Air Force General Says Talking to Congress about A-10 Attack Jet is Treason

Sunday, February 08, 2015
Maj. Gen. James Post (photo: U.S. Air Force)

Members of the Air Force who discuss an airplane’s capabilities with members of Congress are guilty of treason, according to the vice commander of Air Combat Command.


Maj. Gen. James Post made the remarks in reference to the A-10 Thunderbolt II ground attack plane. The plane is a unique weapon in the Air Force inventory. Unlike the still-unproven sophisticated aircraft such as the F-35 that are about to come on line, the A-10 is decidedly low technology. The plane can’t even break the sound barrier. It’s basically a cannon surrounded by an airframe, with enough armor to protect its pilot on low ground-attack missions.


The Air Force is trying to retire its A-10 fleet, even as the planes are currently being used in the campaign against ISIS. The effort to take the A-10s out of service has met with strong opposition from airmen and from many members of Congress. In response to some members of the Air Force providing Congress with information about the plane, Post, speaking at the Air Force’s annual Weapons and Tactics conference, said, “[a]nyone who is passing information to Congress about A-10 capabilities is committing treason,” according to Tony Carr at the blog John Q. Public. Post prefaced that remark by saying: “if anyone accuses me of saying this, I will deny it.”


Instead of chastising Post, the Air Force issued a vague statement addressing his comments. “The intent of his comments [was] to communicate the Air Force’s position and decision on recommended actions and strategic choices faced for the current constrained fiscal environment.”


Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-New Hampshire), whose husband flew the A-10 in Iraq, blasted Post’s charge. “U.S. law clearly states that ‘No person may restrict a member of the armed forces in communicating with a member of Congress.’ The Constitution defines treason as levying war against the United States in providing aid and comfort to our enemies,” Ayotte said in the statement. “How could members of the armed forces exercising their lawful right to communicate with Congress be providing aid and comfort to our enemies? If the facts are on the Air Force’s side regarding its efforts to prematurely divest the A-10, what does the Air Force fear?”


The A-10’s mission is supposed to be taken over by the F-35, but that plane has had teething problems and the first versions, with downgraded software, won’t be operational until next year.

-Steve Straehley


To Learn More:

Creeping Fascism in the (un?) American Air Force? (by Tony Carr, John Q. Public)

2 Star’s ‘Treason’ Comments Spark Call for an Investigation (by Brian Everstine, Air Force Times)

In Budget Docs, Air Force Again Pushes to Retire A-10 (by Travis J. Tritten, Stars & Stripes)

Kelly Ayotte Thwarting Effort to Retire Old Air Force Jet (by Bryan Bender, Boston Globe)


Curtis Conway 1 year ago
The US Congress has passed another law that states that the USAF MUST support the US Army in the field. Close Air Support is one of those primary areas that the USAF is supposed to support. Its a dangerous mission and one must get shot at to due it. The USAF does not like to do that unless they are high and fast. The A-10 drivers are the exception. When taking ground fire I think few of these pilots would want to be in any other airframe. The currently planned replacement for the A-10C Thunderbolt II is an F-35A Lightening II which is highly allergic to ground fire. Tactical Airlift is another one of those areas of support. Tactical Airlifter that was to support our troops in the field (C-27J Spartan) was cancelled by the USAF. So much for at least trying to meet the need in a cost effective manner. The venerable C-130s will fill this mission with excess capacity and three times the operational budget per flight hour. As for cost . . . cost effective solutions are out of the question? The Military Industrial Complex cheerleaders can only support multi-billion dollar solutions. Simple, basic, and cost effective is just not in these peoples vocabulary. it simply must be new platinum plated costly technology.

Leave a comment