T Nation

Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher

Why was he not punished to the extent I would expect? It seems like his team thought he was bad, military brass thought he was bad, yet POTUS decided to stick up for him.

I would expect it would take a lot for spec ops guys to publicly turn on a member of their unit, no? Or are the whistleblowing team members hiding skeletons of their own?

I’ll admit I have a hard time understanding what trump supporters want. I know they like military and guns. This guy has both of those things.

I am sure potus’ advisors thought about this and thought it was a good move (would go over well with the base).

Trump knows better than the generals (and admirals).

The link won’t work for me, but I’m vaguely aware of the charges.

Bad shit occurs in war, always has always will. I think his charges would pale in comparison to what the other side has done. Their model of warfare is based upon committing human rights crimes as standard. They also know our rules of engagement and use it against conventional armies, so our forces effectively fight with one hand tied behind their back, having to fight the enemy on unequal terms and their own military’s bureaucracy as well.

The general public are in the A Few Good Men, “you can’t handle the truth” category, so they are shocked to hear about what commonly goes on in war.

Why POTUS made the decision, who knows. If you start to court martial your elite troops, pretty soon nobody will want to do the job for fear of prosecution.

I empathise with the horrors of war, though have thankfully never experienced it. And I’m very liable give a hefty amount of slack and defer judgement to folks who have been there done that. What struck me here is that the military brass and even his own team didn’t defend him or his actions. In fact his own team turned on him.

Do his bad actions (if they indeed happened) erase his good actions? I don’t think so. But it is alarming when brass and his fellow seal team members all paint an ugly picture of the guy and POTUS (zero military experience or knowledge) overrules them all. Does he know something we don’t?

Unfortunately its all about appearances. Once an individual makes a complaint, and the public gets to hear about it, then its all about damage control. Hero on minute, villain the next.
From what I have heard many of the middle and upper echelons of military are political beasts and look out for number one with their career. They will happily sacrifice those under their command, or do things that don’t make military sense like, pushing the idea that women should serve on the frontline, etc.

1 Like

My reading of the article, combined with my own ignorance makes it seem that it comes down to retirement benefits anyways

He was found not guilty of everything except posing in a picture with a dead guy - and for that they want to give him a major demotion?

Nah, that doesn’t seem like the thing to severely punish someone for or make a huge deal about. You don’t want everyone doing it often or promoting that kind of culture, but destroying people over small stuff is bad

Now, it also crosses my mind that maybe it was that “they” didn’t want to go all out on punishment (that might drag a bunch of other people in also and become a huuuuge issue) so they said not guilty about stuff they thought he was guilty on and played with the truth and now we get a jumbled up mess that Trump can “untangle”… “masterfully”

This doesn’t seem like the thing to blame Trump for, either
Hope me spreading my ignorance was of benefit

I think they cut him a break as well. I personally know of service members who were given the opportunity to quietly serve out their contracts and avoid a dishonorable discharge when they should have been kicked out. I remember one sgt who just vanished. Turns out he was reporting to some office until his contract was done. All he did was fail a drug test.

The level of confidence to give a major demotion is not the same as that of criminal court with a felony and prison time on the line.

IMO, there is enough evidence against the guy to say he does not live up to Navy Seal standards in regards to ethics. That is enough to demote someone.

One of the things that have bugged me about the whole thing (and yes…I do blame Trump for a lot of it)…is that in some circles, this has been painted as some “liberal” agenda, with Trump somehow “coming to the rescue” to battle and overturn an injustice being done to one of our Great Warriors.


The case brought against Gallagher was from Navy Brass; other Special Operations Officers; and all corroborated with actual members of AT LEAST 2 Seal Teams. In fact the Navy and Special Operations asked the President (in so many ways) to “let us handle this…”

This was not Pelosi and AOC somehow asking for the guys head.


This whole case has been a bunch of BS. Just people coming together to try and shut down someone they don’t like. It’s how the Navy works. Even after someone else admitted to the murder the still pursued charges on him. You can get demoted all the way to the bottom of the totem pole for looking at someone funny. I’ve seen many people get knocked down for simply standing up fr what was right in a professional manner.

Do you think the members of his seal team were standing up for what was right when they testified against him? As far as I know, his own team members calling him evil and a bad leader, etc were not facing charges or discipline (separate from the guy who admitted killing the prisoner).

I wonder how the special operations community views what happened? Overreaction to normal horrors of war, or a bad dude that doesn’t represent the elite ranks… Or is opinion all over the place?

I don’t see anything wrong with this?

The important question is why do they not like him? Is it justified to not like him?

So the higher your rank the higher standard you are held to and in most circumstances the more severe the punishment is. Chiefs has a lot of sway in most day to day activities and administrative happenings of their juniors. In my experience if you have a Chief who holds their juniors to much higher standard than normal, or who denies requests for schools, trainings, TAD, ect. the juniors become disgruntled. At that point all it takes is for them to make a false report and from there the Navy doesn’t care. It’s extremely easy to frame someone if you have 2 or 3 ‘‘witnesses’’ This case was exactly that. None of the witnesses stories matched, the prosecution spied, even after he was pardoned by the President they still pursued charges. Those who have been in the Navy would see that this is total bologna.

Would his underlings not liking him necessarily make their accounts unreliable? Or in other words, is it possible they don’t like him personally, but are honest in their evaluation about his actions?

My understanding is that they did successfully corroborate the accounts against him. I am open to evidence if I am in the wrong here. Not an expert on this case.

No offense but although this is technically the navy, we are talking about SEALs.