Interesting Article About Colonel Lindsey Graham (ret)

My comments here will be understandably short.  I'll just say I think this article from the Washington Post is well worth the read and that I find it puzzling that Senator Graham would have the adulterous-classified-information-leaking General Petraeus at his retirement ceremony, after making these remarks about Edward Snowden.

Interesting stuff.

The Ramblings of Brandon Bryant

I've previously mentioned Brandon Bryant, former drone operator, and given him encouragement for furthering an important discussion.  I've been careful to point out that we have many differences of opinion, but this latest contribution of his, given on foreign soil, indicates that perhaps he has ceased to provide anything meaningful to the topic.

Brandon served as an RPA sensor operator, engaged the enemy on four occasions over eight years in the military, completed his enlistment, and then got out of active duty.  After his separation from the military, he began to hit media airwaves to talk about his experiences.  His "message" wasn't quite unified or necessarily coherent, and seemed to mostly be that the United States military uses military equipment to carry out military missions.

Not exactly earth shattering news, but at least it was part of an important discussion.  I'm not sure, however, that his contributions are helping that discussion anymore.  The video above starts off bad and then gets much worse before it descends into a rambling stream-of-consciousness pile of incoherent contradictions and blathering.

From the painful-to-watch video above, Brandon opens up with:

I'd also like to thank the Free Chelsea Manning Foundation for representing Chelsea and Edward Snowden for doing what they have done. I'd like to thank all the journalists and stuff that have supported me and allowed me to have this platform where I would never have had this opportunity to talk to you otherwise. And I think it's really important that we recognize these people are just as important as, as I guess, sometimes, people think about me and people like me.

Apparently Brandon has the delusion that his post military departure message, that the U.S. military conducts military operations, somehow makes him a whistle blower and puts him in the same company as Edward Snowden.  If Ed Snowden were known for completing his contract with Booz Allen Hamilton and then, after leaving, set out to tell the world that the NSA simply did surveillance, then I might get this comparison.  But the fact that the military uses force and the fact that the NSA conducts surveillance is not new information.

Those two individuals are not similar.  Ed Snowden pointed out that the NSA engaged in unlawful activity.  That was extremely useful information and the public needed to know this, because they did not know their government was violating their rights and violating the law.  Brandon's overarching message is quite different in that it merely points out that the military engages in warfare.  That is not noteworthy information and is not whistle blowing and does not take courage.

In the video Brandon mentions his created Project Red Hand, which he says is mostly an idea that he and others (including a conscientious objector Marine officer) are working on.  He mentions they are trying "to figure out the base reason, what we're contributing towards."  This idea of gathering people without knowing the base reason to contribute toward seems to be a hallmark of Brandon's contributions in the drone discussion, as well.  His message is almost baseless and doesn't appear to have a developed point.

He mentions the GQ article he was a part of, and how the title "Confessions of a Drone Warrior" offended him.  He mentions growing up wanting to be a hero.  He says he felt like a coward for using technology to kill people where he had no skin in the game and he calls that technology "wrong" because it doesn't give "respect" to those being engaged.  He says "war is not a game."

He then tells the foreign audience, that what they need to understand is what that violence does to drone operators, those who are employing the violence.  He states that he "kind of kicked everyone in the balls" when he claimed his experiences gave him PTSD.  While he calls RPA warfare the most cowardly form of warfare to ever exist because drone operators are far from the battlefield, he claims great psychological damage and hardship from being a drone operator.

He claims that he was committing murder, because he killed "indiscriminately" because he didn't have all the information on those he was ordered to engage.  He says he wanted to be a hero, but his country made him a murderer.

He says he didn't feel like a warrior because he has studied "warriorship," and warriors understand the nature of violence and the nature of war and have codes of honor and codes of conduct, and they prevent war and go out of their way so that war doesn't affect the average person.  Brandon then goes on to admit that war always gets out of hand and there is no way to contain it.  

Brandon then offers a solution.  Pretending.  He says:

We can always pretend to follow codes of conduct, and these things, in order to make it seem more civilized.

He then briefly mentions that the enemy are not "sand demons" and that they come from a different culture and that we "need to reach out to them."

He then tells the audience, "we all know the issue.  We all know that violence sucks" and does damage to those that wield it and those that receive it and asks, "how do we come up with a solution?"  He goes on to mention that finding a solution is the goal of his Project Red Hand (the organization that does not have a base reason for existing and doesn't know what it is working toward).  He then pivots to drone technology and asks how we can create techno-warriors that leverage RPA technology.  While he decries drone operators as cowardly murderers, for some reason he asks his foreign audience how we can create more of them.

Brandon's talk then becomes a rambling collection of phrases and words.

He shifts into a discussion of hackers who can be scum, but who also can do great things and mentions honor among hackers.  He then mentions RPA, throws out an undigested reference to 1984 and cameras on the ground and people staying inside because they have fear.

He starts talking about his "fragile soul" and thoughts that he would meet those he killed in the afterlife and then talks about trying to become a survival instructor before getting "long story short" injured and not making it through the program.

The talk then becomes babbling, combining charged words and psycho babble strung together with half platitudes until it gets to a question and answer session.

The main themes I pull from the video seem to be:

1.  Violence is bad but warriors are good.

2.  Brandon has a strong desire to be a hero with honor and a code of conduct.

3.  Brandon has a desire to organize people to do something, but isn't sure what.

4.  Brandon suffers.

5.  Brandon has a message the world needs to hear.

The common theme appears to sum up to one topic:  Brandon Bryant. 

I hope that he overcomes any suffering he has endured from watching television screens tens of thousands of miles away in a profession that has no skin in the game.  As for the larger discussion, at this point it is clear to me that Brandon has nothing worthwhile to offer on the subject of drone operations.  After the several years he has been separated from the military, his "message" is simply not useful.  His message appears to be a ploy to promote himself by saying any number of nonsensical and contradictory things.  And toward that end, Brandon is not furthering an important discussion on drone technology, but rather he is confusing it.

The video above makes this painfully clear.

Soldiers, We Need More Than Machinery!

For those not familiar with Symphony of Science, this is an invitation to something wonderful.  This artist has some of the most inspiring videos on YouTube under the handle, MelodySheep.  Even if you don't like this blog post and the embedded video above, I invite you to at least view this video.  This artist is a master of combining music, science, and rationality into very enjoyable short flicks.

In this particular video embedded above, he uses old Charlie Chaplin satire footage where Chaplin turns Hitler into a liberty lover.  I'm not in the movie business, but I wish I were able to turn fascists into Americans.  Sadly I've found that I lack Chaplin's skill despite trying very hard to replicate it.

The video above is worth watching, particularly the part about soldiers not being machinery.  This is especially important as our technology and machinery increase at a quantum rate, while our humanity struggles to keep up and may even be receding.

The video above quotes from the original Charlie Chaplin footage in which the Hitler character states:

Soldiers! don’t give yourselves to brutes - men who despise you - enslave you - who regiment your lives - tell you what to do - what to think and what to feel! Who drill you - diet you - treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder. Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men - machine men with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines! You are not cattle! You are men! You have the love of humanity in your hearts! You don’t hate! Only the unloved hate - the unloved and the unnatural! Soldiers! Don’t fight for slavery! Fight for liberty!

So right.  There is nothing wrong with being a soldier, and a good soldier is a great thing.  But to be so, you must fight for liberty, truly make good on your oath to our Constitution unlike the majority around you, and you must not let the fascists enslave you with their cowardice and their majority social constructions.  Guard your mind from their propaganda and the propaganda of those who have made a round through the revolving door, and who beg you to let them think for you;  those who put on a new uniform, one of "objective" media, or of industry expert, or of politician trying to get you to think as they say, while using the machinery of lies and deception and crowd sourced manufactured consent against you.  Control is exercised in many forms.

Guard your mind from those who do in fact want to be emperor.  As Chaplin's character says, we need more than greed and cleverness.

Fascism in satire is one thing.  Fascism in real life is quite another.  Let us unite against the fascism that is so popular today while pawning itself off as patriotism or concern for society or the "greater good."  Fight fascism despite its clever rationalizations, like America's Greatest Generation did in the 1940s.  Let us unite once more for freedom, this time for the freedom of America!

Criticizing Tony Carr is Against Community Standards

For a third time, a criticism of Tony Carr's contributions on his JQP Facebook page offered up on my own page, has led to content being removed and me being banned.  It would seem this anonymous in-love-with-Tony-Carr personality spends quite a bit of time claiming that my shared opinions violate that social media's community standards.

It would also seem that Tony Carr's "public figure" Facebook page has recently been removed.  Perhaps, for some reason, Tony has decided he is no longer a public figure to be followed by the masses despite his appearances on news programs and despite branding himself a media personality who, in fact, gets paid to market a message to his Air Force readership.

At any rate, as usual, the anonymous complainer offers no explanation how my criticisms transgressed any standard, and as usual that didn't stop the automated system over at Facebook from whizzing and whirring and pumping out the same result.

That result is that criticisms of Tony Carr are against community standards.  Those standards are, of course, the purview of the private company that owns the platform.  This isn't a case of the community standards that make our nation's law and that are enforced by tools of government violence.  So it's no big deal in the scheme of things.

But I do sincerely hope the anonymous complainer who silences the speech of others isn't in a position to dabble with or enforce our country's legal community standards.  To borrow a phrase (from a man who boasts that he has and will call a person's military commander if he disagrees with something they say online), if that hypothetical situation above doesn't ALARM you, it should.

It would appear this is now the new landscape.  Three times constitutes a trend.  The first bout of censorship and banning occurred in early June (note: clicking that link and seeing the censored material might not be suitable for all audiences, and by that I mean those who don't appreciate free discussion), and appears to be a routine way to do business now in our "digital conversation."  So, it's time to adapt and overcome in some way that will not include stooping to the same insecure level as the individual who cannot abide criticism of JQP.

In other news, I recommend folks stop over to the JQP Facebook page and enjoy the most recent Tony Carr contributions where he lambasts a senior Air Force official for possibly censoring his criticisms of them on their Facebook page.  It would appear that Tony, who harangues Air Force officials for spending too much time and taxpayer resources on non-flying organizations that have nothing to do with airpower, is not pleased the Secretary of the Air Force would travel to a squadron and fly a local mission with them in their aircraft.  Tony's consistent message (in that he's consistently bagging on Air Force leadership and trying to get them to divert attention to him) apparently was removed from the SAF's Facebook page.  Tony is demanding to know why.

Maybe I should contact Tony about this anonymous person censoring my speech on my own page.  He seems to really care about the topic.  He's really all about free discussion and the exchange of ideas, you know.

At any rate, the most recent criticism that led to my latest check-in to Banned Camp is below:

Tony Carr Not Allowed to Play in the Digital PlayPen?

Oh the irony.  Tony Carr posted recently:

Here's a comment for the folks over at BaseOps.Net. I've applied for posting privileges on your forums a half dozen times over the years and never gotten an account. Frankly, I couldn't care less. That's all fine. But if you're going to have a thread that beats up on posts featured here, and if you're going to lack the balls to come here and debate an issue on the merits using your real name, then at least grant me the ability to show up and make a comment.

I appreciate you guys reading my posts. I don't appreciate your unwillingness to engage unless it's within your insular cocoon of safety where you can't be challenged by the person who made the claim you're knocking. This gives you the freedom to abandon context and say whatever the hell you want unaccountably. That may stand you in well with your AF GO bosses, but I expect more.

I don't know what the hell you guys are doing over there, but it's not upholding the memory of the man who founded your site.

Ironic in that Tony Carr started a thread about me from an Air Force Times article, and gave his opinions on your humble blogger.  When somebody asked him why I wasn't allowed to post in that thread, he lied that I was not blocked from posting there but that I simply chose not to.  When it was repeated that I could not post there, Tony went cold mic and refused to revisit the issue.

But not only does he lie to his readership about who he chooses to not allow to post on his page, he also lambasts the Digital PlayPen for doing something similar.

Those two revenue earning businesses have so much in common, you'd think they'd get along.  They are both in the business of censoring speech to sell a product.  They have both started threads about me and both have booted me when I responded.  They both tailor and delete discussions.  They are both no fans of being told that military members have a real duty to uphold their oaths to support and defend the constitution.

You'd think the two would get along like, oh I don't know, Italian and German heads of state from the 1940s who might not agree on everything, but share a basic view of freedom and rights and oaths and such.

I have to admit it's more fun that they don't get along, though.

But I expect a merger before long.  They are far too similar to let this squabble get in the way of shared goals.

General Wesley Clark (ret) Recommends Concentration Camps

Retired Army four-star General Wesley Clark says that we should consider internment camps for those who exercise their free speech rights to not support, or in other words to be "disloyal" to, the government of the United States.  He mentions that in the 1940s we did this very thing, putting Americans into concentration camps, and says that we need to look into our domestic law procedures to implement this again today.

General Clark says on the MSNBC video above:

We have got to identify the people who are most likely to be radicalized. We’ve got to cut this off at the beginning. There are always a certain number of young people who are alienated. They don’t get a job, they lost a girlfriend, their family doesn’t feel happy here and we can watch the signs of that. And there are members of the community who can reach out to those people and bring them back in and encourage them to look at their blessings here.

But I do think on a national policy level we need to look at what self-radicalization means because we are at war with this group of terrorists. They do have an ideology. In World War II if someone supported Nazi Germany at the expense of the United States, we didn’t say that was freedom of speech, we put him in a camp, they were prisoners of war.

So, if these people are radicalized and they don’t support the United States and they are disloyal to the United States, as a matter of principle fine. It’s their right and it’s our right and obligation to segregate them from the normal community for the duration of the conflict. And I think we’re going to have to increasingly get tough on this, not only in the United States but our allied nations like Britain, Germany and France are going to have to look at their domestic law procedures.

It bears remembering that in the 1940s, under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, our nation's armed forces were commanded by presidential order, to fix bayonets and go door to door in parts of the United States and round up 70,000 American citizen men, women, and children and force them onto trains to take to concentration camps.  The Fifth Amendment rights of these Americans to not have their liberty taken without due process of law, were flatly ignored by the government.  There were no trials, no court rooms, no evidence supplied.  Those few who brought suit found that the Supreme Court of the United States was also consistently unwilling to protect their due process rights.

Anecdotally, I have had many conversations with current military personnel about this time in our history and have asked whether or not individuals would disobey the unlawful order FDR gave to the United States Army in the 1940s.  In my conversations, the overwhelming majority of military members today would obey such an order should it be issued again.

Some may think such concerns are simply paranoid due to the abundance of clowns and court jesters who talk about this serious topic to sell entertainment.  As a result, those folks might think all such talk of concentration camps comes from crackpots and may believe that such internment camps cannot happen in America again.  Justice Antonin Scalia, senior justice of the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees. Justice Scalia, in a discussion of the topic with law students in early 2014 said, "you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again," and added:

That’s what was going on - the panic about the war and the invasion of the Pacific and whatnot. That’s what happens. It was wrong, but I would not be surprised to see it happen again, in time of war. It’s no justification, but it is the reality...

Of course, today our government assassinates Americans without charge or trial, going way beyond the Fifth Amendment violations of the 1940s.  And our government had lawyers on the payroll travel around to provide their "expert" opinion on why killing Americans without due process of law is "legal."  One such lawyer, Jeh Johnson, was then promoted to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.  The DHS is in charge of the Border Patrol, which sets up checkpoints well inside the nation and seizes and detains innocent American citizens without suspicion of any crime, and the DHS also owns the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) agency, among others.

We should also remember that just a few years ago, Congress passed legislation, and the President signed it into law, allowing the American military to arrest and indefinitely detain Americans on American soil, locking them up without charge or trial.  The President issued a signing statement saying that despite this law now being passed, "...my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens."  Signing statements are, of course, no more legally binding than campaign promises and certainly do not affect future presidents.

This blatantly unconstitutional claimed power was challenged in the judiciary, and a district court found it to be unconstitutional.  However the finding of the district court was reversed at the appeals court level, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.   As it stands now, all three branches of federal government have institutionalized the blatantly unconstitutional power to order the military to arrest Americans, on American soil, and put them in prison forever, without trial and the due process of law.

Meanwhile, beyond the contribution of General Clark above, others also today spread propaganda showing a desire to institutionalize such denial of American liberty on a greater scale.  To some in this nation, Americans simply have no inviolate rights.

These topics are not academic.  All public servants, who have taken the oath of office to support and defend, and bear true faith and allegiance to the Fifth Amendment rights of Americans, should be preparing for a time when they may need to make good on their oath by refusing an unlawful order.

We need to stand ready to protect America from domestic enemies who wish to turn government tools of violence against the American people.

We do this by taking the time to read the Constitution we swore to defend, so that we can refuse unlawful orders on the spot.

Those who can't be counted on to protect America as they swore they would do, should leave service immediately and find employment elsewhere.  We do not need cowards who wear a uniform simply to receive the adulation from a public that doesn't know any better.  We need actual defenders of America, who actually make good on their oath of office, and who will defend Americans at risk to themselves, their careers, and their convenience.

America is in a very dark place.  It is a far different country than what was founded.  Like Germany, even free countries fall into despotism once fascists take control from the inside.

That tragic fact does not relieve public servants of their duty to stand tall for the America that no longer exists.

Tony Carr Says He's Now Ready "To Guide Your Electoral Decisions."

Tony has launched a new goal for his Facebook page and has introduced it over on his JQP social media page stating:

"We're doing some research here at JQP and will begin providing you with political analysis to guide your electoral decisions."

Well ain't that nice of him?  Apparently feeling a bit frosty from his current carefully censored and crafted sheep collection, and no doubt cashing in on his success biting the ankles of Air Force senior leadership and making them try to brush him off, Tony Carr is now going on a much more ambitious political king making venture.

Will this be the season where Tony runs for office or gets a currently serving politician to put him into an important appointed position so he can unleash his view that Americans have no inviolate rights in their Constitution?  Will he be able to pull the levers of government power to silence and censor those who disagree with him as he does using Facebook?

Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of House of Carrs and apologies for my blog being one big spoiler alert after spoiler alert over the years (but to be fair, I have never made any money off my blog, and I didn't sell it to a corporation for stock options and cash).  Still, we all love a good show, so I apologize for all the spoilers.

Spoiler Alert

Another Spoiler Alert

Another Spoiler Alert

Another Spoiler Alert

Another Spoiler Alert

Another Spoiler Alert

Another Spoiler Alert

Another Spoiler Alert

Another Spoiler Alert

Another Spoiler Alert

Another Spoiler Alert

Another Spoiler Alert

But here is what I think is going on behind Tony's calculation.  Tony sees that people are finally peering through his dishonest bullshit.  They are seeing that he's just another blowhard trying to be a politician, who champions ridiculous causes or any cause that he thinks will get him a new group of people and add to his numbers.  The man loves him some numbers and Facebook likes.  But people are wising up to his lies and his deceptions and his transparently obvious manipulations.  At least that's what I see as people who do not normally agree with me start telling me, "you were right about that guy."  When I see that happen, it's usually a sign of things to come.

I suspect Tony knows this too, and he's cashing in on all the sheep capital he has mustered so far, and is trying to make a bigger move before his rise to the top comes crumbling down on him.

Like I said, stay tuned for the next episode of House of Carrs!

Tony Carr Sold His JQP Blog to a Corporation in Exchange for Cash and Stock

At least according to this press release from several months ago.  Assuming it's legitimate, why did Tony Carr sell his blog to a corporation back in February?  What does it mean when a person claiming to spread truth out of concern for security and the nation and airmen and such, sells their blog to a giant media corporation?  Isn't that some kind of conflict of interest?

It raises some questions.

First, does Tony need the money?  Is his retirement check not enough?  Or does he need more money for future planned expenditures?  Perhaps to run a campaign despite claiming several times that he has no plans for political office (which is what all politicians say, but we can believe Tony because he's not like other politicians).  According to the press release from "BRIGHT MOUNTAIN ACQUISITION CORPORATION," Tony founded his blog and they purchased it stating that the "acquisition was made through a combination of stock and cash."

Second, does having stock in a media company that owns your blog have any influence on your *ahem* journalism?  According to the corporation's press release, Tony will "continue writing for the publication for the next five years."  But what about incentives now and beyond those five years?  Are those financial incentives any kind of conflict of interest?  Are we witnessing the main-stream-media translation of his *snicker* alternative media that he loudly claims is a model for our mainstream Air Force?  Does this news explain why he attacks Air Force Public Affairs?  Does a private corporation that appears to specialize in military media have any kind of reason to want to take on taxpayer media sources?

Third, since the "BRIGHT MOUNTAIN ACQUISITION CORPORATION" claims to own various military media sources, is there any chance it owns Duffel Blog or Doctrine Man or perhaps some media sources in Arizona that might have been vocal in the A-10 debate?  What about Business Insider?  Perhaps the Gannett company that owns the Air Force Times?

I don't know what they own, I'm too busy flying airplanes to look deeply into this issue in order to pierce a corporate veil.  But I certainly have my suspicions.  It's much easier to manufacture a "majority" view and then manufacture consent when you own not one media source, but several others that appear to be independent.  Of course I don't know if that is the case here.

Readers can view the press release where Tony Carr sold his claimed "journalism" for a long term financial stake.

Tony Carr, JQP & Freedom of Speech So Long As I Agree With It

For more than a year now, Tony Carr has blocked me from posting on his JQP Facebook page.  And for months now, when some of his readers mention me during particular threads, Tony has misinformed his readers that I am not blocked from posting on his page.

Which is false, as Tony Carr certainly knows.  But that doesn't stop him from misleading his readers in pursuit of his agenda (an agenda I believe is clearly to amass political power in order to advance himself personally).

I couldn't care less about not being able to post on his page, but I do find his dishonesty and hypocrisy interestingly consistent.

Today marked a new turn of events.  I tried to log into my personal Facebook account, and found that somebody anonymously complained about a post I made on my personal Facebook page discussing a recent JQP comment, and the anonymous person had my post removed and my personal Facebook account suspended.  For the first time ever, over the many years I have used Facebook, my account has been suspended.

Again, despite the post being on my personal wall and not in a public arena.

Facebook, of course, has a business model of capitulating to whiners and the teary-eyed-offended who used to get beat up in school, and Facebook doesn't have the resources to actually vet complaints in order to deny the worthless ones.  Fortunately Facebook did provide me with the post that garnered the anonymous complaint.  It did not, however, provide the allegations of why the post was bad, or who made the complaint.  Just as Facebook didn't awhile back when another individual made a complaint against me and had my comments removed from my personal wall.

That individual was also no fan of free speech and also wanted to control the message to include silencing others.  You know the type.  The type you meet off base in your private life who threaten to call commanders or the shirt on you in order to bully you.  Those kind of people.  Little tyrants with no respect for free speech who are much too insecure to debate ideas, cyber-mono-v-mono, knowing they will get pummeled.  In public no less.  Nah, they can't have that, it's too embarrassing and damages their public image.

This comment about JQP that got me suspended was nowhere even in the realm of offensive.  But that doesn't stop the claims from those who pretend to be offended in order to silence arguments that make them feel vulnerable and threatened.  Even when such people claim to be all about free speech and debate and discussion but are, in actuality, only supportive of speech that they agree with.  Like the person who reported my post as being somehow "bad" and who took steps to silence my private speech online.  And who then naturally inspired me to share this discussion publicly in this blog post.

When you can't compete in the realm of ideas with somebody who disagrees with you, simply ban them if you control the venue.  If you are concerned they might be sharing opinions privately that you don't agree with, simply have the corporation that controls that venue ban them.  To exercise this control, however, you have to own the medium or command numbers of dutiful followers to help exert pressure on media that you do not control.

Just imagine what such a person would do to silence dissent if given the levers of government power.

Without further adieu, I present the comment on my private page that led to the complaint and my account being suspended.

As a side note, JQP's latest Facebook post has this little gem supplied to his readership:

In the past, I've not hesitated to call supervisors... Sometimes, I've called the supervisors of those supervisors and even dropped a line to a few legislators and journalists to alert them as well. It's never turned out well for people...

Be warned JQP readers.  Tony has gotten flag officers fired and, as he threatened to do to me in a Facebook message once, he will not hesitate to pull those levers of government power to silence those he disagrees with by calling their commanders.

Reminds me of some general he once chastised for doing something similar, before Tony began peddling "treason" patches and mugs.

Wannabe tyrants gonna tyrant.

Somebody Call a Whaambulance - A Squadron Commander Got Fired!

Sometimes I look around me and notice the evils of the world.  Poor people, theft, murder, children brought up in destitute homes.  I want to tell those people, "Look, at least you're not a public servant squadron commander who serves at the pleasure of his or her boss who gets removed from that position and has to suffer the humiliation of a generous pension and health care benefits for life."

Tony Carr has a fetish for his once top position, and his blog now hosts the whine letter of a former commander who chooses not to use his or her real name.  Tony has said previously that squadron commanders are the best the Air Force has to offer.  Of course anybody with half a brain knows that isn't the case and even Tony should know that, being that he continuously lambasts a leadership culture made up of former squadron commanders and decries their decisions to remove current squadron commanders.  But he likes to talk outside both orifices in order to maximize his readership/followership.

There is bad leadership in the Air Force.  There are also some good leaders.  Sometimes bad commanders are removed without a full record being supplied to Tony Carr for his approval, and sometimes good commanders are removed in the same way.

Get over it.

Commanders serve at the pleasure of those above them.  It's an additional duty, being a commander, just like SNACKO.  The cult of power and prestige blinds the insecure to this fact.  It's not noteworthy when a commander is removed from a position, and it's certainly not a tragedy.

If you are a legitimate public servant who enters a command position dead set on being a good leader, then you should hold your head up high when you are removed from that position for being a good leader.  Your career "sacrifice" (oh my) is for the benefit of those you purportedly served.  Good commanders enter that position willing and happy to fall on their swords for mission and people.  And they don't whine about being successful in that regard.

You were probably told by past superiors, peers and subordinates that you were on a high trajectory, and maybe you started to believe your own press. The reality is those dreams are shattered.

Stop whining like it's some kind of fatal wound and life defining and/or ruining experience.  Dreams shattered??  Rub some dirt on it.  Your whining doesn't lead me to believe you knew what was important and what wasn't, and makes me think perhaps the Air Force got it right by removing you.

If you need help coping, get it, plain and simple. Losing a job and moving rank in the top five of most stressful situation lists. Mental health still has a stigma that it shouldn’t, and you may even be improperly referred by your chain.

When you get removed from the SNACKO position, you don't lose your job.  You still have a job, you still get paid, so getting removed from a position is nowhere near the top five most stressful situations in any list.  But if this traumatic event is so earth shattering to you, you should seek mental health.  Perhaps have the counselor start off with hand puppets, and approach you as a three year old where your mental development apparently stopped.

Whatever you do, please stop whining online.  It's embarrassing that our service gave you a chance at command, but fortunately they've fixed the glitch.  Move along.