Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Whatever Happened to LtCol Scheller?
Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Scheller was court-martialed on Thursday, October 14, charged with five counts of violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice including: showing contempt towards officials; showing disrespect towards superior commissioned officers and failure to obey an order or regulation.
He pled guilty on all counts, as he surely must have, given his call for “accountability” in the ranks.
Prior to the hearing, a deal was reached between prosecutors and the defense team, in which Scheller agreed to accept a maximum punishment of a letter of reprimand, forfeiture of two-thirds of a month’s pay for a year, and the processing of his request to resign from the Corps, the disposition and type of discharge to be determined by the Secretary of the Navy.
The judge in the case, USMC Colonel Glen Hines, unsurprisingly accepted Scheller’s guilty plea, finding him so on all counts.
In something of a surprise, however, the judge did not impose the agreed-upon maximum sentence, calling for the letter of reprimand, and the forfeiture of only $5,000 of one month’s pay. (He stated in his verdict that it would have been his preference for Scheller to forfeit the amount for two months of pay, but that he gave Scheller credit for time served in the brig.) Scheller will now begin the process of separation, and the type of discharge he receives (honorable, general, other than honorable, bad conduct, dishonorable) will be at the judgment and discretion of the Secretary of the Navy.
In his ruling, Col Hines also sharply criticized the prosecutorial (ie: USMC) handling of the case, saying that the entirety of Scheller’s videos showed a man who appeared “to be in pain,” “confused,” and “significantly frustrated,” rather than the violent revolutionary portrayed in the prosecution’s testimony. He was also critical of what appear to have been leaks to the press about Scheller’s character and mental health status, as well as his pre-trial confinement, saying that they raised the specter of “unlawful command influence.”
All in all, an interesting conclusion to the case, in which no-one involved got off scot-free.
That happy outcome, apparently, is reserved only for those at the highest levels, and those in charge of the debacle for which Scheller’s outspokenness and unflinching honesty cost him his career.
Published in General“I am standing here today pleading guilty; this is me accepting accountability. But it deeply pains me that my senior leaders are incapable of being as courageous.” — LtCol Stuart Scheller, at his court-martial, October 14, 2021
Good insight, thanks. You’re better informed on the specifics of WWII leadership than I am, but I think there is something to be said for the kind of operator who rises under the prior president. I worry that the compromises one must make to advance into the increasingly political ranks of high command causes one to shed the warfighting spirit. In my opinion, General Miley was far too willing to stay in power in service of a doomed mission. I suspect the younger version of himself would have been appalled at his performace.
There’s something faintly ironic about the assertion that’s been made here a few times (I’m sure it’s true, BTW), on a few different posts about Scheller (I remember because I wrote most of them…) that in prior times promotion/demotion in the military worked differently, and that if an officer, even quite a high-ranking one “messed up” (to use Scheller’s formulation), and was reduced in rank, assigned elsewhere, or otherwise sent to the military equivalent of the woodshed, it was often possible for him to work his way back up the chain and to emerge at equal or higher rank to that he’d lost. While “we” like to think of ourselves as the tolerant ones, and of those from early generations as iredeemably stuffy, rigid and judgmental, it seems that second chances and a certain amount of grace were easier to come by in past times.
In 1907, a brand new 22-year-old ensign ran DD Decatur aground while entering Batangas Harbor. He had been trying to enter the harbor at low tide and the charts for the harbor were (and were known by the Navy to be) crap. Initially he was charged at court-martial with “culpable inefficiency in the performance of duty.” That would have finished him. The charge was reduced to “neglect of duty” and he was sentenced to be publicly reprimanded. (Being court-martialed accomplished that by itself.) His career was not ended.
Good thing too, because Chester Nimitz became useful later.
His second video was worrisome. I’m glad he pulled back from the light of what appeared to be an oncoming train there.
Once upon a time, a member of my family (not me, not my catastrophically mentally ill stepson) was going through a very difficult time in her life. Isolated geographically from most of her family, she sought counseling–a decision that Mr. She and I enthusiastically supported. It took three different individuals before she found the right fit and the counselor who gave her the best bit of insight I think I’ve ever heard from such a person, and which I’ve shared with a few other friends in dire straits over the years:
Something of a corollary to “it’s not paranoia when someone is actually trying to kill you.”
There are two parts to “bravely sticking to your guns.” One is “fighting.” The other is “standing.” I’m grateful to my Dad, who knew, and taught me, the difference:
Stuart Scheller not only fought. He stood.
I admire that.
Would have made a great Paul Harvey ‘Rest of the Story’ script! Thanks!
Oh, yes. It really would have!
Thank you both. I always really loved those.
Thank you, She, for your continued interest in our Corps and this case of a man’s angst and an institution’s slide into the sludge.
Depends on your definition of “our”.
We don’t know how many of “our” people have been killed as a result of giving the Taliban their names.
We also know that far more than 13 of “our” people who were left behind and have subsequently been rescued by private parties (Glen Beck, Pineapple Express, to name 2).
We further don’t know how many remain trapped by the Taliban.
The withdrawal was an abject failure, by the simple measure of Biden’s Promise compared to Biden’s Result.
The promise – “Leave no one behind” made 21 times.
https://cbnc.com/21-times-joe-biden-promised-to-leave-no-one-behind/
The result –
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/biden-breaks-his-promise-to-leave-no-american-behind-in-afghanistan/
I agree. It’s one thing to undertake a military exercise guaranteeing no outcomes and making no promises, after which I suppose we could have a spirited discussion about whether or not it resulted in a success for our side; and quite another to engage in such a military exercise where the putative CinC clearly sets out certain terms for success and completion which clearly are not met, and which–in addition–result in casualties, abandonment, and many, many questions.
Why on earth some are determined to head up a rearguard action to redefine this debacle as successful is utterly beyond me. I’ll defer to those with skin in the game on this one, most of whom seem to agree with me, because–even as a civilian British lady living in a backwater in a foreign country–it seems quite obvious to me that this was a disaster.
Well lookey what we have here.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/group-of-veterans-rescues-another-374-evacuees-from-afghanistan
Wow – 374 on one flight. At least 9 flights organized by the country of Qatar
Yeah, I am still not seeing how the withdrawal could be reasonably called a “success”.
9 flights sounds like more than 3000 people left behind to me.
#Let’s go Brandon!
This Just In
State Dept: We know of 363 American citizens still abandoned in Afghanistan
How can we know the “withdrawal” is a “success” if it hasn’t completed yet?
As that article makes clear, they haven’t a bloody clue. They focused on embassy personnel and whoever was in Kabul and close environs, and they couldn’t even complete that task without substantial collateral damage and the exfiltration of thousands of Afghanis who may or may not be deserving of being rehomed, but who are nothing to do with any sort of support role for the Allied presence there over the past two decades; they just happened to get to the front of the line, or be luckier, than some of their fellow citizens, even those with papers.
I also would be interested in a roundup of who has taken the 218 citizens and 131 legal permanent residents out of Afghanistan over the past seven weeks, and how many have flown out on State Department-sponsored planes.
Oops
New addition to “Tha Bestest, Mostest Succeful Withdrawal Evah” TM.
Pentagon confirms nearly 450 Americans trapped in Afghanistan.
Yet we “only” lost 13, amirite?
That’s their story and they’re sticking to it. For now. Good grief.
Bumps in the road. Number so small it’s meaningless.