Posted on 07/26/2007 8:05:45 AM PDT by BGHater
Army Secretary Peter Geren is expected to recommend that a retired three-star general be demoted for his role in providing misleading information about the death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman, military officials say, in what would be a stinging and rare rebuke.
Lt. Gen. Philip Kensinger, who headed Army special operations, is one of six high-ranking Army officers expected to get official reprimands for making critical errors in reporting the circumstances of Tillman's purported friendly-fire shooting in Afghanistan in April 2004.
The officials requested anonymity because the punishments under consideration by Geren have not been made public. The Army said that no final decisions have been made, and that once they are and the Tillman family and Congress have been notified, there will be an announcement sometime next week.
Geren also is considering issuing a letter of censure to Kensinger, who is receiving the harshest punishment of those involved in what has become a three-year controversy that triggered more than half a dozen investigations. Five other officers, including three generals, are expected to be issued less severe letters criticizing their actions.
Army officials opted not to impose harsher punishments, which could have included additional demotions, dishonorable discharges or even jail time. One senior officer, Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of the Joint Special Operations Command, escaped punishment.
I guess I’ve never really understood this story. I recall that it was pretty quick after Tillman was reported killed in action that there was an investigation into possible friendly fire. Which turned out to be true. OK, so what?
The big “hero” mantle that the ~media~ put on Tillman wasn’t so much about how he was killed, but about his decision to leave a lucrative football career to go fight. Which— was a remarkable and noteworthy thing.
That he or any soldier is killed by friendly fire is a special anguish, but it doesn’t reflect on him or his service or the valiant nature of the mission. It is part of the cost of war.
This is just “all-around”...Sad because Tillman is dead, Sad because it would seem the military chain of command fumbled over how to communicate the death of such a high profile soldier, and Sad that we have a salivating media ready to beat the issue to death if it will discredit the military and (indirectly) bash the Bush Administration.
At the end of the day an American Soldier is dead, he gave his life in the service of his country...and nothing should tarnish or take away from that.
God has a special place for people like Tillman, and God has a special place for the journo-hacks at the AP...
Both of you well said -
I think the actions of these officers was symptomatic of liberal thinking creeping into the Army’s leadership. “Good intentions,” trumped doing the right thing.
I dunno, I think maybe it's even simpler than that. Should the Army brass have broadcast details of a ~rumour~ that it was friendly fire before an investigation could flush it out? Of course not. As I recall, the initial reports were pretty sparse. Tillman was killed in Afghanistan in heavy fighting as his unit was attempting to take some hill or other. ...and not much beyond that.
Tillman, for good or ill, was a higher profile soldier than most due to his fame. So it quickly became a national story. I just think it is really unfair of the media to allege that the Army did some kind of coverup or lied about the circumstances. I don't see it that way. It was a lousy situation and it took time to sort it out. Nothing new about that.
Trust me, I'm no fan of the media, and I think Tillman attained American Hero status the day he exited the locker room and walked down to the recruiter's office. For that matter, the vast majority of our service members are heroes, but Tillman's stature made him more visible than most...which is precisely why they should have been far more circumspect about the manner in which his death was handled.
The Army wasted little time awarding him a Silver Star...something that should not have been done without a thorough validation of facts and circumstances.
Yah, fair enough. I'll grant that maybe they were over-eager to make him some kind of poster boy. But it's an understandable knee-jerk, in some ways. Everybody wanted to believe that. And... as cover-ups go, it sure didn't last long. But yeah, knee-jerk reactions tend to foul things up, and it did here too.
Ergo my original contention that the senior leadership wanted to do what "felt right," rather than what would have been well considered and proper.
I think the Army is now dealing with this properly.
The lesson learned here...is for leadership to keep their mouth shut and wait for facts to emerge. If the final report said friendly-fire...then don’t argue with that. Facts are very nice to have in your hand and work with...I don’t think this affair with Tillman was capable of facts. But the real bottom line...his relatives were going to generate heat no matter what happened...even if we spoke only the truth...and thats the real sad part of this story.
The officers in question should have known better.
I think another lesson is that SOCOM is not the place for celebrities. I laud Tillman's desire to serve his nation in the time of war; however, in the arena of personnel assignments the needs of the Army should always have precedence over the desires of the individual. An exception was made for Pat Tillman, and now the chickens (and stars, and full birds) have come home to roost.
Can you explain how an exception was made? I thought that any qualified soldier could apply to be a Ranger. If he passes the training, then he’s a Ranger. What did the Army do differently in Tillman’s case?
Admittedly, I speculate with the benefit of hindsight (which I normally refer to 'looking out of one's own a$$'), and I'm assuming Tillman enlisted with RIP/Ranger School and assignment to a Ranger Battalion as terms of his contract. Having said that, the Army (IMHO) should have used a bit more discretion in consummation of that contract, and indeed, can void an enlistment contract when it's in the Army's interest to do so. Putting a celebrity, which the Army should have known would garner an excess of media attention, in a unit that best operates in the shadows was not a good idea, and potentially could have compromised a lot of Tillman's fellow soldiers and unit mission success.
In WWII a lot of sports and hollywood stars entered the military and served in any number of distinguished capacities. We live in a different world now, and the Army, or at least the officers in question, made a big miscalculation in dealing with what was a public relations nightmare waiting to happen.
Ooops...excuse the double negative in my first sentence. I’m confident Tillman met all the qualification to serve in the capacity he served...(if that wasn’t clear). It was just not necessarily to the Army’s advantage for him to do so.
Anybody that can pass the physical can volunteer for Ranger School. Those that complete the course will become Rangers.
The fact that Tillman was a Ranger was his desire to be a part of the best and had nothing to do with celebrity status.
Tillman’s celebrity status, propagated by the media, is what caused these fine Flag Officers to make a very bad choice in covering up the facts.
I said nothing negative about Tillman, and even specifically stated elsewhere that I felt he was fully qualified and the Army made no special exceptions for him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.