Marine commander relieved of command after calling out military leaders for Afghanistan withdrawal

I have been avoiding this one, but finally watched the video. He came across more credibly and calmly than I expected. And he may be right, but I understand why he was relieved of his command. The military is not and cannot be a democratic place. Leaders need to be able to make decisions and issue commands with the expectation that they will be carried out to the best of their troops abilities. And without public descension or criticism. Its just how things have to work. It got Douglas MacArthur fired...

I do think it is important for troops to raise concerns to their higher ups, but this should not be done publicly. Nothing wrong with it being done publicly at the political level by retired military or civilians, that is an important part of our process as well.

His criticisms were a bit short on detail, the only specific I heard was that he thought we should have held Bagram Air Base to the end. I am not competent to comment on that; but I do know in situations like this it is very hard to know the right thing to do, but very easy to criticize what is being done. The overriding good here is that we are getting out, but like everyone else I wish we were getting out in a more peaceful and orderly way. I am just not sure how possible that is.
 

He acknowledges that what he did was not appropriate for a person in his unique position.

"On Friday afternoon, Scheller shared another post to Facebook announcing that he had been relieved of command.

“My chain of command is doing exactly what I would do… if I were in their shoes,” he wrote."

He allowed his heart to overrule his head and, apparently, accepts the consequences.
 
Irwin said:
He was complaining about our strategy — not about the mission itself, or corruption, or anything like that. The decisions regarding our withdrawal from Afghanistan were made by generals and other top level military including the Commander in Chief who have far more information than he has. Second guessing those decisions and complaining on social media isn't helping anyone.
Click to expand...
"A house divided against itself cannot stand." A truism that applies in all sorts of situations but most of all it applies to the defence forces. Unless there is corruption it is imperative to use proper channels and not give the enemy any chance to divide and conquer. Wars are won with propaganda as much as they are with guns.
 
Warrigal said:
Godwin rule.
Click to expand...
Had to look that up:

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is a saying made by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states: "As a discussion on the Internet grows longer, the likelihood of a person/s being compared to Hitler or another Nazi, increases." That means that as more people talk on the Internet for a longer time, it becomes more and more likely that someone will talk about Hitler or the Nazis.

Good point Warrigal, it is getting overdone.

Of course illegal orders that violate international law, like the Geneva Convention, are different from incompetent orders. Soldiers do have the obligation not to carryout illegal orders. Not that it is easy... soldiers in that position are often between a rock and an hard place.
 
Warrigal said:
Godwin rule.
Click to expand...

Usually, I'll call that as well, especially in political arguments. But in this case lives have been lost and lives are still at stake. The horrifically bad leadership in this situation in no way compares to Nazi genocide, but @Murrmurr 's point was that there's precedent for blindly following leaders who have made decisions that needlessly cost lives. Granted, that's an extreme example.
 
fmdog44 said:
I don't agree with the degree of punishment but he HAD to know he was headed for trouble doing that. It just might be younger people are too accustomed to social media in every day life.
Click to expand...

He did know. He's stated that knew exactly what would happen before he made the comments and that he agrees with the disciplinary action. As someone pointed out above, General MacArthur was relieved of his command for criticizing Truman ...that was long before social media.
 
Back to the original post, Scheller wrote:

“I’m not saying we’ve got to be in Afghanistan forever, but I am saying: Did any of you throw your rank on the table and say ‘hey, it’s a bad idea to evacuate Bagram Airfield, a strategic airbase, before we evacuate everyone,’” asked Marine Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller in a recent video shared to Facebook and LinkedIn.

What is the connection between Bagram Airfield and our evacuation efforts? I don't see how keeping the airfield open would have helped with the evacuation. It would have left us with that much more work to do after everyone was evacuated.
 
AnnieA said:
Usually, I'll call that as well, especially in political arguments. But in this case lives have been lost and lives are still at stake. The horrifically bad leadership in this situation in no way compares to Nazi genocide, but @Murrmurr 's point was that there's precedent for blindly following leaders who have made decisions that needlessly cost lives. Granted, that's an extreme example.
Click to expand...
I think there is a difference.

Following incompetent orders has always been a problem in warfare, and it has often cost lives. So long as wars involve people it will always happen, all we can do is try to limit it. We civilians are free to debate the competence of what's happening, I believe that will help reduce incompetence. The members of the military however are not, not publicly anyway.

However following illegal orders, as happened with the Nazis is the intentional taking of lives for no military reason. That is illegal and we should be able to eliminate it, or eliminate it on our side. I don't believe this is the case in Afghanistan, not with respect to our Troops anyway.
 
Alligatorob said:
I think there is a difference.

Following incompetent orders has always been a problem in warfare, and it has often cost lives. So long as wars involve people it will always happen, all we can do is try to limit it. We civilians are free to debate the competence of what's happening, I believe that will help reduce incompetence. The members of the military however are not, not publicly anyway.

However following illegal orders, as happened with the Nazis is the intentional taking of lives for no military reason. That is illegal and we should be able to eliminate it, or eliminate it on our side. I don't believe this is the case in Afghanistan, not with respect to our Troops anyway.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, the operation wasn't illegal (I do wonder if that's debatable, though), but it didn't adhere to the agreement made with NATO. And some news reports said that the US president did not inform NATO that our DOD decided to go with their own plan.
 
Irwin said:
Back to the original post, Scheller wrote:

“I’m not saying we’ve got to be in Afghanistan forever, but I am saying: Did any of you throw your rank on the table and say ‘hey, it’s a bad idea to evacuate Bagram Airfield, a strategic airbase, before we evacuate everyone,’” asked Marine Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller in a recent video shared to Facebook and LinkedIn.

What is the connection between Bagram Airfield and our evacuation efforts? I don't see how keeping the airfield open would have helped with the evacuation. It would have left us with that much more work to do after everyone was evacuated.
Click to expand...

Leaving Afghanistan would've eventually meant evacuating Bagram. But we snuck out like cowards in the wee hours of the morning without informing Afghan allies and leaving billions of dollars of US equipment when the precedent is to destroy it.

As one reporter from Baghdad noted: "...Just feet from [Taliban] were soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division, one of the US Army's most storied units. The look on the Americans' faces was one I hadn't seen before. It was seething humiliation."

I've already posted above about how one of our congressmen who visited Baghdad stated: “I’ve never seen more people cry, just salty Marines, seasoned State Department veterans just break down in tears, talking about their work..."

I doubt Sheller will be the last to stand up for truth and damn the consequences. Our military men and women did not sign up to risk their lives only to be needlessly humiliated and sacrificed. Incompetence over the last few weeks has insulted their willingness to die for us though more than the 13 who recently were killed will likely die due to that incompetence.
 
The bodies of our dead heroes (12 Marines and 1 Navy Hospitalman) are on their way to Dover AFB, Dover, DE. The families should also be in attendance to meet their plane. I have to wonder if the Commander in Chief will also be there.

I would hope that we have a National moment of silence for these heroes. RIP my brothers in arms.
 
Murrmurr said:
it didn't adhere to the agreement made with NATO. And some news reports said that the US president did not inform NATO that our DOD decided to go with their own plan.
Click to expand...
If true that is not a good thing, like you I don't know if it was illegal, but certainly not the right thing to do. Problem is we may never know what all was said to or agreed to by NATO and our allies, much of that communication is secret.
 
Murrmurr said:
A whole lot of Nazis just followed orders, no questions asked, no protests for the sake of humanity, no fecks given.
Click to expand...
Yes, they were just "Following Orders."
They knew "It was their job."
Nathan said:
Yep, following orders- that's how it works in the military...no questions asked, no protests for the sake of humanity, no fecks given.

When I was in the Army, a soldier could become a "conscientious objector" if they didn't think the war in Vietnam was righteous. But, most of the "COs" as they were called were draftees, whereas the U.S. military today is strictly all-volunteer, so I'm not sure how that would play out.

Lt. William Calley's(My Lai incident) defense attempted to use the "illegal order" defense to shield Calley from prosecution...didn't much work.
Click to expand...
Yes, Rape, Torture & Murder - all part of Following Orders & "Being a Hero."
 
Nathan said:
Rape, Torture & Murder is an individual's actions not sanctioned by the military.
Click to expand...
I think that is right, certainly not legally.

Even in Nazi Germany there is evidence that the soldiers had the right to refuse, see https://www.deseret.com/1995/3/9/19...-kill-jews-did-not-die-researcher-says-at-byu and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Befehlsnotstand.

However I am sure most German Nazi soldiers believed that such a refusal would result in their own executions, making the decision to refuse at the time a very difficult one.
 
Last edited:
win231 said:
As in many occupations, anyone who speaks out about something or refuses to participate will not be a "Team Player."
Click to expand...
Yep, from the Wikipedia article cited above, in reference to Nazi soldiers:

In practice, refusing a superior order to participate in war crimes by German soldiers almost never led to dire consequences for the refusing person, and punishment, if any, was relatively mild. It usually resulted in degradation and being sent to serve with fighting units at the front. German historian Sven Felix Kellerhoff argued that, instead of fear of punishment the participants were more afraid of peer pressure and the possibility of exclusion from their group.
 
win231 said:
As in many occupations, anyone who speaks out about something or refuses to participate will not be a "Team Player."
Click to expand...
I hardly think that Rape, Torture & Murder would be included in the "Team Player" expectation, but I'm talking about nation-state military organizations, perhaps the R,T&M would be expected in terrorist groups or other renegade militias.
 
Nathan said:
I hardly think that Rape, Torture & Murder would be included in the "Team Player" expectation, but I'm talking about nation-state military organizations, perhaps the R,T&M would be expected in terrorist groups or other renegade militias.
Click to expand...
Going against the rest of the sheep & refusing to participate would cause hardship. In any career, but especially in the military, where you're expected to be a complete robot & do as you're told.
 
win231 said:
Going against the rest of the sheep & refusing to participate would cause hardship. In any career, but especially in the military, where you're expected to be a complete robot & do as you're told.
Click to expand...
Sure. Just curious: where does your "Rape, Torture & Murder" thing come from? I'm gettin' the impression that you think that's a common occurrence with the military. In the (My Lai incident link in post #9 the article describes how a helicopter crew came across the My Lai scene and rendered not only aid and rescue to the surviving victims, but made contact with those U.S. forces responsible and ended up reporting the incident.
Atrocities happen in every combat theater, people get crazy with the extremes and do monstrous things. Killing unarmed combatants is no different than killing civilians, and gets prosecuted in military courts.
 
Alligatorob said:
Yep, from the Wikipedia article cited above, in reference to Nazi soldiers:

In practice, refusing a superior order to participate in war crimes by German soldiers almost never led to dire consequences for the refusing person, and punishment, if any, was relatively mild. It usually resulted in degradation and being sent to serve with fighting units at the front. German historian Sven Felix Kellerhoff argued that, instead of fear of punishment the participants were more afraid of peer pressure and the possibility of exclusion from their group.
Click to expand...
Fear of being ostracized is a strong motivator. That's probably a big factor in the current pandemic with people who won't get vaccinated. Their group is anti-vax, and going against them would affect their popularity. We see people going nuts rebelling against vaccine mandates or even the thought of mandates, and the wearing of facemasks. You see people lying about how their "medical problems prevent them from complying," or that their doctor told them they couldn't wear a facemask. It's all about fitting in with their group and fear of going against the group's dogma. They're willing to risk their lives and the lives of others rather than risk exclusion.

Personally, I don't belong to any group. Not that I don't want to be part of a group; it's just that I don't fit into any existing groups. The only group I belong to consists of those who don't fit in anywhere. Put us together and we'd repel each other like like charges of magnets.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top