It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Doomsday Line of Succession Shuffled at DoD

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   
For the second time in six months, the Bush Administration has changed the line of succession to the Secretary of Defense, moving civilian employees of the department closer to the top and military service chiefs farther down. The move reportedly reflects the emergence of intelligence gathering as a primary focus in the war on terror over actual combat operations.
 



www.latimes.com
Military Chiefs Are Bumped in Doomsday Plan

WASHINGTON — The three military service chiefs have been dropped in the Bush administration's doomsday line of Pentagon succession, pushed beneath three civilian undersecretaries in Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's inner circle.

A holiday week executive order from President Bush moved the Pentagon's intelligence chief to the No. 3 spot in the succession hierarchy behind Rumsfeld. The second spot would be the deputy secretary of Defense. The Army chief, who long held the No. 3 spot, was dropped to sixth.

The changes are the second in six months and mirror the administration's new emphasis on intelligence gathering.

Technically, the line of succession is assigned to specific positions, rather than the individuals holding those jobs.

But in its current incarnation, the doomsday plan moves to near the top three undersecretaries who are Rumsfeld loyalists.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


There could be more to this than meets the eye. The fact that Rumsfeld loyalists have been moved into the top three spots in the line of succession is especially interesting.

There is speculation in the article that this development could lead to a more narrow-minded approach and bring more political control to the DoD.

[edit on 29-12-2005 by Icarus Rising]

[edit on 29-12-2005 by Icarus Rising]

[edit on 12-30-2005 by Valhall]




posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Why Bush will decided to take this decision beats me, taking in consideration that he will not be elected for the next term.

Could it be that he knows something we don't"

Perhaps another member of his family will be next president to perpetuated the dynasty?

I wonder.

It makes no sense you know, unless he knows that something is about to happen and the position will need to be fill soon.

Or perhaps he again wants to bypass the the way people that he choses get appointed.

I wonder if this will extent to any position that he wants to fill, regardless of doomsday or not.

Just like the patriot act he just make things work the way he wants them.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Seems to me there's an increasing rift between the government and the military in how things should be handled in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. That could explain the 'why' of this move.

Strange... And no official explanation given?

It does sound like something's 'up' and Donald may be at extreme risk.

Interesting... We shall wait and see.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Can you say Cronyism?



But in its current incarnation, the doomsday plan moves to near the top three undersecretaries who are Rumsfeld loyalists and who previously worked for Vice President Dick Cheney when he was defense secretary.
...
Thomas Donnelly, a defense expert with the American Enterprise Institute, said the changes make it easier for the administration to assert political control and could lead to more narrow-minded decisions.

"It continues to devalue the services as institutions," said Donnelly, saying it will centralize power, and shift it away from the services, where there is generally more military expertise and interest.


Source

I wonder how long this is going to go on before it breaks...



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   
I don't think cronyism has anything to do with doomsday scenario planning. If the President and Rumsfeld and other top Pentagon and other government officials die simulatneously I don't think their last dying thoughts will be "well at least a buddy of mine/Rumsfeld's got a sweet job out of this!"

It sounds like they're just trying to make the continuity of command structure reflect changes in how a disruption would take place to make the response most effective.

[edit on 12/29/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I don't think cronyism has anything to do with doomsday scenario planning. If the President and Rumsfeld and other top Pentagon and other government officials die simulatneously I don't think their last dying thoughts will be "well at least a buddy of mine/Rumsfeld's will take over at the Pentagon."


I agree. But if Rummy goes, it's not too outlandish for Bush to want someone LOYAL to Rummy in his position and not someone who is in the military who might cause more waves than Bush wants to deal with.

I know the term cronyism means long time friends, but I was speaking more to the idea of loyalty to Rummy. Is there another term for that? Loyalism, perhaps?



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   
There is definitely some kind of political maneuvering going on here, imo. It involves Gordon England, former Secretary of the Navy, now acting Deputy Secretary of Defense. The first time President Bush changed the line of succession, back in June, it was to temporarily put then Navy Secretary England in the number two spot. Now with the President set to make England's job as Deputy Secretary official with a recess appointment (ala Bolton at the UN), he puts the acting Deputy Secretary (also England) in the number two spot until a deputy is appointed. The position of the Secretary of the Navy in the line of succession falls to eighth now, "behind the deputy, the three Pentagon undersecretaries and the Army and Air Force secretaries." The point, apparently, is to have Gordon England in the number two spot in the line of succession at the Defense Department.

The next question is, why? What's going on with Rummy that it is so important to maintain Gordon England at number two in the doomsday line of succession?



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   
And this is the million dollar question. . . . what is going on with Rumsfeld, is he planning to suddenly disappear?

Retired? expired? that the president seems necessary to go through all this changes just to make sure the position will be filled with the best chosen one and not problems with its appointment?

Is Rumsfeld planning to retired next year?

Is the NWO hierarchy been put in place?



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   
so are these civilian postions, appointed positions? and he did this be EO....EO's , gotta love 'em..the presidents checkbook to subvert all the checks and balances on power in the good 'ol boy u. s. of w (bush).....

of course you would want to have your buddies run things with you, 'especialy when you are trying to take over the world...

p.s. wasn't there talk a few months back about a 'faction' in the military or DoD that were opposed to the current admins handeling of the military??

[edit on 29-12-2005 by clearmind]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
And this is the million dollar question. . . . what is going on with Rumsfeld, is he planning to suddenly disappear?

I wouldn't doubt it. He's getting old, and the stress of the job may be wearing on him. I see him leaving as soon as the next significant event takes place in Iraq, such as the announcement of the first major withdrawal of troops.

As far as the succession to the post, it doesn't seem to be a unique decision. Google it up and you'll see that lot's of presidents have shuffled the line of succession around.

I especially liked the Norwich (CT) Bulletin, who had Joe Lieberman as a favorite for the job.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Doesn't the doomsday line of succession only apply to unforeseen deaths, not retirements? That would seem to imply that this current administration is lowering the positions of the navy/army men who would of automatically been in charge if something disastrous happened to the SecDef.

Could that imply that this current administration got wind of a proposed coup from the armed forces and changed the line of succession so that it's highly unlikely the military would gain control in the event of said coup?

[edit on 30/12/05 by subz]



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 05:58 AM
link   
That was my first thought too subz, but then if there was a military coup they would hardly care about who was next in line to be in charge, would they?



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Usually more civilian control over the military is seen as a good thing, but these days I suppose anything goes. Recall that the military brass were the ones who came up with and wanted to implement Operation Northwoods (wherein they'd stage sabotage attacks and terrorist acts under the guise of cuban communists to rally support for a war against cuba), and it was the civilian government that shot the idea down.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
That was my first thought too subz, but then if there was a military coup they would hardly care about who was next in line to be in charge, would they?

Good point, perhaps the military coup was to be completely covert in nature. I couldnt see the American people willingly accepting a military junta unless of course it was legally implemented through the line of sucession.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   
As a former military wife, in order for a coup to work in the US the government will have to create his own secret army, one that will be loyal to the government and one that will agree with a country take over.

As nice and great as our military is right now, I will said that many will go home to their families to protect them if something brakes out.

Soldiers will take sides with what their families beliefs and many Americans love to much their constitution to accept a government take over.




top topics



 
1

log in

join