On LtCol Scheller

 

I completely understand why it was necessary to relieve him of duty.  What chaps my hide (channeling the late Boss Mongo) is a comparison between LtCol Scheller and this person:

It has nothing to do with the rather porcine appearance of one and the Hollywood Handsome looks of the other.  (TBPC, it didn’t occur to me that LtCol Scheller might be Hollywood Handsome until it was pointed it out on this thread.  So sue me. I’m an old lady and my eyesight isn’t what it once was.)

It has more to do with the fact that, if an LTC or LtCol (got to get those abbreviations right!) who’s a serving member in the United States military wishes to draw attention to the shortcomings of his superiors, the apparent right way to go about it is to sneak into the corridors of power, conspire with the political opposition, insure the compliance and protection of the state-run media, and then spend days on state-run television embroidering your pretty thin story while you amplify the importance of your own role in coming forward at the same time as you pretend that you are not, in fact, the source of all the spurious hullaballoo you and your political allies have created in an attempt to topple your Commander-in-Chief.

One of these men is a clearly prize jerk.  The other, not.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 51 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    Why was Vineland ever in the position he was in? He had the interests of Ukraine as top priority and not those of the United States. 

    • #1
  2. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    She: One of these men is a clearly prize jerk.  The other, not.

    One is a hero, the other a zero . . .

    • #2
  3. Jules PA Member
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    LtCol Scheller would have gone to a battlefield and risked his life. 

    All the better when he calls out leadership for SQUANDERING our precious Marines and military people.

    The military volunteer to fight, not serve as pawns. 

    May G-d Bless you and Protect you, LtCol Schiller, for your courageous run into the correct and true battlefield. Your words will save many. 

    • #3
  4. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    “Relieved for cause based on a lack of trust and confidence.”

    1. A lack of trust and confidence is a basis for being removed from command.
    2. The military is subordinate to the civilian.

    Gen. Milley: Why? Are? You? Still? Here?

    • #4
  5. Jules PA Member
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    Percival (View Comment):

    “Relieved for cause based on a lack of trust and confidence.”

    1. A lack of trust and confidence is a basis for being removed from command.
    2. The military is subordinate to the civilian.

    Gen. Milley: Why? Are? You? Still? Here?

    If military is subordinate to civilian,

    How exactly does the civilian move to recall the authority from lackeys, like Milley?

    • #5
  6. She Reagan
    She
    @She

    Jules PA (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    “Relieved for cause based on a lack of trust and confidence.”

    1. A lack of trust and confidence is a basis for being removed from command.
    2. The military is subordinate to the civilian.

    Gen. Milley: Why? Are? You? Still? Here?

    If military is subordinate to civilian,

    How exactly does the civilian move to recall the authority from lackeys, like Milley?

    I think the President has the ultimate authority to fire them all.  (Not necessarily suggesting that’s a good idea.)

    What I found compelling about Scheller’s piece, though, is that he wasn’t asking for them to be fired.  He was asking for them to step up and acknowledge mistakes and individual responsibility–something they are taught to do from boot camp on, in all branches of the military.  Of course, once he’d called out his chain of command, they had no choice but to relieve him of duty.

    He looks like a bright enough fellow to me (most of the USMC LtCols I know are pretty smart).**  I’m guessing he weighed the likely consequences of his move, decided that he was resourceful enough to endure and surmount them, and pulled the pin on the grenade.

    If the political rot inside the upper echelons of the military has set in to the degree that (it seems apparent) it has, then I’m not sure the old, “complain to your superior officer” see if he listens, then go to the next level, and the next…until you’ve so sullied your reputation that you’re on record as a whiner and malcontent, and until you have no choice but to retire and then start blasting from the outside (when you’ll be painted as a whiner and a malcontent); then I can’t really see another way forward in this day and age.

    The follow up is going to be interesting.

    **Those I’ve known have said that the ranks above get increasingly politically engaged, and that perhaps LtCol is the highest rank to which those with absolutely no interest in political military maneuvers should aspire.

    • #6
  7. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Man , 17 years in and he falls on the hand grenade.  What a mensch.

    Hang On (View Comment):

    Why was Vineland ever in the position he was in? He had the interests of Ukraine as top priority and not those of the United States.

    He didn’t even have Ukraines interests at heart either.  Trump was far better at supporting Ukraine then the Obama/Biden clowns, who limited aid to blankets and MRE’s, denying them even no n lethal aid like body armor. Trump gave them things to actually, you know, fight the Russians with.

    • #7
  8. dajoho Member
    dajoho
    @dajoho

    I am having trouble even addressing Afghanistan – I am so angry and this is the icing on the proverbial cake:

    “Relieved for cause based on a lack of trust and confidence.”

    The irony here cannot be measured.  Scheller is a warrior through and through and those above him should be ashamed that it came to this.

    • #8
  9. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    Actually, all one has to do is criticize Trump. And comparing just about anyone to Vinburger is a chapping experience.

    • #9
  10. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    What I loved best about his speech was how focused it was on the surrender of Bagram to the Taliban.

    The editor in me believes our entire country, but especially the current Republicans in office, should stay laser-beam focused on Biden and Bagram.

    Don’t cloud the problem and digress. Stay on target: Biden and Bagram.

    That’s hard to do because Biden destroys everything he touches. It’s unbelievable how much damage to our country and our world this one man has accomplished in just six months. Inflation is now being pegged at 4.5 percent, and two weeks ago, Biden was begging OPEC to step up production, which they refused to do, to make up for Biden’s failed energy policies.

    But we must stay on target: his giving Bagram to the Taliban.

    • #10
  11. DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) Coolidge
    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!)
    @DonG

    Kozak (View Comment):
    Man , 17 years in and he falls on the hand grenade.  What a mensch.

    Yep.  It is good to know that Erik Prince had offered him a job before he even got canned.  Prince gets stuff done and recognizes leadership.  He has plenty of money and will make Scheller “more than whole”.  I know Scheller’s service is about more than money, but the money helps.

    • #11
  12. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    dajoho (View Comment):

    I am having trouble even addressing Afghanistan – I am so angry and this is the icing on the proverbial cake:

    “Relieved for cause based on a lack of trust and confidence.”

    The irony here cannot be measured. Scheller is a warrior through and through and those above him should be ashamed that it came to this.

    Relieved for cause based on lack of trust and confidence he won’t identify and make public the cluster F##k that is our military command .

    FIFY

    • #12
  13. She Reagan
    She
    @She

    Well, this is still up on marines.mil.  Fairly impressive.  Note that he’s taken part in non-combatant evacuation operations.  Commanding Officer: Lieutenant Colonel Stuart P. Scheller.

    • #13
  14. Captain French Moderator
    Captain French
    @AlFrench

    She (View Comment):

    Jules PA (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    “Relieved for cause based on a lack of trust and confidence.”

    1. A lack of trust and confidence is a basis for being removed from command.
    2. The military is subordinate to the civilian.

    Gen. Milley: Why? Are? You? Still? Here?

    If military is subordinate to civilian,

    How exactly does the civilian move to recall the authority from lackeys, like Milley?

    I think the President has the ultimate authority to fire them all. (Not necessarily suggesting that’s a good idea.)

    What I found compelling about Scheller’s piece, though, is that he wasn’t asking for them to be fired. He was asking for them to step up and acknowledge mistakes and individual responsibility–something they are taught to do from boot camp on, in all branches of the military. Of course, once he’d called out his chain of command, they had no choice but to relieve him of duty.

    He looks like a bright enough fellow to me (most of the USMC LtCols I’ve know are pretty smart).** I’m guessing he weighed the likely consequences of his move, decided that he was resourceful enough to endure and surmount them, and pulled the pin on the grenade.

    If the political rot inside the upper echelons of the military has set in to the degree that (it seems apparent) it has, then I’m not sure the old, “complain to your superior officer” see if he listens, then go to the next level, and the next…until you’ve so sullied your reputation that you’re on record as a whiner and malcontent, and until you have no choice but to retire and then start blasting from the outside (when you’ll be painted as a whiner and a malcontent); then I can’t really see another way forward in this day and age.

    The follow up is going to be interesting.

    **Those I’ve known have said that the ranks above get increasingly politically engaged, and that perhaps LtCol is the highest rank to which those with absolutely no interest in political military maneuvers should aspire.

    IIRC Boss Mongo hinted that he retired for that reason.

    • #14
  15. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    MarciN (View Comment):

    What I loved best about his speech was how focused it was on the surrender of Bagram to the Taliban.

    The editor in me believes our entire country, but especially the current Republicans in office, should stay laser-beam focused on Biden and Bagram.

    Don’t cloud the problem and digress. Stay on target: Biden and Bagram.

    That’s hard to do because Biden destroys everything he touches. It’s unbelievable how much damage to our country and our world this one man has accomplished in just six months. Inflation is now being pegged at 4.5 percent, and two weeks ago, Biden was begging OPEC to step up production, which they refused to do, to make up for Biden’s failed energy policies.

    But we must stay on target: his giving Bagram to the Taliban.

    I think you are right on the focus.  The question should be constantly “Where were you on the decision to give Bagram to the Taliban?”

    • #15
  16. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    Hang On (View Comment):

    Why was Vineland ever in the position he was in? He had the interests of Ukraine as top priority and not those of the United States.

    He looks like someone with a corncob inserted in a remote location. 

    • #16
  17. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    What I loved best about his speech was how focused it was on the surrender of Bagram to the Taliban.

    The editor in me believes our entire country, but especially the current Republicans in office, should stay laser-beam focused on Biden and Bagram.

    Don’t cloud the problem and digress. Stay on target: Biden and Bagram.

    That’s hard to do because Biden destroys everything he touches. It’s unbelievable how much damage to our country and our world this one man has accomplished in just six months. Inflation is now being pegged at 4.5 percent, and two weeks ago, Biden was begging OPEC to step up production, which they refused to do, to make up for Biden’s failed energy policies.

    But we must stay on target: his giving Bagram to the Taliban.

    I think you are right on the focus. The question should be constantly “Where were you on the decision to give Bagram to the Taliban?”

    The point about Bagram to me is that Congress still has an outstanding authorization for war in Afghanistan. I’m not sur eif it mentions the Taliban specifically. However, I am sure that at the time of Biden’s gift, they were still on the official list of terrorists.

    Biden missed a step in here, where the United States establishes the Taliban as an official ally and duly elected government of Afghanistan instead of our official enemy.

    If we don’t act right now, Biden’s friends will change everything so that it lines up in terms of the dates to protect Biden.

     

    • #17
  18. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    Hang On (View Comment):

    Why was Vineland ever in the position he was in? He had the interests of Ukraine as top priority and not those of the United States.

    He looks like someone with a corncob inserted in a remote location.

    Chris Plante fan?

    • #18
  19. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Vindmann O HO SAY CAN YOU SEE baldly stated that his loyalty was to the interagency intelligence community.

    He should have been hauled off the stand right then — we found the problem.

    His admission, in his pusillanimous and purse-lipped style, was that he reported to the Deep State.  I do not know if the “very highly cleared” part of the government has formally directed that an officer’s oath is no longer effective upon joing a certain club, but regardless of whether or not there is some secret (nay, “very highly cleared”) FISA or similar court ruling that the oath and various other aspects of representative government and the proper function of the Executive branch are obsolete — the fact is that the deep state has grown to encompass large swaths of the military.

    The silent Civil War is already underway.

    • #19
  20. She Reagan
    She
    @She

    BDB (View Comment):
    Vindmann O HO SAY CAN YOU SEE baldly stated that his loyalty was to the interagency intelligence community.

    Yes.  And I miss Rush too.

    • #20
  21. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Man , 17 years in and he falls on the hand grenade. What a mensch.

    Hang On (View Comment):

    Why was Vineland ever in the position he was in? He had the interests of Ukraine as top priority and not those of the United States.

    He didn’t even have Ukraines interests at heart either. Trump was far better at supporting Ukraine then the Obama/Biden clowns, who limited aid to blankets and MRE’s, denying them even no n lethal aid like body armor. Trump gave them things to actually, you know, fight the Russians with.

    Vindman was a Russian collaborator.

    • #21
  22. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    I have said before that I don’t care for the sensationalism of TGP’s headlines, but they get it right more often than not: 

    All Hail Your Supreme Leader: Active Duty and Retired Navy Members Are Being Told They Cannot “Disrespect” Biden Over Afghanistan Debacle (thegatewaypundit.com)

    • #22
  23. Muleskinner, Weasel Wrangler Member
    Muleskinner, Weasel Wrangler
    @Muleskinner

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    Vindman was a Russian collaborator.

    Has he quit collaborating?

    • #23
  24. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    Muleskinner, Weasel Wrangler (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    Vindman was a Russian collaborator.

    Has he quit collaborating?

    Not sure that is quite the right question.  Perhaps it might be: With whom is he collaborating now? 

    • #24
  25. She Reagan
    She
    @She

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    Muleskinner, Weasel Wrangler (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    Vindman was a Russian collaborator.

    Has he quit collaborating?

    Not sure that is quite the right question. Perhaps it might be: With whom is he collaborating now?

    Regardless (or irregardless as the case may be) of his previous efforts, I’d say he’s currently engaged in collaborating his way into a fat and jolly retirement courtesy of his recent book deal and its glowing reviews among the usual suspects, accompanied by fawning television interviews, such as the one with David Martin of CBS News where he boasts that “I was the driving force behind the whole thing,” where the word “thing” represents “the impeachment of Donald Trump.”

    Barf.

     

    • #25
  26. She Reagan
    She
    @She

    Update: Problem addressed and resolved.  Thank you very much.

    • #26
  27. Jeff Petraska Member
    Jeff Petraska
    @JeffPetraska

    I just watched this one-hour video this morning, coincidentally.

    It’s worth watching, but in short, large numbers of senior officers were relieved during World War 2.  It was a relatively common occurrence, compared to today.  So common, in fact, that it was not a career-ending event.  Many officers who were relieved of command continued in the services and eventually rose to even higher rank than they held when they were relieved.

    The point is that the process of relieving commanders allowed the military to quickly elevate the best men to the positions to which they were suited.

    • #27
  28. She Reagan
    She
    @She

    Jeff Petraska (View Comment):

    I just watched this one-hour video this morning, coincidentally.

    [Snip video link]

    It’s worth watching, but in short, large numbers of senior officers were relieved during World War 2. It was a relatively common occurrence, compared to today. So common, in fact, that it was not a career-ending event. Many officers who were relieved of command continued in the services and eventually rose to even higher rank than they held when they were relieved.

    The point is that the process of relieving commanders allowed the military to quickly elevate the best men to the positions to which they were suited.

    Yes.  And what a sane way to go about things.  

     

    • #28
  29. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    In case some folks haven’t seen the video:

    Watch it while it lasts. 

    • #29
  30. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    Why Trump did not fire the Vindman twins immediately is beyond me.

    • #30