JOHN "SHREK" MCPHEE VS. THE DIGITAL FIRING SQUAD

JOHN 'SHREK" MCPHEE, SPECIAL OPERATIONS GUY IS UNDER THE GUN?

The high stakes world of being a "Vet Bro" or "Military Influencer" takes on a toll on many of those that wish to seek fame and fortune sailing the seas of Youtube's unpredictable currents.

One of those that are now running up onto the rocks is John "Shrek" McPhee a retired Special Operations soldier and rising internet star. Among John's many new problems seems to be the fact that he was less than "honest" about his career and ranks and operations while serving America and has now at the mercy of his fellow military influencers.

There seems to be a bit more to this story but the parts that we are interested in (disclaimer: none of those working on this story are/were members of the US military) go more towards the framing of the accusations (they are well founded) but more to the question of mission.

Why? are you doing this and to what end? These are important questions over and above what would be considered placing the accusers in the role of just another group of predatory click/clout chasers and goes to what drives certain people to do what they do (Is it for morals? is it to protect Unit pride? etc.)

Let's take a few minutes and dive into the case against John McPhee and what the accusations really are versus the level of retaliation that is being brought against him.

(Ed. Note: we were able to cull certain facts together from the accuser's videos and from consultation and research regarding the procedures of the US Military's UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) therefor, there may be some gaps in our "storyline" but none as great as those left by the accuser's (for what reason?)

(Ed. NOTE #2. The following comment was left on our youtube page under the video for this article.

"Former A -Squadron and worked with John in 2004. You nailed it. He wouldn't role on TK because it wasn't his business. These new YT Jackals make me sick. Friday they are going to bring up the "Detainee" event and it will only hurt current guys down range for a few bucks.

1.He jumped with B. CO 1st RGR on 8 December 1991 in Kuwait and its was saturated with Iraqi landmines they were awarded Combat Scrolls. Operation Iris Gold you can see it on YT. (Ed. Note: video link is at the bottom of the page, thanks to this man)

2. Upon finishing OTC you are assigned to Special Forces Operational Detachment Delta. So you have earned the right to say the word Special Forces. No one in Unit gives a fuck about Green Berets since 90% of the them would fail RASP.

3. Detainee story was from W and OIF commander not planning and deploying Military Police Battalions for us to hand prisoners off too. When no WMDs were found W was under pressure and we were ordered to increase Pressure on target and off, this is pre Abu -G. He was fired over telling senior officers to go fuck themselves it was not our job to house, feed, guard, and interrogate. Everyone knew it and John was the Fall Guy. The reason its still on going on 2009 was to to threaten him to being silent due too several senior Generals were in the know.

4. 2009 John was not criminally charged with anything but DUI. He fucked up and was punished under UCMJ. So who gives a fuck. His head is on straight now, in my book that is a win. 5.Saying you were a SGM is like saying you know how to drive. You lost your license but you still can drive. Chicken shit small ball. * Singleton missions ,I saw John in Bagdad go out and return from solo in Bagdad. They will bring this up as impossible, I have experience with this in OIF and OEF. Cheers and great job. It is appreciated"

Legal Brief: Case Study of Senior Enlisted Soldier in Elite U.S. Army Force

I. Introduction

This brief examines the disciplinary trajectory of a decorated senior enlisted soldier in an elite U.S. Army unit. The soldier’s career was derailed by allegations of detainee abuse, later compounded by misconduct while serving in the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). The case illustrates how the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and related administrative mechanisms intersect, and how considerations of combat record, command discretion, and institutional reputation can temper the severity of punishment.

II. Background and Hypothesis of Events

1. Elite Force Assignment (E-9, Sergeant Major):

   • The soldier was initially serving in a prestigious special operations billet, having risen to the rank of Sergeant Major (E-9).

2. Detainee Abuse Allegations:

   • The soldier became implicated in detainee abuse investigation(s).

   • UCMJ Articles Implicated:

     • Article 93 (Cruelty and Maltreatment)

     • Article 92 (Failure to Obey a Lawful General Regulation)

     • Article 134 (Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline)

   • Outcome: Instead of prosecution at court-martial, the case was handled administratively, resulting in reassignment to JSOC staff.

3. JSOC Assignment (Senior Enlisted, J8 Directorate):

   • Placed as senior enlisted supervisor for the J8 directorate (Resources & Assessment).

   • This was a rehabilitative billet — high-visibility but administrative, with minimal troop leadership.

4. Subsequent Misconduct at JSOC:

   • Adultery (Article 134): Affair with a married JSOC-assigned service member.

   • DUI (Article 111 — Drunken or Reckless Operation of a Vehicle): Alleged alcohol-related misconduct.

   • Consequences: Revocation of the Special Forces tab, issuance of an official reprimand, and ultimately reduction from E-9 (SGM) to E-8 (MSG).

5. Final Infantry Assignment:

   • To finish his career, the soldier was reassigned to an infantry unit.

   • This served as a “soft landing” — allowing completion of time-in-service requirements for retirement at MSG rank.

III. Applicable Military Justice Framework

1. Court-Martial vs. Administrative Action:

   • Court-martial is judicial, carrying potential confinement, dismissal, and punitive discharge.

   • Administrative actions (letters of reprimand, tab revocation, relief from position) do not equate to criminal convictions but can end careers.

2. Official Reprimand (Article 15 / Administrative):

   • May be punitive (as part of NJP under Article 15) or administrative (filed in OMPF).

   • In this case, the reprimand was career-ending but fell short of court-martial.

3. Reduction in Grade (10 U.S.C. §3964):

   • Soldiers must retire at the highest grade satisfactorily held.

   • Because the soldier’s service as SGM was deemed unsatisfactory, he retired as MSG.

4. Command Authority in Signing Reprimands:

   • At JSOC level, it is standard that a general officer commander signs reprimands for senior enlisted personnel.

   • Contrary to sensationalized reporting, this is not evidence of extraordinary importance, but rather routine procedure at that echelon.

IV. Counterbalancing Factors

While the soldier’s misconduct (detainee abuse investigations, adultery, DUI) could have triggered a court-martial and dismissal, the Army chose a path of administrative discipline and reassignment. Factors likely influencing this judgment included:

• Decorated Combat Record: Multiple deployments and valor awards weighed in mitigation.

• Institutional Reputation: Avoiding the optics of publicly court-martialing a war hero.

• Command Discretion: Commanders exercised the latitude afforded under UCMJ to balance punishment with past service.

• Retirement Eligibility: With over 20 years of service, commanders often allow a “quiet landing” rather than stripping benefits.

V. Analysis of Reporting Bias

A key point in the “public narrative” of this case was that the reprimand was signed personally by the Commander of Operations (JSOC).

• While presented as extraordinary, this is in fact standard practice: senior commanders typically sign reprimands for senior NCOs in their command.

• Thus, the reporting tactic was designed to sway public sympathy toward the soldier, implying he was uniquely targeted, when in reality the process was typical.

VI. Conclusion

This case illustrates the dual nature of the military justice system:

• Strict on paper (UCMJ allows for harsh punishment),

• Flexible in practice (commanders balance law, discretion, and institutional image).

The soldier avoided the harshest outcomes (court-martial, dismissal, loss of all benefits), but still suffered:

• Demotion from SGM to MSG

• Revocation of Special Forces tab

• Official reprimand

• Terminal assignment in infantry prior to retirement

In effect, the Army allowed him to retire quietly with reduced rank, recognizing his misconduct but also his decorated combat record.

References

• Uniform Code of Military Justice

  • Article 92 – Failure to Obey Order or Regulation

  • Article 93 – Cruelty and Maltreatment

  • Article 107 – False Official Statement

  • Article 111 – Drunken or Reckless Operation of a Vehicle

  • Article 134 – General Article (Adultery, Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order)

• 10 U.S.C. §3964 – Highest grade satisfactorily held for retirement purposes.

• AR 600-37 – Unfavorable Information (GOMORs and administrative reprimands).

PSYCHOLOGICAL MOTIVATORS OF HIS ACCUSERS

The information being released on the videos (and potentially online) are going to be truly detrimental to that soldier's ability to generate income, function in society and , obviously, fraternize with other members of his past unit. One wonders at the psychology of those who are more than willing to do this. So, we put the hypothesis to our local head shrinker and can only speculate as to which one, if any, of these factors had anything to with the hard response.

Psychological Mechanisms at Play

a) Projection and Transference

• Elite units are highly status-driven; many members tie their self-worth to the unit’s prestige.

• Seeing someone with both decorations and a tainted record creates a threat to group identity.

• Some may unconsciously project their own insecurities or failings onto him, attacking him as a way to defend their own sense of belonging.

b) Moral Injury & Betrayal

• For some, knowing a peer committed misconduct feels like betrayal of the tribe.

• Attacking him publicly may be their way of restoring moral order in their own minds (“he dishonored us, so we dishonor him”).

c) Status Competition (Tall Poppy Syndrome)

• In close-knit, competitive communities, those who stand out — even for valor — often become targets of envy or resentment.

• The “faker” narrative is a way to cut down a tall poppy so others feel taller.

d) Displacement of Anger

• Veterans often carry unresolved trauma, frustration with the institution, or resentment toward leaders.

• It’s easier to displace that anger onto a peer (one individual with known flaws) than onto the Army as a whole.

Plain English Summary

From a psychological standpoint, the attacks on this soldier are likely less about him as an individual and more about:

• Projection: They are externalizing their own shame, envy, or frustration onto him.

• Group identity: By branding him a “faker,” they protect their own sense of purity within the unit.

• Status policing: They fear that his silent existence — decorated but disgraced — somehow threatens their community’s reputation.

The irony: His silence (not defending himself) may actually increase the urge of others to attack him, because it denies them a clean resolution. They want him to either confess publicly (so they feel vindicated) or disappear (so the contradiction goes away).

ONE LAST LESSON TO THE ACCUSERS. DE-ESCALATE AND MOVE ON.

1. The Accusers’ Intention

The individuals leaking or pushing these attacks are motivated by:

• Wanting to discredit the soldier personally (make him out to be a fraud, undeserving of honors).

• Wanting to restore their unit’s honor by “exposing” him.

• They assume that by shining a light on him, they isolate the damage.

2. The Unintended Backfire

But when more and more information comes out — especially if it involves why leadership went “soft” on him — it risks reframing the story in a way that:

• Pulls the command into the spotlight: Civilians may ask, “Why did JSOC let this guy retire quietly instead of prosecuting him?”

• Shifts blame from individual to institution: Instead of “bad apple soldier,” the narrative becomes “command tolerates detainee abuse, adultery, misconduct.”

• Creates institutional hypocrisy narrative: “They preach honor, but protect their own when it suits them.”

3. Public Perception Dynamics

To civilians (especially those outside the SOF/military culture), the nuanced reasoning behind the Army’s leniency (decorated combat record, avoidance of scandal, quiet landing) often doesn’t translate. Instead, the message becomes:

• Soft on misconduct (detainee abuse, sex abuse, adultery, DUI).

• Protecting insiders rather than accountability.

• Different rules for the “elite.”

That can damage the prestige of the entire unit far more than the silence of a single disgraced soldier ever would.

4. The Irony

So yes, the irony is stark:

• The accusers want to destroy the soldier’s image.

• But the more they escalate, the more they risk destroying the command’s image instead.

• Civilians might begin to see not “a faker soldier,” but “an elite unit that protects abusers and covers its tracks.”

That narrative is much more corrosive, because it rewrites history: decorations, victories, and sacrifices are overshadowed by scandal and cover-up.

5. Plain English Takeaway

If the attacks escalate, the accusers could end up harming the unit they’re trying to protect.

• The soldier’s reputation is already internally damaged; outsiders wouldn’t know unless others keep amplifying it.

• By dragging command decisions into the open, they risk a boomerang effect: the public turning on the institutionfor being lenient, rather than on the soldier for being flawed.

OPERATION IRIS GOLD, THE EVENT