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.
On LTC Vindman and the “Interagency,” but Mostly on Vindman
You can read Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman’s opening statement for his 29 October Congressional testimony here. First on Vindman, then the Interagency, then more on Vindman.
Full disclosure: I hate the fact that Vindman is in my cohort. He has to be junior to me, but he’s a Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) in the United States Army. Way to go, pogue, you just put all your LTC brethren in the position of no trust from POTUS.
This is Vindman, in uniform, appearing for his testimony:
He’s wearing the crossed rifles of the Infantry (why is the sky blue? Because God loves the infantry). As a taxpayer, do you feel a little cheated seeing an Infantryman that looks so…doughy? I’d like to see him do his PT test (shocking hint: I’m pretty sure he cheats).
In the six pages of his opening statement, Vindman mentioned “the interagency” three times.
Let me tell you about the interagency; During my time as an LTC, I worked with CIA, FBI, HSI, CPB, DOJ, NSA and others. We made some beautiful music together. Know what one of our primary guiding principles was? No matter how awesome or juicy our joint endeavors were, keep our planned operations, actions, or activities out of the Beltway (I-495) for as long as we could. As soon as the hacks in “the swamp” got their hands on what we were doing, protecting the country and doing good works would fall by the wayside. Immediately, the leadership of the “Interagency” would give primacy to equities and rice bowls. Yeah. No.
This philosophy was across the board. All of us worker bees were focused on doing the work, getting the job done, and protecting the country. I always despised the Army guys that went to DC, wore suits for duty, and got themselves off doing the interagency Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies.
From Vindman’s statement: I have dedicated my entire professional life to the United States of America. For more than two decades, it has been my honor to serve as an officer in the United States Army. As an infantry officer, I served multiple overseas tours, including South Korea and Germany, and a deployment to Iraq for combat operations. In Iraq, I was wounded in an IED attack and awarded a Purple Heart.
Mongo’s retort: Wait, you were commissioned in 1998, you’re still on active duty, and you’ve got one combat tour under your belt? One? Sorry about the getting wounded and all, but this smells like ticket-punching to me. Also, nowhere online could I find what billet he was filling; would bet pretty heavily that it was a staff job, though. Vindman doesn’t strike me as the type of guy with a fire in his belly to lead Infantry studs into close combat.
From Vindman’s statement: Before recounting my recollection of various events under investigation, I want to clarify a few issues. I am appearing today voluntarily pursuant to a subpoena and will answer all questions to the best of my recollection.
Mongo’s retort: Uh, no, stud. There had been no vote on any kind of impeachment inquiry when you testified. So there was no authorization for any committee in Congress to issue a subpoena. So you received a request to testify and acquiesced; if you receive an actual subpoena, you’re appearing whether it’s voluntary or not.
From Vindman’s statement: As an active duty military officer, the command structure is extremely important to me. On many occasions, I have been told I should express my views and share my concerns with my chain of command and proper authorities.
Mongo’s retort: Oookay. What military officer in your chain of command green-lighted you showing up and testifying at Congress’s request?
From Vinman’s statement: I stated to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the NSC was going to get involved in or push.
Mongo’s retort: [record skkrriiiitch] You what!? Know what the equivalent military rank of an US Ambassador is? Four-star general. So not only is your testimony insubordinate to the Commander-in-Chief and most likely your local chain of command, but your testimony itself highlights your insubordination. Lieutenant Colonels don’t generate policy, they implement it, Lard-o. And your boss, Dr. Hill, was on her way in, apparently. You know what a military professional does? He goes through his boss to articulate any misgivings about what a policymaker says, and the boss deals with it.
This guy is a self-important weasel. Military personnel like him are one of the myriad reasons that I never took an assignment in the beltway.
He’s testifying again today.
Bet you that if he hasn’t already dropped his retirement paperwork, it’ll be in by Christmas.
Published in General
(cough*French,David*cough)
Who determines “need to know”?
The Interagency? 😁
I don’t know. The only time I had such a clearance it was a top secret compartmentalized for a specific activity on a ‘need to know’ basis and I assumed when I moved to an area of responsibility not included in the specific activity I would no longer be consider as someone with a ‘need to know’. Ask a security classification expert.
Can’t be a bruise. You gotta bleed to get a Purple Heart.
Actually, this is spot on. Once you move out of a compartmented program, you are “read off,” which is the stake in the heart of your need to know.
I doubt that there are additional security caveats’ of POTUS’ conversations with other heads of state. However, just the fact that it’s POTUS’ conversation means that the personnel privy to it should up their discretion. ‘Course, none of these muttonheads are going to extend this courtesy to DJT.
With IEDs, if you are rendered unconscious by the blast, you are entitled to the PH.
I’d like to give him another one.
UCMJ Article 131
57. Article 131—Perjury
a. Text of statute.
Any person subject to this chapter who in a
judicial proceeding or in a course of justice will- fully and corruptly—
(1) upon a lawful oath or in any form allowed by law to be substituted for an oath, gives any false testimony material to the issue or matter of inquiry; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permit- ted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, subscribes any false statement material to the issue or matter of inquiry; is guilty of perjury and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
In 2017 I deployed as a DOD civilian campaign analyst to work on Operation Inherent Resolve. For a brief time I worked (4 months) in the plans shop of SOJTF-OIR. I worked with the plans chief and the chief of staff (a Brit) to the 2-star. One day, after briefing the COS on something or the other he asks me if I ever served on active duty. The conversation went something like this.
COS: Did you serve on active duty?
Instugator: Yes, I did a 20 year career and retired about 9 years ago.
COS: what branch and what did you do?
Instugator: I served in the USAF and I was a B-52 guy, spent some time in the AOC (Air and Space Operations Center) as a Chief of Operational Assessment.
COS: Really, what did you do in the B-52?
Instugator: I was an instructor pilot.
COS: Are you kidding me, you have been working here 2 months already and never told anyone you were a pilot?!? How does that happen?!?
Point is this.
Some things aren’t relevant to the job and Vindeman’s purple heart is one of those things. More proof that this is just impeachment theater.
The good news is that he can still be dragged into a court-martial if he’s getting a pension.
That is a recent change, 21st century, and recognizes the presence of TBI. That wasn’t the case in my last combat deployment (2003).
I had deployments after 2003, but I was working in either the AOC or a JTF HQ staff.
(There some glitch in the posting that isn’t letting my quote posts correctly)
I was a very self-actualized leg as well. When you drag your drunk mechanic out of 4 story brothel, you can tell me how much you want to fly in a helicopter.
I would pay to see this. Boss can referee.
He kept saying the president demanded – he never demanded anything – then he threw in his “opinion” that any time someone “asks” something, it is to be interpreted as a demand? What? I could only stand 10 minutes this morning, and I’ll never think of the word doughy in the same way again…… PS….those Adam Shift….oops I mean Schiff bulging eye stares………sshhheeesshh!
Along with doughy, petulant and disrespectful seem to sum up Vindman. Reminds me of Barbara Boxer going postal after being spoken to as Ma’am instead of Senator.
Sidetrack, OMG! You must do a post on flying B-52s. That plane is coming up on 70 years of service! That is way longer than the time from Wright Bros. to first flight of B-52.
Concur.
You’re right of course. Our Marine couldn’t get by without yours and many others. I apologize for being so sweeping. I admit to projecting from my own experience with useless POG in my own world. I’m sorry.
It is a misapplication of a military rule of thumb. Vindeman obviously thinks that the President of Ukraine works for President Trump.
In the service, a request or “an ask” from your boss isn’t really a request or an ask. It is an order without requiring the boss to say “I order you to…”
The rub is that President Trump isn’t the boss of the President of Ukraine.
The fact that Vindeman doesn’t realize this is proof that he has been promoted far above his competence.
I don’t think that’s quite the issue – he thinks the President is not the President and others know far better than the President does what should happen in foreign (and all other ) policy. He just doesn’t think the President is in charge of anything. A Null election as it were.
On the other hand- perhaps here never seen a President actually do foreign policy. Maybe in the Obama administration the bureaucrats really did run the asylum and make and execute policy up and down the line. We had the idea of what Obama wanted, but who saw him actually working day come day go?
Agree. I do think that there are analogs in the civilian world, though. Because I’ve been on the receiving end of many exculpatory explanations of inexplicable things that employees of mine have done (that run counter to any rational action) which always seemed to start out with something like, “I was told . . .” (usually by someone who had nothing to do with the matter).
I don’t think invented chains of command, or imaginary hierarchies, are the exclusive province of the military. I think it’s the product of a certain, victim-oriented mindset, no matter where it comes from.
Drew,
Wow! This guy is up for the Mr. Reliable award of late 2019. Oh so credible.
I really just can’t believe it. Amazing.
Regards,
Jim
My uncle was a full Colonel in the Air Force. He flew in WW11,Korea and two tours in Vietnam. He flew hundreds of combat missions. During WW11 the mission survival rate was 50%. He spent some time at the Pentagon as a Colonel . He said he was glad he was a full Colonel because Lt.Colonels were sent for the coffee and donuts at the Pentagon. Vindman is a joke.
I also concur. I walked around enough of them,; I’d love to hear about flying one of those BUFFs.
One immediately comes to mind.
I find it interesting that folks are angry at Lt. Col. Vindman testifying in uniform. Apparently folks have forgotten how Col. Oliver North also appeared in uniform.
IIRC, there was some criticism of him for doing so. I’d have to look it up though, and no time right now.