Mixed Thoughts on General Kelly’s Remarks

By Hank Sullivan October 27, 2017

Did you hear General Kelly’s remarks during last Thursday’s White House briefing? That afternoon, Trump’s Chief of Staff took to the podium to address political statements made by US Representative Frederica Wilson, a Democrat from Florida, who by all accounts, sat quietly, listening in on Trump’s call to a Gold Star wife whose husband was recently killed in Niger.

General Kelly and Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Fla)

According to Rep. Wilson, President Trump’s efforts to console the grieving wife were “insensitive, unsympathetic and disgraceful.”

Since then, two other Gold Star wives have published recordings of calls from President Trump after their husbands were killed in action, however each expressed gratitude that their president would take the time to call, and were comforted by the president’s concern.

General Kelly spoke from the unique perspective of a Marine General who has ordered sons of other parents into battle to be killed, but also as one whose own son suffered the same fate in Afghanistan.

In his remarks, General Kelly described the procedure of removing a fallen soldier’s remains from the battlefield, and the respectful protocol that is followed in bringing them home to a final state of rest. Kelly spoke briefly of conversations with President Trump on the subject of the appropriate words to express to a grieving family. He told reporters that a president is under no obligation to call, and that in fact, Kelly advised against it for reasons he did not allow.

But since Donald Trump has been president, he has never failed to call the grieving family of a recently fallen soldier. I suppose with that kind of record of respect, it was only a matter of time before some weak-minded, self-centered politician would seek partisan advantage from the grief of others.

I have the highest respect for those who put on the American uniform, all of whom are subject to being placed in harm’s way.

Interestingly, at the end of General Kelly’s briefing, he opened the floor for a few questions. And thankfully, the first reporter asked the very question that was on my mind. Speaking of the four soldiers recently killed during the events in question, this reporter respectfully inquired, “Why were they in Niger?” Yes, that should be the question of the day, friends. We all understand military efforts to fight for America. But Niger is not America. What is so vital in Niger for America’s young finest to volunteer to die?

Frankly, General Kelly’s answer was insufficient to the question, perhaps purposely so. According to the general, American fighting forces are dispatched all over the world in tens of thousands, essentially on-the-ready, and for good purposes. But in particular, according to Kelly, these soldiers were in Niger to teach Nigerians “how to be better soldiers…how to respect human rights…how to fight ISIS.” I’m sorry; I love our men and women in uniform, and respect General Kelly, and that is where I get off the train.

There is one reason American military forces are in Africa. Africa has the most accessible and plentiful natural resources on the planet. At least nine non-African countries have military forces in Africa vying for private rights to extract those resources. They Include the US, UK, Japan, France, Turkey, UAE, even China and Italy, and now the Saudis. Notice I said PRIVATE rights. This isn’t for you and me, friends, and it certainly is not for the service men and women who sign up to defend America. There are corporate beneficiaries to their efforts and lives lost. This is what happens when multinational corporations exert control over national governments and use the military power of government for their own purposes, a practice carried out now for literally hundreds of years.

Al Qaeda in Africa

These days a nation state vying to aid its corporate partners to receive resource extraction rights does so by agreeing to protect the various African peoples from military insurgents sworn to destroy them. The most familiar insurgent forces are “Al Qaeda,” also known as “ISIS,” predictably the same adversaries the US military is authorized to combat anywhere around the world under the 2002 congressional Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF). Are you getting this? Once these state-sponsored terrorists set up shop in an African country, say Niger, eventually the Nigeriens cry for military assistance to vanquish their attackers. And whichever countries can bargain the rights-to-defend also gain the rights-to-extract resources for private purposes—at little cost. You see, the operating currencies they pay with are those that private central bankers can print free of charge. This is how the system works, friends. This is why the peoples of Africa remain poor while they have vast riches at their fingertips. The belt of Africa is a colonial mine for the world elite who use the military might of the countries under their control, such as America, to extract resources for private gain. And this is why I urge America’s young finest to resist the urge to sign up for military service. Yes, they may sign up for the best reasons, which I greatly respect, but their service and very lives will likely be used for private purposes.