As the highest-ranking military officer in the United States military, General Martin E. Dempsey has taken the following oath of office …

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

General Dempsey may have misspoke – or at least I hope he misspoke – when he  prioritized the national security interests of the United States and its military before the cadets and faculty at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy on January 31, 2013 …

1. Survival of the nation.
2. Stability of the global economic system.
3. Protect the country from a catastrophic attack.
4. Promotion of our values.

The idea that insuring the stability of the global economic system over the protection of our country from a catastrophic attack appears to be an obvious mistake by General Dempsey. Because nobody who has taken the Oath of Office can justify downgrading the safety and our security before handing out loans to failing socialist and communist countries.

However, the problem is that while General Dempsey appears to be an honorable man and a fine officer, he, himself, admits that he has little actual power and serves only as an adviser to the President, the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Adviser. And, if these civilians fail to heed his reasoned advise, he can do little more than resign from office and make his case known to the American people.

Bottom line …

It is President Barack Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense (nominee) Chuck Hagel and the Director of the CIA (nominee) John Brennan and their fellow travelers in Congress that I worry about. These people are committed ideologues who appear to be more closely aligned with international socialism/communism and our Islamic enemies than they are with American values and our allies.

I m hoping that General Dempsey misspoke, but perhaps General Dempsey is mirroring that talking points of our nation’s leadership. And, if so, we are in deep, deep trouble.

-- steve

Reference Links …

Here is the approximately one-hour speech given by General Dempsey and the relevant portion of the transcript.

Excerpt from speech transcript … 

You know, I don’t know exactly what to tell you about the world you’ll enter, whether it’s this year or four years from now. I will tell you that whatever it is, it will change faster than you think.

It’ll be more complex than you – than you probably appreciate when you first encounter it. It’ll be unpredictable, and it’ll be more dangerous. And that gets me sometimes into hot water when I talk about risk, when I assert that the world is actually more dangerous today than it was 10, 15 years ago. But I think I can make a pretty good case.

There are more capabilities that used to be the monopoly of nation-states in the hands of individuals and groups today around the world than ever, and that trend is only continuing. And so the unpredictability, the complexity and the danger of the world you’ll face will really require us to have a very clear understanding of our national interests. We haven’t had a knockdown, drag-out debate, even internal to the military, about our national security interests in a long time.

Let me suggest to you that there’s at least four, and they ought to be prioritized. Number one is the survival of the nation. Where does that take you? Well, it takes you to things like our nuclear capability. It takes you – things that could actually alter our way of life, survival of the nation, and that’s a set of national security interests. And by the way, I would suggest to you that you, as the Coast Guard, actually touch every one of these four in ways that should be pretty apparent to you. 

The second one is – we have a requirement, because we’re a global power, to lend to the stability of the global economic system. What does that mean to you? Freedom of navigation, maritime awareness. So the second-tiered, in my view, national security interest is our contribution to the stability of the global economic system, because it’s through that global economic system that we derive the prosperity that we enjoy as Americans. So that’s clearly a national security interest.

The third one is to protect the country from a catastrophic attack. And, you know, again, this is one of those places where we will dance on the head of the pin about what climbs to the level of a catastrophe. You only really will answer that question looking back at it, not looking forward to it. But where do you come in, in that protection of the country from a catastrophic attack?  The things that could migrate into our borders are pretty clear to you, whether it’s chemicals, whether it’s – other weapons of mass destruction, nuclear materials, and even gun trafficking, human trafficking, things that over time, left unaddressed, could produce a catastrophic effect in this country are clearly in our national interest, and another place where you are prominent in the capability you provide.

And the last one is the promotion of our values. As a global power – and one who happens to be based on a system of values which are generally outlined in our Constitution but also include the rule of law – we are an example for the rest of the world. Sometimes we – you know, we get a little bashful about that, but we shouldn’t. We shouldn’t be bashful about that at all.

And the way the Coast Guard is out there representing law enforcement, that kind of nexus of law enforcement and military power, the way you have your own network of different authorities, whether it’s Customs and Border Patrol, Federal Bureau of Investigation, all of the – all of the authorities that you kind of migrate back and forth in order to have that network, to promote our values and protect the country, you contribute to every one of those four national security interests in a very powerful way.

So the last thing I want to talk to you about before I get to your questions is in that – in that vein, if you will, of national security interests, just something about the role of the chairman. The chairman is the principal military adviser, as you heard Joe say, of the – of the president and secretary of Defense. And I’d add to that the National Security staff.

I have very little authority on my own. In fact, I have, the last time I checked, I had no authority on my own – what little authority I used to have, my wife usurped when we got married 36 years ago. (Laughter.) I don’t even write my own checks. I do nothing. But what I do, what I have is enormous influence, but that influence is only as good as I can be persuasive, if I can be thoughtful, if I can be trusted.

<Source: Joint Chiefs of Staff Official Web Site>

Related articles

The Obama Administration continues to cover-up 9/11 Benghazi attack

Is the Obama Administration giving the Chinese Communists Access to critical technology?

GOP senators assail Gen. Dempsey and Obama for response to Benghazi attack

McCain assails Gen. Dempsey for Pentagon to response Benghazi attack

Panetta: 'Not Enough Time' To Rescue Stevens, Military Not Ambassador's '911′

Dereliction of Duty By President and Commander-In-Chief Obama--Sleeping While Americans Died--The Big Coverup and Scandal--The President Lied--Videos

Sequestration Will Force Moral Dilemma, Dempsey Says

Threat versus "Threat"

Dempsey: France Requests U.S. Enablers for Forces in Mali