BGen Ménard relieved of Afganistan Comd & other fall-outs

[GAP]

Some other articles out there.....


Sex and war don't mix
Matt Gurney, National Post  Published: Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Article Link
More on link


General paid a just price for his indiscretion
The Gazette June 1, 2010
Article Link
More on link

 

[SeanNewman]

Yon's main effort is still the bridge.  Most of his blogs are stating that in his assessment the NDs and sexual allegations are trivial compared to the bridge, which he says BGen should have been fired for twice ("allowing it to happen" and then "covering it up").

From his Blog/Facebook page:

Michael Yon: "Now fire McChrystal!

For the record, before some writers inevitably start blaming me for Brigadier General Daniel Menard's firing, I accept full responsibilty. I accept as much blame as can be heaped upon me. And a huge thanks to those who stood beside me while untold numbers headed for the safety of the hills, or worse.

Did any publication see this coming? Did any resist Menard? Anyone? I would submit that writers such as Matthew Fisher have been allowing people like Brigadier General Menard to carry on even while troops die every day. If writers like Matthew Fisher did not see Menard's incompetence underneath their very noses, they should surrender their pens. If they will not stand up, they should not cover war.

Where were the milblogs such as Blackfive and Mudville Gazette? Why were they silent while U.S. troops were getting blown to pieces under command of Menard while Menard was heading up a decisive battle in the war? Mudville Gazette, Blackfive and the others who pride themselves on being in the know, either did not know or remained silent.

My weekend is over. We have troops in combat right now and General Stanley McChrystal should be following Menard out the door.

Fire McChrystal!"

 

[PMedMoe]

Not to mention, Mr. Drapeau has seemingly changed his mind overnight.

Compare this:

I also want to note that, fundamentally, I agree with the necessity of a policy of non-fraternization (romantic and sexual liaisons) between Canadian Forces members, particularly in a theatre of war, to maintain morale, esprit de corps, teamwork, and discipline, and to protect and ensure fair and uniform treatment of subordinates.

With this:

The sudden firing of Brig.-Gen. Daniel Ménard has placed a spotlight on the Canadian Forces' policy on sex and relationships, a set of rules that one military expert says lack common sense.

Colonel (Ret.'d) Michel Drapeau said the dismissal of Ménard from his command in Afghanistan, following accusations that he had an inappropriate sexual relationship, seems heavy-handed and rash.

"We have to bring a certain degree of common sense" to the directives limiting how Forces personnel start relationships with each other, said Drapeau, a 34-year Forces veteran as well as a professor of law at the University of Ottawa.

"What we are making of our soldiers is robots, asking them to be totally devoid of emotions."

Link for second quote.

Okay, first the rules don't make sense and they're too harsh, but now you can "fundamentally" see a reason for it?

And the whole tangent about spouses in uniform is a red herring.  The other half of this alleged equation is certainly not BGen Menard's spouse.

 

[ltmaverick25]

Who the heck is Micheal Yon and why does he have such a hate on?

 

[SeanNewman]

Who the heck is Micheal Yon and why does he have such a hate on?

A reporter that has spent a lot of time in Afghanistan.

If he's reporting the truth then great, but you are right that it does seem like he really goes that extra mile to bury people.  If it's factual though and people should know, it's hard to argue with him.

The only thing I don't like about him is that he has a zero-tolerance attitude toward military leaders in that he expects no decisions made that would ever result in a death.  Sometimes leaders make the best decisions they can with the best information available at the time, but to Yon that is unacceptable if someone ends up getting killed.

Somehow leaders must be perfect and get every task completed without ever putting a soldier in danger, which is a pretty ridiculous expectation.  Sometimes it is necessary to put people in danger, and sometimes it is necessary to focus on one thing and not the other because you don't have enough resources to do everything to a 100% standard.  Yon doesn't understand that, and even though Menard may have been responsible for making decisions that saved thousands of soldiers and Afghan lives, Yon won't let the bridge incident go because god forbid something bad happen in Kandahar.  Obviously we should blame Menard and not the Taliban  : just like we should blame the Police in Canada and not the criminals for anything bad that happens.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/92407/post-914399.html#msg914399
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/91076/post-897395.html#msg897395

 

[Rifleman62]

How times change. Old Sweat should post the story of a well known WWII Canadian General who had an open affair in England (with a civilian), drank excessively, and was relieved of command in Normandy.

 

[Scott]

Michael Yon's Facebook page

 

[Old Sweat]

How times change. Old Sweat should post the story of a well known WWII Canadian General who had an open affair in England (with a civilian), drank excessively, and was relieved of command in Normandy.

I am not sure you aren't mixing two generals. MGen Keller, the GOC of the 3rd Division, was a heavy drinker and had an affair with a married woman in the UK. However, while he probably would have been fired in due course, he was wounded and evacuated on 8 August 1944 during the Phase 2 bombing of Operation Totalize. MGen Kitching, the GOC of 4th Armoured Division, was relieved after the completion of the elimination of the Falaise Pocket as a result of the performance of his division. I have not come across any information that suggested he was a heavy drinker (no heavier at least than the average officer of that era) and, since he only had returned from Italy a few months before D Day, was unlikely to have been able to carry on a serious affair.

Back to Menard. The Star story leads me to opine that the chain of command must have had enough information to act. I also suspect that rumours may have been making the rounds at KAF (or at least the story was known of by too many people for it not to have the potential to spread) and the Comd CEFCOM and the CDS may have concluded that they had to act.

 

[McG]

So all the rules about conflict resolution and harassment go out the window when the allegation is serious enough that we no longer consider someone innocent until proven guilty?

I am a firm believer in procedural fairness, and giving the benefit of the doubt until such time as facts have been gathered.  However, in this case there is more at stake than just the people in the centre of the allegations.  If there is doubt in the commander’s ability to command in a war, then there is an operational imperative to remove that commander even if it means acting ahead of the deeper investigation.

It is easier to apologise for the embarrassment later than to suffer through an avoidable & catastrophic battlefield failure of leadership. Troops on the ground and commanders in Ottawa need to know that the operational commander has his mind on the fight and not last-night's/tonight's liaisons. 

 

[SeanNewman]

MCG,

Technoviking's point though is that it better be more than just an allegation.  And then as Michael O'Leary pointed out, one must assume that those in the know know more than us and the reporters.

I agree with you that there is a lot at stake operationally, but there is also a lot at stake strategically.

The argument you are making is a parallel of the torture proponents who say operationally there may be a lot at stake so it's best to torture someone for the sake of the mission, even though we'd be giving up something greater in return.

I see this as exactly the same thing.  Yes the mission is important and so is the leadership, but not at the cost of forfeiting proper justice and a man's right of self defence.

(Again getting back to Michael O'Leary's point that obviously his bosses are very smart people and would not do this without reasonable grounds to do so.  It is very unlikely that it would be done just because a Cpl [or any rank] said that something happened).

 

[armyvern]

I am a firm believer in procedural fairness, and giving the benefit of the doubt until such time as facts have been gathered.  However, in this case there is more at stake than just the people in the centre of the allegations.  If there is doubt in the commander’s ability to command in a war, then there is an operational imperative to remove that commander even if it means acting ahead of the deeper investigation.

It is easier to apologise for the embarrassment later than to suffer through an avoidable & catastrophic battlefield failure of leadership. Troops on the ground and commanders in Ottawa need to know that the operational commander has his mind on the fight and not last-night's/tonight's liaisons.

I agree.

And, while it would have better served himself, his family, and the other female involved in these allegations much better to allow them to return from theatre without releasing anything to the press until the matter was fully investigated etc --- that simply would have resulted in the media yelling "coverup" in a bid by them to make it look like the CF/Govnt was trying to "coverup" an alleged infraction of the "rules" by the General. Everybody out there, and the media, is aware of when General Menards tour was supposed to have finished and any move to repat him (& thus her) early simply HAD to be explained. Things like that don't "just" happen for no reason.

What pisses me off about this entire situation though, is the sheer volume of gossip occuring in the media (& other places) about the entire situation with ZERO official confirmation of anything "factual" EXCEPT the standard caveat of "an unidentified source has revealed to us that it was a Corporals statement that brought down the General" etc etc etc.

IF any of this is true, then somone in the know, most probably another wearing a uniform, is speaking out of their ass AND out of turn without due process having occured WHILE an NIS investigation is occuring. THAT person should have their ass charged as their own personal and professional conduct is obviously lacking; actually, it's quite disgusting to me. This is people's lives (and possibly careers) - there are also at least 2 children involved. Disgusting.

 

[McG]

MCG,

Technoviking's point though is that it better be more than just an allegation.  And then as Michael O'Leary pointed out, one must assume that those in the know know more than us and the reporters.

Well, of course there is more information.  Odds are, Comd CEFCOM even spoke with the BGen before deciding on his CoA.  There is always more information than what is in the media, and (as you should know) this is particularly true of anything that happens in Afghanistan.

The argument you are making is a parallel of the torture proponents who say operationally there may be a lot at stake so it's best to torture someone for the sake of the mission, even though we'd be giving up something greater in return.

You are making a ridiculous slippery-slope argument.  There is no comparison to my statement on the general’s removal from command and support of torture; the are vastly different on many levels from all perspectives.

 

[SeanNewman]

There is no comparison to my statement on the general’s removal from command and support of torture; the are vastly different on many levels from all perspectives.

The similarity is that both of those situations give up something greater for something lesser, and in my opinion they are quite parallel.

In the case of torture, you are forfeiting a person's human rights (strategic) for information that will help you with a tactical/operational victory.

In a case of punishing before proven guilt, you are forfeiting freedom and justice for operational leadership.

MCG, don't worry, I am in no way stating that you approve one or the other.  I apologize if you took it that way. 

 

[McG]

Petamocto,
Your critical thinking skills are failing you.  Go investigate slippery-slope logical fallacies.  You have made one.

In a case of punishing before proven guilt, you are forfeiting freedom and justice for operational leadership.

The removal is not punishment.  It is an operational decision to maintain force effectiveness and (like any other operational decision) it is taken in a timely manner with the best available information.

If there is warrant for punishment, then it will come later.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

In a case of punishing before proven guilt, you are forfeiting freedom and justice for operational leadership.

I can think of many jobs where one would be removed from a post if an investigation was ongoing, not a punishment, just prudence.

He's still getting paid.............

 

[mariomike]

How times change. Old Sweat should post the story of a well known WWII Canadian General who had an open affair in England (with a civilian), drank excessively, and was relieved of command in Normandy.

Gen Eisenhower ( although American, was the supreme Allied commander in Europe ) may, or may not, have indulged in "horizontal refreshment" with his driver ( a member of the British Mechanised Transport Corps ):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Summersby#Relationship_with_Eisenhower

In fairness to the World War Two era, Canadian ( and American ) servicemen / servicewomen were away from home for years at a time.
In his book, "Wartime: understanding and behavior in the Second World War", Paul Fussel devoted a chapter to "Drinking far too much, copulating too little":
http://books.google.ca/books?id=6sqzi1rH-ccC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=paul+fussell++drinking&source=bl&ots=ckSmag0MP2&sig=mMU0uDLul2cvwCWU1PsMNsc9E_c&hl=en&ei=6ScFTKHgNcX7lwetsOTXBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

"Wellington wouldn’t have fired Ménard":
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/01/wellington-wouldnt-have-fired-menard/

 

[SeanNewman]

The removal is not punishment.

I think that's what we'll have to agree to disagree on, my friend. 

There are now hundreds of public articles that give the perception that he has been removed from command because of infidelity with a subordinate.  Even if he is 100% legally cleared of anything in the future, the perception is what counts and in my opinion not only is he being punished right now but his wife, too (who is also mentioned in most of the articles).

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Part of the price of being a "somebody".........................ask Tiger.

 

[Brutus]

I think that's what we'll have to agree to disagree on, my friend. 

There are now hundreds of public articles that give the perception that he has been removed from command because of infidelity with a subordinate.  Even if he is 100% legally cleared of anything in the future, the perception is what counts and in my opinion not only is he being punished right now but his wife, too (who is also mentioned in most of the articles).

I agree with you but there really is no alternative. I have found that in many cases, both civvie and military, the process/investigation is worse than the 'sentence' if found guilty. It's human nature to assume guilt when someone has been charged or investigated, particularly with something as personal and believable as infidelity.

But like I said, there really is no alternative. Keeping him in command is not an option. IIRC, removal from the Op is standard procedure in these cases, and the last thing I would want is an appearance of favourtism based on his rank for the cbc.ca crowd to sink their teeth into.

If he's innocent, I feel bad for him. If he's guilty, well, he should have been wise enough to see the outcome pre-fornication.