A General Speaks His Mind
A Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin, United States Army, is the newly promoted deputy undersecretary of state of defense for intelligence (intelligence and war fighting. He has three (3) stars. In the field that puts him in command of a corps (usually about two divisions) or about 20,000 men and women. As a Lieutenant General he is WAY above a two-star Major General. (Yes, that is somewhat confusing.)
General Boykin made some statements regarding Islam and God that have raised questions about his fitness to serve in his current position. One of the statements that he made is that God chooses rulers of countries and that God oversees the fate of nations.
See http://www.msnbc.com/news/981411.asp?0cb=-215186886 for a discussion and video of some of his statements. His biography at: http://www.msnbc.com/news/980885.asp indicates that General Boykin is not an ordinary soldier. There can be little doubt that his true biography is more extensive than his public biography. This man is no political appointee.
When still a Colonel, Boykin declined to involve Delta Force Army personnel directly in
the incident of David Koresh at Waco, TX in 1993, when so many men, women and children
burned to death. Delta Force supplied two observers there: see
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=General+Boykin&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=199909160525.HAA21199%40mail.replay.com&rnum=11. “USASOC” stands for United States Army Special Operations Command. Additional information about Boykin’s very fast rise in the ranks is given at: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=General+Boykin&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=199909161115.HAA22146%40terminus.idirect.com&rnum=24.
What this all means is that Boykin in his role as a commanding “special operations” officer has likely had great success in military operations that we will never hear about.
As a colonel he was a Delta Force command leader. He may have been instrumental in taking down the drug lord Pablo Escobar in Columbia. If, as a 2-star general, he was in charge of all Army special forces, and in charge of Delta Force, it may mean he is now in charge of security for “weird” things and the latest technology. He has been promoted to be in charge of military Intelligence and warfighting, which may (depending on the chain of command) put him even more in command of Special Operations.
He was appointed to an Undersecretary of Defense position while still in uniform. It is normally a civilian position. What all this means he likely has one of the highest security clearances that exist in the U.S. Government.
Assuming that (1) this man is not stupid, and (2) that he is speaking his mind and (3) that his collective statements reflect his true beliefs over many years, the fact that these statements are coming out in public NOW is very intriguing. While everyone has enemies, as Generaly Boykin apparently does, his strong beliefs are being viewed by some as dangerous and inciting religious differences.
If General Boykin is a believer in God and Christ, if President Bush is a believer, if Condoleezza Rice is a believer, if Colin Powell is a believer and other high-ranking members of the Bush administration are believers (as is widely reported in the press), then how do their beliefs influence their policy? How do such beliefs influence policy toward Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan and the future status of Jerusalem and Babylon? Do these power brokers have a prophetic scenario that they believe in? It will all play out in God’s timeframe, and it gets more interesting with each day.
Is it better to have a believer in a position of power than a nonbeliever? Is it better to have a Mordecai in the chain of command than a Haman (principal characters from the book of Esther)? Is it preferable to have Joseph deal with the starving peoples of the world rather than a pagan Egyptian? Would you rather have Daniel in charge of the magicians, astrologers, sorcerers and Chaldeans of Babylon (Daniel 2:2, 4:7, 5:11) than someone who does not know the true God? Which did God prefer?
Is a flawed King David, a man of blood, yet a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13:14 and Acts 13:22), preferable to King Rehoboam, King Ahaz or King Manassah? Which did God prefer?
In the book of Daniel, King Nebuchadnezzar had a dream. He called for Daniel (who had the name of Belteshazzar given to him by the Babylonians) to interpret his dream. At the end of the description of the dream, Nebuchadnezzar concludes with this statement,
“his matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomsoever he will, and sets up over it the basest of men.”
• Daniel 4:17
What did Nebuchadnezzar (who is quoting “the watchers” and “the holy ones” from his dream) mean by “basest of men”? Did he mean that he, Nebuchadnezzar, was the basest of men, or did he mean that God through his agents, regularly chooses “the basest of men”? It is possible that Daniel 4:14 to 4:17 is all one quote from the watcher. I note that Daniel does not directly comment on that element of Nebuchadnezzar's statement, although he acknowledges "the Watcher" in Daniel 4:23.
From this and other verses, General Boykin is biblically correct when he states that President Bush and every major leader on the world stage were “appointed” to be in their positions by God — George Bush and even Bill Clinton. This thought drives some people to scorn; who would say such a thing and believe it?
See the prior Commentary of October 15, 2003, that I wrote the day before this story hit the news. It is about coming changes in world leadership, particularly in the Middle East. A large number of “old guys” will be replaced, perhaps within a few years. If such changes happen in rapid succession, then we have a milestone of sorts in the direction of world. Note the biblical passages that tell who is really “in charge” behind the scenes.
© 1976-2021 Associates for Scriptural Knowledge - ASK is supported by freewill contributions