Board, McRaven was senior advisor to the SECDEF. That in turn made him a senior member of of the Trump administration. As such, calling the POTUS an “embarrassment” is kinda . . . well, “in extremely poor taste” is an understatement.

      I’d expect an officer in any of the uniformed services to understand that. If you don’t, then why don’t you try writing a public OP/ED to the Navy Times the next time you disagree with your ship’s captain (or 05/O6 level shore-duty commander if you’re not assigned to a ship) – and in that OP/ED, publicly refer to your CO by name as an “embarrassment to the Navy”.

      I also wouldn’t try the same (publicly calling your boss an “embarrassment”) in any form of civilian employment, either. Yes, you’re free to do that – and your boss is also generally free to fire you for cause afterwards.

      The proper way for McRaven to have done this would have been to have resigned all Trump Administration positions first, then write the OP/ED. At least he had the decency to resign after the fact.

      • Reddevil says:

        That’s not how it works.

        The DIB is a federal advisory committee; membership does not make one a senior member of the administration, nor does it make Trump their ‘boss’. Mattis is the closest thing to a boss for the DIB, and he really just tells them what he wants them to look at. They are not compensated for their work (other than per diem and travel), and their only role is to give advice. As far as I can tell McRaven was the only military member of the board, which includes Neil DeGrasse Tyson and the COO of Instagram

        The DIBs purpose is to advise the SecDef advice on ‘people and culture; technology and capabilities; and practices and operations’. So in a very real way, he was fulfilling his role by telling the President that revoking the clearances of political enemies is bad for the people and culture of DoD.

        .

        • W2 says:

          Oh stop trying to inject facts into this conversation. Their minds are totally made up. McRaven = asshole for not agreeing with the president. Lord only knows everybody around here keeps their comments about previous presidents respectful.

        • Hondo says:

          Actually it does work that way.

          The DIB is a federal advisory committee . . .

          This means the DIB is selected and appointed by a senior official of the Executive Branch – in the DIB’s case, I believe it’s technically appointed by the SECDEF or one of his Assistant or Under Secretaries. They are thus working for and are a part of the Executive Branch, albeit in an unpaid but very senior advisory capacity. Specifically, they are direct advisors to the SECDEF, a Cabinet-level official. That in turn makes current members part of the Trump Administration. (The POTUS is head of the Executive Branch, remember?)

          The DIBs purpose is to advise the SecDef . . .

          This indicates a very high level of responsibility. In the Federal civil service, that would probably equate to a SL/ST position. That’s in general considered a “senior” position.

          Finally, McRaven went public with his criticism in the press. I don’t know with certainty, but given the timing I highly doubt that he passed his concerns through channels – which would have been the proper thing for an advisor to do – before doing so. Ergo, his OP/ED piece was designed for one thing only: to criticize his boss’s boss, the POTUS, publicly.

          So, what we had in McRaven’s case was (1) someone who was a a senior advisor in Trump’s Administration (e.g., a member of the DIB) (2) publicly call the POTUS an “embarrassment” (3) while still working for the POTUS. It’s that last point that is problematic and distasteful. I’d have far less of an issue with what McRaven did had he publicly resigned from the DIB first, then written his OP/ED piece as justification for doing so.

          Bottom line: if you are working for someone and you think they are screwing up “by the numbers”, the professional thing to do is to tell them so privately. If they don’t take your advice and you feel strongly enough about the issue, quit – and then make your opinion known as publicly as you like.

          • 2/17 Air Cav says:

            And when each day is done, Donald Trump is president, chief executive, and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Many of us suffered for 8 long years. It’s only just that the left suffers, too. The difference is that suffering under Trump means a healthy economy, fewer food stampers (generic), more jobs, less unemployment, and lower taxes than under that clown who drew imaginary red lines and advocated Arab Spring Flings. Benghazi. Suffer bitches. And have a nice day.

            • W2 says:

              Oh, how you suffered. Snowflake.

            • Peter_Olinto says:

              With all due respect, Air Cav, from an economic perspective, job-growth has been increasing for about 95 consecutive months. Economic Plans that were developed in the former administration are now bearing fruit in the current administration. There are very few economic actions – outside of capital injections or other emergency actions -that show results almost instantly.

              I am not a “lefty” or a “righty”, I’m just stating economic trends. Also, the lower taxes added ~$1 trillion to our outstanding debt. I am all for the lowest taxes possible, but only after we take care of the responsibility of our debt first.

              You have to remember that credit is still relatively cheap. The 10 year treasury just went over 3% briefly yesterday. I would like to see how the economy fairs when interest rates continue to rise into 2019, or when the 2 year curve tops the 10-year (curve inversion), which had been a historically trusted indicator of a recession. Who will we blame them?

              Let’s not even mention trade tensions.

              • Ex-PH2 says:

                96 months of job growth? On what planet, Olinto?

                Uemployment under yo boy bodaprez rose from 7.3% in December 2008 to 9.0% in September 2011, and crawled its way back to 5.0% by September 2016, while yo’ boy bodaprez was still sitting in the Oval Office with his feet up on his desk. (There are photos of him like that. Go look them up.) Unemployment dropped to 4.6% in November 2016 – coincides with after the election results – and is now holding steady at a low of 3.9%
                under Trump.

                Those of Bureau of Labor statistics, you moron. I don’t have to make up things to satisfy the demands of your butthurt weak ego and your idiotic desire to have your entire existence dictated to you.
                Oh, yeah – if you don’t agree with the attitudes of people who have been commenting here for a very long time, remember that no one is forcing you to stick around. Start your own blog. Then you can whine all you like, even if no one is listening.

                • Peter_Olinto says:

                  You just proved my point that the jobs situation improved since 2008..

                  Are you really implying that an election had drastic, instantaneous results on something as lagging as jobs data??

                  You are quick to insult, showing your true lack of intelligence in regards to this subject matter.

                  Why do you assume whom I voted for? Of What relevance is that?

                  I am free to read what I want, when I want. And you clearly haven’t read my prior posts in regards to most commentators here.

                  • Peter_Olinto says:

                    Correction: job creation has improved since 2011, not 2008. So ~ 95 months.

                  • Ex-PH2 says:

                    Moi? Quick to insult? Oh, no, just following in YOUR footsteps, you despicably arrogant pseudo-intellectual snotblower.
                    Oh, and while I’m at it:
                    your is the possessive of ‘you’
                    you’re is the contracted form of ‘you are’. Again, you provide sufficient evidence to prove your status as an attention whore.

                    • Peter_Olinto says:

                      You still are skirting the fact that you proved my statement with your statistics.

                      What have I ever wrote on this blog that was insulting? As I recall, you were the first one to call me a moron.

                  • NHSparky says:

                    Improved relative to what?

                    We were buried in shit up to our chests, but it’s better than being up to our necks?

                    Sure, if you say so.

                    I seem to recall a president who had the second lowest GDP growth EVER, with not one single year hitting 3 percent.

                    Trump, first year out the gate, 4+ percent. Tell me that doesn’t reflect in my check and the purchasing power thereof.

                    • Peter_Olinto says:

                      GDP doesn’t just adjust overnight, like a enacted tax plan. You have to look at the trend of GDP over years, not months. Rising GDP also usually equates to rising inflation, which most certainly would effect your purchasing power.

                      I’m not assuming that you just read headlines, but based on your statement, it seems as if you do.

                • Peter_Olinto says:

                  Correction: Job rates have improved since 2011, not 2008. 95/12 = 7.9 yrs. so yes.

                • Peter_Olinto says:

                  Also, you clearly have no understanding of economic trend analysis whatsoever. You can’t even decipher something as simple as a decreasing unemployment rate and correlate it to who is in office.

                  I bet your the type who points solely to CPI data as a measure of real inflation. Amateur.

                  • Ex-PH2 says:

                    No, you moron. The gas price signs at the gas station are better indicators of inflation than the CPI.
                    The chained CPI deducts percentage points from the standard CPI.
                    REAL inflation occurs on your grocery store receipts, but since you don’t deign to keep those, you lose that argument, too.

                    • Peter_Olinto says:

                      Gas prices, while they do trend with general inflation, are in more relation to supply – the more production, the cheaper the gas. This is why gas prices can spike when inflation is relatively low (under 2%).

                      Nice google search of CPI though, I’m glad that you are attempting to learn.

                      You still didn’t address that your unemployment numbers agreed with my original statement.

                      Nice insults though.

              • timactual says:

                Is that the job growth RATE or the number of jobs or what, precisely? Job growth, for example, increased even during the Great Depression.

                True, there is a lag in economic trends, but eight years? Perhaps you have overlooked the TRILLION dollar stimulus (AKA the Obama slush fund) or the years of “Quantitative Easing”. And somehow, by some odd coincidence, all those measure seem to be taking effect AFTER Trump takes over.

                Pull the other one.

                “the lower taxes added ~$1 trillion to our outstanding debt.”

                BS. Income tax receipts have set a new record this year. Perhaps increased spending has some connection to an increased debt.

                I recommend Accounting 101 at your local Community College.

                Perhaps the economy will fare as well as it did in the 80s and 90s when 10 yr. rates were substantially higher.

                http://www.multpl.com/10-year-treasury-rate/table/by-year
                https://www.macrotrends.net/2015/fed-funds-rate-historical-chart

                https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/Historic-LongTerm-Rate-Data-Visualization.aspx

                • Peter_Olinto says:

                  What’s your point? You do realize that in your second chart proves that with each great rise in the fed fund rates is historically followed by a recession, which was my point exactly.

                  Took 101 and aced it. In fact, we didn’t cover much of the federal funds rate, which by the way is the overnight lending rate that the fed gives banks. It’s not a 10 year treasury, which I was referring to. That was more Econ 101.

                  And yes, that is the effect on the lower tax rate. Check out Q-o-Q and Y-o-Y debt balances on the feds website.

                • Peter_Olinto says:

                  Oh and to your point of income tax receipts ( not sure if your source) of course they would be at a record high, because unemployment is at a record low: more jobs = more tax income for the govt. Evenso, those tax receipts wouldn’t event put a dent in our outstanding debt, which by the way we continue to auction off massive amounts of treasuries each week.

                  • timactual says:

                    ” those tax receipts wouldn’t event put a dent in our outstanding debt, which by the way we continue to auction off massive amounts of treasuries each week.”

                    Glad to see you recognize that increased spending is the problem, not tax cuts.

                    ” of course they would be at a record high…”

                    “… proves that with each great rise in the fed fund rates is historically followed by a recession,…”

                    Define “great”. There are plenty of peaks in that chart that are not followed by recession. You might also consider that perhaps “correlation is not causation”, and consider some multivariate analysis.

          • LC says:

            Specifically, they are direct advisors to the SECDEF, a Cabinet-level official. That in turn makes current members part of the Trump Administration. (The POTUS is head of the Executive Branch, remember?)

            So you consider the COO of Instragram, Marne Levine, to be a member of the Trump administration? And Neil DeGrasse Tyson, of the Hayden Planetarium, the same? Even though these people meet a few times a year at best, and as part of their charter are supposed to provide independent advice?

            I guarantee you that it’d be news to most of these people that they’re members of the Trump administration because, in a desire to help their country, they are asked for their independent input on matters of innovation for DoD.

            This notion that if you work in an independent capacity for a federal advisory board that reports to a cabinet member you’re magically a member of the current administration is a ludicrous stretch.

            • rgr769 says:

              You forgot to include Bill Nye the Science Guy.

            • Ex-PH2 says:

              Yes, but you missed the real point, LC, which is that McRaven did not discuss his differences with the President, nor did he resign and THEN write his op-ed piece.

              He was part of an advisory board. If he disagreed with Trump’s policies, he should have approached Trump about it first, and THEN left the job and written his op-ed.

              Instead, he did something that is, even in WDC, socially moronic and left the job afterwards.

            • Hondo says:

              Not a stretch at all. Advisory committees have a long history in the Federal government – back to at least 1951 with Truman and his Science Advisory Committee, and to the General Advisory Committee of the AEC (which predates the SAC).

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Science_Advisory_Committee

              Those appointed to such boards directly advise senior leaders of the Federal government on matters of national importance on an as-needed basis. The boards are entities created and funded by (and sometimes, disbanded by) the Federal government. (Nixon disbanded the PSAB in 1973; Bush-41 effectively reinstated it as the PCAST in 1990.) Members are appointed to serve on those boards, just like a Federal civilian employee is appointed to serve. Appointment to the board is generally considered a high honor. And unless I’m misreading things, members can be fired and/or asked to resign.

              In short, they are appointed to serve on an entity of the Federal government; are appointed by senior officials of the Executive Branch; and their job is to advise the President and/or other senior policy makers on matters of national interest when requested to do so; and they serve at the pleasure of the appointing official (or, alternatively, for a fixed term or until they resign). Sounds kinda like a member of whatever Administration is “running the show” to me.

              YMMV, and with your ideological bent it probably will – until the shoe is on the other foot one day. They I suspect you just might feel differently.

  13. Tobias Took says:

    Does he still have his Security Clearance?

  14. SEAL TWO says:

    I have “met the man…”. I knew him when I was with the Teams, and didn’t like him then,either. My take on the entire “statement” episode: He’s counting on Trump losing in 2020, and was setting himself up for a cabinet position with the next President. He’s a dirtbag who doesn’t ever do anything without calculation, and certainly doesn’t do anything unless there’s something in it for McRaven. In the Teams, we usually don’t air dirty laundry in public, but after his attack on Trump, he deserves whatever anyone throws at him. Glad he’s gone.

  15. 100E says:

    It’s said there are two types of Generals … Parade Generals, and Warrior Generals. Colin Powell was a “Parade General”, while “Stormin Norman” was a Warrior General. Both cut their teeth in the same war. I’ll add a third category … a Political General. Powell was that as well, but McRaven (how’s that for a name of the head of SOCOM?), was certainly a political player. He’s no ‘Ike’!

  16. FatCircles0311 says:

    This guy is a die hard Leftist. Even after his God King Obama sacrificed him at the alter, he drinks all the kool aid to atone for his sins. He’s stuck on the stupid setting. Obama’s military strikes again. People like this weasel are scary though.

    • FatCircles0311 says:

      Every metric available showing improvement for American and it’s citizens equates to “humiliation” for this guy. What fucking side is this dipshit on because it’s certainly not America’s when The Feelz trump legitimate measure statistics that matter.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        I’d say he wants to be the King.

        But there’s a reason we don’t have kings in this country. They suck. They get to be so inbred they’re almost insane.

        Now the Celts, in their wisdom, did what the Danes also did later on. (See Hamlet about this.) They elected their kings, but when the King could’t produce children, they executed him and elected a new one.

        The Danes might have done the same thing – bump the old king off and elect a new one. But the Danes were basically another tribe of Vikings.

        • SaraSnipe says:

          The Druid would execute the chief by opening them up to see what was inside. That way the Druid could foretell the future. It makes perfect sense, and keeps the candidates for the job in line.

    • Tony180A says:

      How did President Obama sacrifice Admiral McRaven?

  17. NHSparky says:

    Yup, he definitely made his bed.

  18. 5th/77thFA says:

    Everyone has a right to their opinion. Everyone has the right to free speech. They should also have the right to good sense and how and when to use such rights. Unfortunately the good sense right ain’t in the Constitution. How did the Chief on Heat of The Night say it? “You have the right to say not one damn word.” Know when to hold them.

  19. mr.sharkman says:

    He’s far, far from being a ‘perfumed prince’.

    He kicked more than his share of doors as he moved up thru the ranks.

    His book on the history of special operations basically cause a rewrite of mission planning for US SOF.

    Funny thing is this – flag ranks are supposed to fall on their swords, resign their commisions, etc. when they need to protest/make a stand/etc. Right?

    So the Admiral does this (instead of keeping nice and safe by not rocking th boat), and he is treated disrespectfully for doing the right thing.

    WTF, Over?

    • AW1Ed says:

      An opinion I can respect. Thanks, mr.s.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        Sharkman, the proper way to address your discontent with The Boss’s policies is to go to The Boss and speak to him directly. Then, if you still can’t resolve your differences, leave the job in a graceful manner, and if you still disagree and want to say so publicly, you are on your own time, NOT The Boss’s time.

        McRaven did not do this. He is/was an advisor. He was NOT The Boss. Now he just looks like arrogant and egotistical, which destroys his public credibility.

        See my comment below about this. His behavior was grossly inappropriate.

    • Hondo says:

      mr. sharkman: while I disagree with McRaven, I have some respect for the man due to his resigning from the DIB.

      I would have more respect for him had he resigned from the DIB, then gone public with his disagreement with the POTUS.

      The proper sequence for a senior official or advisor who disagrees with policy is (1) make your disagreement known through channels first; (2) resign/retire if you feel strongly enough about the issue; and then – and only then – (3) go public.

      McRaven reversed steps (2) and (3) – e.g., he went public first, then resigned. That is my primary beef with his actions here.

      He has the right to do that, but IMO doing so is far less professional than resigning first.

      • desert says:

        I don’t respect the A.H. he was probably told to put his resignation on the desk or get his ass kicked out! which is what SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED imho!

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        My question, Hondo, is this: if he disagrees so much with Trump’s decisions and methods, and the DIB is essentially an advisory board, why didn’t McRaven speak to Trump directly, person to person? He could subsequently have resigned his position with some dignity and looked less like a snot-nosed whiner with a self-involved agenda.

        It a self-serving move to air your disagreements publicly like this and then ditch the job because it appears that he was told to clean out his desk and leave the keys to the office door on the boss’s desk.

        It isn’t just a bad idea, politically. It shows that McRaven is a social moron who did this with no thought to any consequences down the road.

        If he was setting himself up to run for office, he’s doing it for the glory and for himself, NOT for any public good.

      • rgr769 says:

        He likely resigned because someone told him he was going to resign.

        • timactual says:

          Today’s word is—
          Sinecure;
          “a position requiring little or no work but giving the holder status or financial benefit.”

          He likely resigned because his position on the DIB wasn’t ging him as much status as he needed.

          Speaking of the DIB; Imagine, a small bureaucratic organization with no real power or influence filled with part-time names to promote innovation in the bureaucacy. Like teaching creative writing without having students or a classroom.

    • Tony180A says:

      Careful Sharkman, there are those who believe he hasn’t pulled a trigger or led anyone in the field since a year starting with a 1. I had to fucking laugh. The JSOC CDR not leading troops in the field….

    • NHSparky says:

      Fair enough, but as I stated above, the CNN/MSNBC/NYT/WAPO ilk will hold him up as somehow representative of the entire SPECWAR community, when he is most certainly not, and holds no more moral authority over any other SEAL than does any other.

      His delivery was questionable, and yeah, I would say it would have carried a lot more weight had he resigned first, THEN called out Trump.

      Finally, high ranking official or not, I’m still not seeing the need to keep a clearance after one leaves office or retires. Just my .02.

  20. I certainly admired the ADM when he was SOCOM head. This is another lesson for us where if you have clear confidence in your adult judgement and understanding of the world and of people. you have t the balls to say even to the admiral that he is full of shit and makes you wonder if he wasn’t also part of the Deep State..all along. So..”you make your bed in the morning”..now you sleep in it Admiral without the former admiration and respect of millions and millions of Americans, both in uniform and out. I am sure POTUS would have gladly agreed to a private face to face with an honored combat hero such as McRaven about this or any other issue. It appears he is shooting for a broader and more visible and higher stage in anticipation of a future run in politics.Sad. CAPT Bones USN (ret)

  21. JaynTN says:

    Well he is no David Hackworth for sure. But he has done his time and said his piece, he then got the hell out so thanks for the memories.

  22. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    W2 wrote:

    “Safe space for air cav. He can’t accept different viewpoints. Maybe he needs a hug and some art therapy. The right, just like the left, is such a bunch of pussy assed babies. Boo hoo, he called you he President a liar. For somebody who has lived on Gkd’s Green earth as long as you, you are such a little sissy boy, Waaaah!”

    I couldn’t reply to that above. I guess there’s a limit on the number of replies, but I don’t want anyone to overlook it. I got a good chuckle out of it. You need a lot more practice, son. Or did you swipe it from a little kid? You might want to ease up on advertising and broadcasting your weaknesses, although I admit to enjoying them. Frustrated much?

  23. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    I am once again forced to write a new comment even though it’s a reply to one above. Go figure.

    Pter_Olinto wrote to me: “You have to admit though, while entertaining, that W2 does speak a bit of truth when it comes to those who always have the same argument/comment themes on here.”

    When the topics are similar, as they are here, of course the comments seem rote-like and predictable. Aside from some recent newcomers to this site, I can look at a topic and know who is coming out on which side of it, how strongly, and in what fashion. I see nothing surprising in that. From time to time here, we;ve had some great exchanges and, contrary to W2’s misrepresentation, we don’t all march to the same drummer all of the time. But he has now gone on some silly and juvenile attack and deserves a timeout. It will be sufficient if he sits in a chair alone for 15 minutes doing nothing other than pondering his wayward ways. Then, he can take a nap and I’ll have some milk and cookies for him.

    • Peter_Olinto says:

      I can agree that W2 has unfortunately stooped to the lower level of issuing insults. As to the consistency of the commentators here, it’s ok to have your own opinion, and a consistent one at that; but to chastise people who have different opinions is unacceptable. Also, the fact that some commentators here wear their like-minded thinking as a badge of honor is somewhat pathetic, wouldn’t you agree? What type of person in their right mind wants to always read articles they agree with, or spend time with people who always agree with them.

      While I do think W2 is being a bit immature, I understand his/her underlying tone.

      • Peter_Olinto says:

        Oh and one more thing. The established commentators here should welcome new commentators, not attempt to shun them via insults just because they disagree. More commentators = more distribution of TAH. It’s ok to have a debate.

        Don’t you want more than 30 comments per article that just agree with each other?

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        Some folks will deliver a dissertation in reply to someone with whom they disagree and, in the end, the wrongheaded individual is unchanged. Others, when faced with the same situation, will reply with, “GFY you commie bastard,” and, in the ebd, the wrongheaded individual is unchanged. Intelligent, give and take discussions break out here now and then (and,lately, more then than now) but this isn’t a Book of the Month Club meeting place or a debating society. It is what it is. Like it? Stay. Don’t? Go. Everything else is mental masturbation.

    • AW1Ed says:

      You and I have gone knuckles a couple of times, Cav, and that’s fine. You have every right to voice your opinions here, wouldn’t have it any other way. Even stuff-shirts like Peter_Olinto. I just ignore the trash.

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        Sure. And we will again. Ever need a hand? I’m there.

      • Peter_Olinto says:

        Clearly you didn’t ignore me, because you felt the need to reference me in your comment. Along with another great insult. So I’m ‘trash’ am I? That’s rich. Enjoy your pedestal while it lasts.

        • AW1Ed says:

          Reading comprehension is your friend. You’re the stuffed-shirt, not the trash. Feel better?

          • Peter_Olinto says:

            My apologies, I mistakenly though your period was a comma. Nevertheless, what is a ‘stuffed-shirt’? I believe that’s before my time.

            • Hondo says:

              Nevertheless, what is a ‘stuffed-shirt’? I believe that’s before my time.

              Well, Olinto, since I’d guess no one’s going to spoon-feed you the answer that means you have two choices:

              1. Be lazy, and remain ignorant; or
              2. Look it up for yourself.

              Your choice. Google is reputedly easy to use – and includes multiple dictionary sites, I’m told.

              Oh, and I wouldn’t pat myself too much on the back about your knowledge of economics. Your use of “job creation” statistics above is both somewhat inaccurate and hugely misleading. But I suspect you might well know the latter – and could be doing so intentionally.

              • Peter_Olinto says:

                Ok, wasn’t asking you, but thank you for the recommendation.

                So, what is the best metric you would like to use to analyze the unemployment rate that disproves my statement? Are you not in agreement that the unemployment rate has improved since 2011? Which had nothing to do with this current administration.

                • Hondo says:

                  The basic issues I have with your use of job creation is that you were incorrect in your assertion, and you purport to say something meaningful when it in fact you don’t. First: job growth has not been “increasing” each month for the past 95 months. For that to be true, that would mean each month uniformly showed as many or more jobs created than the previous month.

                  Per BLS job creation data for the past decade, that is decidedly NOT the case. However, since Sep 2010 job growth has indeed been greater than zero each month – with some months showing strong job growth and some months barely showing any at all. Perhaps “positive job growth” is what you actually meant to say vice “increasing job growth”.

                  Second: job creation, taken alone, is a meaningless number. What matters is whether job creation plus departures from the workforce equals or exceeds (preferably exceeds) entrants to the workforce over a prolonged period of time.

                  IMO no single economic indicator is adequate to fully explain the state of the US economy. But there is one that comes reasonably close – and it’s not job creation or one of the various unemployment figures. Unemployment rates range from being only somewhat useful to effectively worthless.

                  U3 unemployment is a virtually meaningless statistic. It does not include those who have become discouraged and no longer look for work because they think it’s pointless, but who still want to work; it also doesn’t include some other categories that should be considered to give an accurate picture. It also includes those working part time by force vice choice as being “employed”. In truth, the latter group is only partially employed and would willingly work full-time were full-time work available.

                  U6 unemployment is somewhat better, but it still ignores those discouraged workers who have quit looking but still want to work. For that reason, if you want a single number that’s not a great choice either (though it’s far better than U3). Further, like U3 it also tends to be misleading at the beginning of a recovery (since it includes U3 as a component), tending to increase during the early stages of a recovery as formerly discouraged workers begin looking again.

                  You want a single number metric, use the US civilian labor participation rate – e.g., the fraction of the noninstitutional US population that is actually working or actively seeking work. That number fairly well tracks actual economic conditions (e.g., it goes up when the economy is booming and drops during hard times). It also makes common sense – good economic times tend to be those when jobs are plentiful and unemployment is low; you’d expect that combination to result in a larger fraction of the US civilian labor force being gainfully employed. Even so, it’s not perfect. It shares the U3 flaw of counting those involuntarily employed part-time as “employed”. But IMO its the best single economic metric to use to assess the state of the US economy.

                  Those numbers are available – and they tell a far different story than you’re claiming. BLUF: do the math, and you’ll see we needed somewhere around 5M more jobs than existed in Jan 2017 for the same fraction of the US labor force as was employed in Jan 2009.

                  There was no Obama Administration “recovery”. What we had was 2 years of recession followed by 6 years of relatively stagnant economic performance – though, thankfully, it was also a time of relatively low inflation as well.

                  Further, after a significant recession (and, usually, a change of Administrations), history indicates that absent a major external perturbation it takes 1-2 years for the incoming new Administration’s policies to take full effect. (See both the Carter and Reagan administrations for examples.) So yes, you are correct that the current “in the toilet” state of the US labor participation rate – barely above Carter-era levels – is likely due to Obama Administration policies, as you say above.

                  Why? Because changing the direction of the US economy is like stopping a heavily loaded freight train moving downhill at 60MPH. You can do it, but it takes a while – recent history says 1-2 years.

                  • Peter_Olinto says:

                    Hondo,

                    I agree with everything you posted except for the job need/level comparison comparing 2009 to 2017.

                    A lot has changed the 7 years as tech has advanced and a good amount of jobs have become obsolete.

                    I’m not for Obama just to be clear.

                    • Hondo says:

                      Well, you shouldn’t have agreed with everything else. I found two unintentional errors in what I originally wrote above.

                      Where I originally wrote “US civilian labor “pool”” above I should have written “noninstitutional US population”. Where I wrote “that is actually working” above I should have written “that is actually working or actively seeking work”. Those errors are now corrected.

                      That’s what I get for fact-checking almost thoroughly enough before posting. (smile)

                      I don’t concede the point about the difference in labor participation rate between Jan 2009 and Jan 2017 being irrelevant. Here are the BLS numbers for Jan 2009 and Jan 2017.

                      Jan 2009: LPR, 65.5%, Labor Force: 154,603,000, Unemployment rate, 7.8%; calculated # Unemployed, 12,509,000; calculated US Civilian Noninstitutional Population: 236,035,000

                      Jan 2017: LPR, 62.9%; Labor Force, 159,718,000; Unemployment Rate, 4.8%; calculated # Unemployed, 7,646,000; calculated US Noninstitutional Civilian Population, 253,924,000

                      Equivalent LPR to Jan 2009 would have required a labor force of 166,302,000 – or 6.4M more persons in the labor force. Adjusting for the difference in U3 labor rates gives a difference of a bit less than 5.4M for number of additional jobs required to return the US to 65.5% LPR and 7.8% U3 in Jan 2017. If you want to retain the 4.8% U3 rate with the Jan 2009 LPR of 65.5%, roughly 6.4M more jobs would be required.

                      Your point about job obsolescence is IMO a non sequitur. Jobs becoming obsolete and going away has happened throughout history. The solution to that, in a healthy economy, is additional job creation in other areas to employ those whose former jobs are now obsolete and the acceptance of those new jobs by workers displaced through job obsolescence. Painful? Yes. But that second part hasn’t really happened to date yet – and if the economy were truly healthy, it would have by now.

                      Data Sources:

                      https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
                      https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
                      https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11000000

              • Ex-PH2 says:

                Ne répondez pas à ça, Hondo. Il ne fait rien d’autre que d’essayer de contrôler ce fil-ci. Il est comme des ordures, doit être enlevé fréquemment. Il avait claqué probablement la tête contre le mur quand il fué bébé.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      And, Olinto, you are quite unobservant if you think we ALL think alike and ALL agree with each other ALL the time.

      There are no clones here, despite your misperception that there are.

      And as I said, you can start your very own blog and say whatever you like. No one is forcing you to remain here.

      • W2 says:

        But TAH still has the best poser exposes. Thanks Dave and Scotty.

      • Peter_Olinto says:

        Placing all caps to add emphasis to your statements is quite amusing. Somewhat reminds me of when my grandfather learned how to text on iPhone. I believe italics is the proper way.

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          There are no Italians here.

          • Peter_Olinto says:

            Your point being? Did you not adjust your computer screen to 1000% font or the font to 90?

          • Ex-PH2 says:

            1 – I wasn’t put on this Earth to accommodate you and your swollen ego.
            2 – You’re so sure that you’re smarter than everyone else, so try translating this:
            Dsd: bleat4 novi = asedf 98+/-1.575g
            24v + klgfv = 235og9 – (8asdgjn42)
            Ciao!

            • Peter_Olinto says:

              I never wrote that I more intellectual than anyone on this blog. All I stated was knowledge that I have learned. If that’s something that makes you uncomfortable, or that you feel that I am acting egotistical by doing so, then you need to check your insecurity meter.

              As for the all caps – yes it is a pet peeve of mine; but my no means was I attempting to make myself seem as if I was more intillectual than anyone.

        • timactual says:

          I, for one, plead guilty to technological ignorance. If I ever learn to use italics, smiley faces, etc., I will use them. Until then, I use what I know. Sorry it offends your delicate sensibilities.

          Perhaps you have a solution? Some website or something that can teach this old dog how to bark more grammatically? Always open to suggestions (within reason).

      • Peter_Olinto says:

        You are correct though, not everyone agrees with each other on this blog. I do recall when you referred to an actual SEAL as a coward.

        I never said that all were alike though, I would never be that presumptuous.

        Stop using all caps to add emphasis, it looks as if you are referencing acronyms.

    • W2 says:

      Maybe i’ll quietly turn my tool Barrio Barretto style during my time out for questioning the stately and always right 2/17 Air Cav.

  24. Bruno Stachel says:

    Does anyone else suspect that we may have a troll posting here under two separate names?

    Closely examine the timing, content, and tone of the numerous exchanges between W2 and Peter_Olinto throughout this thread, as well their remarkably similar posts that are directed at others, particularly towards AW1Ed and 2/17 Air Cav.

    It would appear that W2 is also probably Peter_Olinto.

    Perhaps one of the moderators could confirm this with an IP address check.

  25. NHSparky says:

    My point, Tony, is that he’s long removed from the field ops and into the political realm, as are many of his senority. Few if any officers reach flag rank without playing politics, and doing it well.

    I have a far greater respect for Admiral McRaven than I did for (thankfully) former Governor Greitens (MO), who most certainly was a political hack from the second he took his commission.

    Try not to read too much into what people say, good sir.

  26. Mike W. says:

    ANOTHER ‘holier than thou’ Flag Officer who will soon be telling us [ if he hasn’t already! ] that “us” people don’t need semi-automatic rifles ’cause he wuz a SEAL and is so much better than me !
    If you worked for Obama and prospered, you weren’t doing your job for the troops/mission accomplishment. You were licking the boots of a scumbag socialist.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *