The Sacking of Gen. Byrnes

[Bill Murray]

Just curious if any of you non-US members have any thoughts about this case.

While info is still a bit sketchy, it seems that he has been separated from his wife for about a year, the divorce was granted on the day he was sacked and it would appear he had an affair with a woman not in any way associated with the military or government establishment.

He was only about 4 months away from honorable retirement after 30 years of service and he was the #3 or 4 four star general in the Army ranks of only about 10 such persons who attained that rank.

My feeling is that he must have pissed someone off big time, for whatever reason, to have been so treated.

Anything in the Canadian or UK press on this issue????
Bill

[servicepub (RIP)]

I haven't seen this in the Ottawa/Toronto papers but the sacking doesn't surprise me. Over the past 20 years the US seems to have become very small "c" conservative and very large "C" Christian. This combination doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room for divorcees or for non-marital sex.

[cliff]

Originally posted by servicepub
I haven't seen this in the Ottawa/Toronto papers but the sacking doesn't surprise me. Over the past 20 years the US seems to have become very small "c" conservative and very large "C" Christian. This combination doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room for divorcees or for non-marital sex.

yes these folk forget that Adam and Eve were not married as there was no one around to announce it for them

cheers
Cliff

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

You might want to have a boo at this thread on Tanknet... it has a lot of speculatin and insights. Mostly military people here.

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=11480

[Al Nickolson]

Free Republic 104 posts on the subject.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-...?q=1&&page=1#1

Al

[Bill Murray]

Thanks to both of you for the links.
While I do not subscribe to the coup d' etat theories on Geoff's thread, I still think there must be a lot more to this than we have seen so far.

I learned a lot from those threads about the UCMJ as it deals with adultery and that some at least believe Flag Rank Officers have to be held to a higher standard.

But....and for me a big but...... why this and why now???

He had already announced his impending retirement, his successor has been named and only awaits Senate confirmation which is all but assured. I have no idea what caused the filing for divorce but if we assume it was for adultry then why is there this big investigation going on? Further, if the standard really is that the divorce has to be final before one can dally, even if legally separated for a year which seems to be the case, is that not carrying things a bit too far??

No my friends, this one smells really funny to me.

As head of TRADOC during most of the current conflict in Iraq, this man had the catbird's seat as far as seeing what works and what does not work. That's what TRADOC does, after all.

My personal theory is that he butted heads big time with Rumsfeld, General Myers, the Chairman of the JCS and maybe even Bush himself over the conduct of the Iraqi conflict.

Further, and I have posted similar thoughts before on this forum somewhere, I have a nasty feeling that there are several if not a lot of Flag Rank Officers that are fed up with being stuck with yet another unwinnable war that they did not want to fight, taking a lot of casualties and risking another VietNam backlash.
The strange thing to me, and Thank God for it, is that we still support our troops 100% even though the ratings on Bush and on the conduct of the conflict are trending towards 70% negative.
Perhaps General Byrnes was amongst that group and just had the misfortune to have strayed from the path at the same time.

Just to prove I still have a sense of humour, I will make my first use of the latest icon.:dh:

Cheers
Bill

[servicepub (RIP)]

[i]The strange thing to me, and Thank God for it, is that we still support our troops 100% even though the ratings on Bush and on the conduct of the conflict are trending towards 70% negative.Cheers
Bill [/B]

It's funny how some people equate non-support for the war or for Bush as being anti-troops. The 'ass in the grass' soldier is doing his duty as required by his society and laws. He (or she nowadays) should never have to suffer the personal abuse that US soldiers did during the Vietnam dabacle.

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

Originally posted by servicepub
....The 'ass in the grass' soldier is doing his duty as required by his society and laws. He (or she nowadays) should never have to suffer the personal abuse that US soldiers did during the Vietnam dabacle.

I agree, Bill... something strange is going on. I CAN tell you that having had personal friends over there (and still do as will there be more), some support issues are not being adressed in the manner which we would normally expect in an outright war. The bureaucrats seem to have taken over what passes for the 'military asylum'. Perhaps that's what the good general was railing against and perhaps what got him shit-canned.

[sapper740]

Originally posted by servicepub
It's funny how some people equate non-support for the war or for Bush as being anti-troops. The 'ass in the grass' soldier is doing his duty as required by his society and laws. He (or she nowadays) should never have to suffer the personal abuse that US soldiers did during the Vietnam dabacle.

I'd like to make a couple of points, both as a Canadian living in the U.S. and as an ex-serviceman. It is absolutely fabulous and heart warming to see the support the troops get upon their return to the States from Iraq. DFW airport has built a special lounge for Service men and women to enjoy a little privacy should they need some down time. The evening news show hordes of flag waving, flower bearing civilians honouring the troops upon their return. I've personally attended several events at churches and local fields honouring all vets, even Viet Nam war vets. I recently attended a very special event at Spinks Field honouring wounded vets, those who gave the ultimate sacrifice, and their families. It featured many guest speakers including Pat Summerall and the Ass't Sec. of Defence. These events are not hosted or funded by the federal government or military, they are paid for by church groups, service organizations, and local Veteran's associations. Other than Rememberance Day, and events hosted by military vehicle collector clubs, I never experienced such outpourings of support for Canada's vets by the public at large. Here in Texas, support for our troops, vets, and President Bush (yes, even the president) is very strong. There are no hippies spitting on our troops upon their return, if there were, they would soon get a pistol whipping and a can of whoop ass opened right quick!
As for the sacking of the General, there are rules against fraternization that apply to all, especially those who are in a position where they are expected to set an example. After several scandals such as Tailhook at the Air Force Academy, there is zero tolerance for such activity, unless, of course, you're the ex-president of the United States!