PDA

View Full Version : Army Officials Felt Accused WikiLeaker Was Unfit To Serve



txradioguy
02-03-2011, 04:51 AM
http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/World/397/224/manning.jpg

Army investigators have concluded Iraq war commanders in desperate need of intelligence analysts ignored recommendations from low-level military officials at Fort Drum who said Pfc. Bradley Manning -- the accused source of the WikiLeaks document scandal -- was not fit for deployment because of behavioral problems, a military official tells Fox News.

"There were people who said he shouldn't deploy," the official told Fox on the condition of anonymity. But because of the intense need for intelligence specialists, Manning was brought to Iraq anyway.

Manning would later be accused of committing the largest breach of secret information in U.S. history.

First reported by McClatchy newspapers, an internal Army probe found Manning had violent outbursts while at Fort Drum in New York that included throwing chairs at colleagues and shouting at superiors.

Once in Iraq, Manning's behavior deteriorated. Officials believe his outbursts were made worse by personal relationship problems. At one point he was demoted a rank after he got into a fight with a fellow soldier.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/02/army-officials-felt-pfc-manning-unfit-serve/

Odysseus
02-03-2011, 10:48 AM
http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/World/397/224/manning.jpg

Army investigators have concluded Iraq war commanders in desperate need of intelligence analysts ignored recommendations from low-level military officials at Fort Drum who said Pfc. Bradley Manning -- the accused source of the WikiLeaks document scandal -- was not fit for deployment because of behavioral problems, a military official tells Fox News.

"There were people who said he shouldn't deploy," the official told Fox on the condition of anonymity. But because of the intense need for intelligence specialists, Manning was brought to Iraq anyway.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/02/army-officials-felt-pfc-manning-unfit-serve/

But, they didn't ask if he was fit, and he didn't tell..:rolleyes:

Apache
02-03-2011, 10:52 AM
Why were such outbursts tolerated?

Starbuck
02-03-2011, 11:46 AM
Leave it to a bureaucracy - in this case the army - to work people to the point of exhaustion and then be completely unable to correct themselves. Either that, or become so lax that nothing ever gets done and people simply sit around waiting for their pension.

I've seen both cases; been involved in a couple of them.

I was worked to the point of utter exhaustion twice in my life; once in the navy, and then again at an over-zealous company.
You'd be surprised at what you'll do when you get to that point. But Manning was a weak link from the beginning, it appears. He never should have been granted a Top Secret clearance.

I had a Top Secret clearance clearance. It was hard to get, and I personally knew of two cases where the sailor was no longer allowed to leave the U.S. simply because of the information they had been exposed to. In another case I realized that two men knew each other and neither one of them were allowed to tell me where they had met.
That's the way security ought to be handled. It appears things have changed.:(

txradioguy
02-03-2011, 01:17 PM
One of the very good things about Iraq/Afghanistan coming to a close at some point is that the recruiters will be allowed to be more selective in who they are signing up and not having to settle for scum like this to fill the ranks.

Odysseus
02-03-2011, 01:29 PM
Why were such outbursts tolerated?

Because no one wanted to be seen as insensitive.

txradioguy
02-03-2011, 01:40 PM
Because no one wanted to be seen as insensitive.

No one wanted this twit filing an EO complaint aginst them either.

Apache
02-03-2011, 01:52 PM
Because no one wanted to be seen as insensitive.

Oh FFS! Just do your job...

Kill people and break things :p

Odysseus
02-03-2011, 03:25 PM
No one wanted this twit filing an EO complaint aginst them either.
Exactly.

Oh FFS! Just do your job...

Kill people and break things :p
That's my job? I thought that I was supposed to do Muslim outreach... No, wait, that's NASA. We do nation-building. :rolleyes:

SaintLouieWoman
02-04-2011, 04:06 PM
Exactly.

That's my job? I thought that I was supposed to do Muslim outreach... No, wait, that's NASA. We do nation-building. :rolleyes:

No you're supposed to get wine for Obama's buddies. :rolleyes:

PC indeed will be the literal death of us.

Odysseus
02-04-2011, 04:12 PM
No you're supposed to get wine for Obama's buddies. :rolleyes:

PC indeed will be the literal death of us.

Ooops! You're right! I'll just go freshen that for you, ma'am. :D

Apache
02-04-2011, 05:36 PM
Exactly.

That's my job? I thought that I was supposed to do Muslim outreach... No, wait, that's NASA. We do nation-building. :rolleyes:

Last time I looked the military was a fighting force.... imagine what could be done if they untied your hands...

djones520
02-04-2011, 05:43 PM
The insensitivity thing is BS IMO. I was faced with a very similar issue in my deployment. There was concerns about a fracture in my leg two weeks before I shipped out. AMC leadership was willing to fight to send me even if it was broken because they needed the body.

If you don't have anyone else to send, you send what you have. The people at the top care more about filling that position then anything else. They don't give a damn about us desk jockey's. As long as you can sit there and type, you can do your job.

It's called Operational Risk Management. ORM. You take a look at what may go wrong, weigh them against your needs, and make the decision. Obviously this one bit them in the ass, but to say it was a decision made because they were afraid of hurting someones feelings is just bullshit.

Odysseus
02-05-2011, 10:22 AM
Last time I looked the military was a fighting force.... imagine what could be done if they untied your hands...
In order for us to be a fighting force, our civilian leadership has to believe that some things are worth fighting for.


The insensitivity thing is BS IMO. I was faced with a very similar issue in my deployment. There was concerns about a fracture in my leg two weeks before I shipped out. AMC leadership was willing to fight to send me even if it was broken because they needed the body.

If you don't have anyone else to send, you send what you have. The people at the top care more about filling that position then anything else. They don't give a damn about us desk jockey's. As long as you can sit there and type, you can do your job.

It's called Operational Risk Management. ORM. You take a look at what may go wrong, weigh them against your needs, and make the decision. Obviously this one bit them in the ass, but to say it was a decision made because they were afraid of hurting someones feelings is just bullshit.

Not all commanders are like that. I've worked very hard to balance the needs of the unit with the needs of the people in it. I'd never have put a troop with a broken leg into theater. The risks to your longterm health are too great, and if I make a decision that permanently incapacitates you, then I've done al Qaeda's work for them.

djones520
02-05-2011, 10:56 AM
In order for us to be a fighting force, our civilian leadership has to believe that some things are worth fighting for.



Not all commanders are like that. I've worked very hard to balance the needs of the unit with the needs of the people in it. I'd never have put a troop with a broken leg into theater. The risks to your longterm health are too great, and if I make a decision that permanently incapacitates you, then I've done al Qaeda's work for them.

Not saying it's your decision, but the guys at the Strategic Level. Their the ones who make the call on that.

Odysseus
02-05-2011, 12:40 PM
Not saying it's your decision, but the guys at the Strategic Level. Their the ones who make the call on that.

No argument. Mongo is just pawn in game of life.

djones520
02-05-2011, 02:45 PM
No argument. Mongo is just pawn in game of life.

We all are my friend, we all are.