General Concern
The generals are worried. They can't find responsible political leadership in the United States with a search party. As a result, they don't know how to stop the commander-in-chief from ordering the military to undertake extraordinarily dangerous, counterproductive, and useless actions. These include supporting Sunnis against Shiites, in a doomed effort to curtail Iranian influence in the country (using the term loosely) of Iraq, establishing a string of armed camps in Iraq that like Gitmo Bay and West Berlin are to be defended by Americans forever, and conducting air assaults on the innumerable enemies that Iraq will spew up against Americans forever. Most important, the military understands that plans to bomb and to invade Iran exist, are debated, and might be put into effect. As an institution, the military recalls that Nixon and Kissinger expanded the Vietnam War into Cambodia, escalated the bombing, triggered the deaths of millions in the region and tens of thousands of Americans, and nonetheless by 1975 South Vietnam had fallen. Moreover, nothing terrible happened to American interests as a result, and today Vietnam is, like China, a capitalist authoritarian society that eagerly seeks Western investment. The American military, however, needed the better part of 20 years to recover from Vietnam. They do not want to repeat that history.
Now the military believes that Karl Rove and Condi Rice, like Nixon and Kissinger, may seek a wider war. They believe Mr. Rove may well argue for an attack on Iran, if he thinks it will help the Republicans hold the House and Senate. And they believe that what Mr. Rove wants the President to order, he will get the President to order. Nor do they think that anyone with the acumen or courage to disagree can be found in the State Department, the CIA, or the Vice President's office.
From the military's perspective, the Democrats cannot be counted on to oppose the attack on Iran. Instead Democrats will criticize the tactics, but not the mad strategy, just as most of the Democrats in Congress continue to do with respect to Iraq. Yet the military knows that air attacks on Iran will fail to accomplish any useful goal, and instead may trigger an expanded ground war in the Middle East as well as a global reign of terror. What if in response Iran were to invade Iraq? What if revolution were to rock Jordan, SA, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Egypt? What if Iraqis united only in the one aim of ousting the Americans? The military has minds who think ahead, who plan for contingency, and who know there are limits of extended power, even for the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity. The military knows too that the Commander-in-Chief doesn't think their way.
Rumsfeld is the President's heat shield, surrogate, protector. The generals don't like him, but that is not the reason he is drawing their wrath at present. He is taking the military's criticism now because the generals don't know a better way to protect the country from the decisions they fear might emanate from the White House.
Now the military believes that Karl Rove and Condi Rice, like Nixon and Kissinger, may seek a wider war. They believe Mr. Rove may well argue for an attack on Iran, if he thinks it will help the Republicans hold the House and Senate. And they believe that what Mr. Rove wants the President to order, he will get the President to order.
This is exactly what we all have to fear. If attacking and occupying Iraq have been like repeatedly poking a stick into a hornet's nest, aerial bombardment and special forces strikes against Iran will truly unleash the whirlwind in the Middle East. The anticipated domestic political benefits in 2006 of aerial strikes against Iran will probably prove too much for Rove and Bush to resist, unless Rove sees that there is too great a political cost to Republicans in 2006 from such an insane action. If it is true that the earliest Iranian deployment of a nuke is 5 to 10 years out, there is no rational basis (other than GOP political expediency) for attacking Iran this year, or next year or the year thereafter. Why don't Democrats make this point loudly and often and begin to raise the political costs to the point that Rove/Bush hold off on this absurd idea of attacking Iran?
April 16, 2006 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to think you're right, but I'm not sure why I should start trusting the same generals who collaborated to get us into this fix. Personally, I think they're all running for the exits because it's become clear that not only has our Iraq adventure been a mistake, but it's one of the greatest foreign policy fiascos in our entire history. If I were them, I'd want to dissociate myself from it, too.
I just have one question for the whole bunch of 'em: "Where were you when we needed you?"
April 16, 2006 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The hour we bomb Iran is the hour that we write the death sentence for the US Army. Our combat capability is tied down in a country whose primary supply line runs through Basra, Kuwait and the Straits of Hormuz. All of which could be seized by Iran practically overnight. The British are already on record saying that despite 8000 troops in the area Basra could be taken over by ten mullahs and a bullhorn. I made a bitter joke once. People were suggesting that all Iraq needed was several tens of thousands of trained and equipped troops. I pointed out that Iraq already had them. The only problem is that they were trained and equipped by Iran.
In the face of a thousand, or ten thousand suicide bombers and a couple hundred thousand Revolutionary Guard volunteers to stiffen the Shi'ite militias well the US Army and the Marines are in a world of hurt. Conceivably we could rescue some, even most of the troops, by air, we might even be able to evacuate substantial parts of the equipment through Turkey. But the personnel and material losses would be horrendous.
In the Iraq/Iran war the Iranians did not hesitate to send suicide waves of young boys and teenagers against Iraqi lines. Perhaps some of the more bloodthirsty of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists are prepared to see American troops mowing down waves of half armed teenagers. Certainly it didn't bother Saddam. But somehow I still think the American Army and the American people as a whole would be horrified. Given the choice between machine gunning children en masse and leaving the Army I suspect that exchanging cammies for civvies will be the easiest decision ever.
You want to destroy the US Army as an organized fighting force? Bomb Iran.
April 16, 2006 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where is Eric Shinseki in all this?
I'm just curious - does anyone know if General Shinseki has made any public comments about Iraq or about Rumsfeld since he retired?
April 16, 2006 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Lugar bailed on Bush today calling for direct negotiations with Iran.
April 16, 2006 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a nasty picture of Generals running for the door, but there's probably a large measure of truth to the notion of not trusting the brass who couldn't speak up three and four years ago. Ass saving is spreading like wildfire and the ones who'll get stuck are the American people
April 16, 2006 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reed provides an excellent summary of the situation. Certainly it seems likely that the reason we are hearing this criticism from the generals now is not entirely because of the screwup in Iraq, but especially because they are horrified at the probability of an even more serious screwup in Iran.
Obviously they are tired of the civilian neocons running the Pentagon and the White House and want them out.
The heat is definitely being turned up on the White House over the Iran war, with Richard Clarke weighing in against it this past week as well as others.
Even Tony Blair is reported to be telling Bush that Britain will not support it. And THAT is significant because Britain still has troops in Basra right across the border with Iran. If Bush attacks Iran, those troops will either have to fight Iranians and Shia militia or pull out fast. The problem with this scenario is they may not have time. The other problem with Blair's reticence is that British troops are reported involved in the attempt to increase unrest in Khuzestan, according to the Iranians. If this is true, then Blair's protests indicate he is lying again and he will support Bush. If he does, however, his government is doomed as what little support he has will evaporate as the British people are totally sick of him and the Iraq war.
Richard Steven Hack
www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com
April 16, 2006 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
While it COULD go that way, I would suggest that the US military in Iraq is not in THAT much danger of being totally destroyed. It's possible, but I feel it is more likely that we will simply take far more casualties than we are at present - probably enough to horrify the US population, which would be a good thing.
It is obvious that if the Shia and the Sunni in Iraq both go after US troops at the same time that any significant force is being applied by Iran against US troops in Iraq that the body count for US troops will spike VERY significantly. Instead of 2 US troops a day being killed, the figure could be ten or a hundred. The latter figure means more US troops killed in a month than we've lost in the last three years. And that could happen almost immediately within 30 days of an attack on Iran even without Iranian direct military involvement.
It is also possible that Iran could roll enough troops into Iraq to do major damage to the 130,000 troops we have there. Iran would have to commit the bulk of their half a million forces, including the 120,000 Revolutionary Guards, and possibly a significant portion of their one to six million militia.
However, the US would not respond with an attempt to repulse this with ground troops. The US would resort to carpet-bombing with B-52's and Stealth bombers. The result would be the same - scores of thousands of Iranian dead (and Iraqi civilians also caught up in the bombing). The US would also use the electronic cannon-equipped C-130 gunships they've been sending to Iraq which I predicted when the news came out was for exactly this purpose - attacking Iran.
The only question is would Iran feel it was a smart strategy to try to roll up the 130,000 troops in Iraq before they could be reinforced. Or would they prefer to wait and see if the US would try to invade Khuzestan (perhaps after some initial Iranian retaliation) and then use their forces to conduct a running guerrilla war against the US invasion.
In the meantime, they could use infiltrated Revolutionary Guards and the Iraqi Shia militias to harass and extend the insurgency in Iraq. And of course, the Sunni insurgents would take advantage of the chaos to step up operations against the US as well.
The latter plan would be more effective. They might lose Khuzestan for a while, but the end result would be a horrific guerrilla war against the US that would cost us ten thousand or more dead US troops and scores of thousands of US casualties every year for the next ten years - as the Iranians would be able to throw their entire military weight at us - including the one to six million militia - but in ways that would preclude effective aerial bombing. This would stretch the Iranian forces losses out and make them much more effective than a frontal attack against superior armed US forces.
We KNOW the Iranians will be able to destroy the Green Zone, which is a big fat immovable target well within range of their missiles. The US Air Force will never be able to knock out all their missile sites before they can hit the Green Zone. We also know from Iranian military statements the other day that they have US forces in Iraq under "total surveillance" and they will know where and how to hit us in Iraq.
Finally, as Richard Clarke just mentioned in his article, Iran can mobilize terrorist groups which are far more powerful and effective than Al Qaeda. They could export suicide bombers directly into the United States and Israel. Once one or two - or a dozen - of them blow themselves up during rush hour in the New York Subway or the San Francisco BART system, we can kiss what few civil liberties we have left good-bye.
Finally, if the US is either dumb enough to use nuclear bunker busters against Iranian nuclear facilities, or to use tactical nukes against Iranian military concentrations, the resulting radiation has been estimated to be able to kill several hundred thousand to as many as three million Iranians (and others in other countries like Afghanistan depending on fallout dispersion.) This would unite the entire Muslim world against the US - especially if this assault were to be run by the "Senator from Israel" Joe Lieberman as Rumsfeld's replacement - which is seriously being contemplated by some people. Terrorism directly against the continental US would increase ten-fold or a hundred-fold.
I hope that the Pentagon planners have enough smarts to anticipate these possibilities and that this is why we are hearing the retired generals speak out - as surrogates for the serving generals who aren't allowed to speak out.
Let there be no doubt - the Iranians would eventually lose this war in a practical sense, as their energy ambitions would be crushed and their economy would be destroyed by brutal US bombing, even if their leadership was not eventually killed.
But the US would lose so much as well as to cripple this country for years. The US taxpayer will be devastated as the economy evaporates into recession, his civil liberties are lost, and his children die in Iraq and Iran.
The only beneficiaries would be Israel and the oil companies and the military-industrial complex - and the Republican and Democrat politicians they have in their pockets.
The ONLY way to stop this is for every single Dem and leftist to come together and put the FEAR into the US public of these consequences, enabling us to force Congress to pass a resolution explicitly forbidding Bush from initiating ANY military action against Iran without an express Declaration of War by Congress and forbidding him from using any nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear nation without the express authorization of Congress. Any resolutions passed by Congress in the past authorizing Bush to use "any means necessary" against terrorists must be explicitly overridden.
Richard Steven Hack
www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com
April 16, 2006 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does Democracy really work any more. Can you have relatively enlightened leadership providing progress for the country and the world when the big money is banking on its own benefits even at the expense of everyone else? Will the military just let the fatal combination of messianic based policy combined with frat-boy incompetence continue to destroy the military, the nation and possibly the world. Or, bleak prospect, intervene and show the world that the American system is as fatally flawed as all the others and show the spoiled frat-boys/messiah the door? Is this country's political system now to be salvaged by military coup? We were never as good as we thought we were; how sad that we are so bad that such thoughts even are contemplatable.
April 16, 2006 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our best hope is that Rove CAN read the public mood.
My take is that another Bush war will make him the most unpopular president since polling and possibly produce veto proof Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.
Rove must realize this is a risk.
If it's good for me it must be Good 4 A MericaApril 16, 2006 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read there's a hot item for sale at West Point: a baseball cap that reads: "Ric was right."
He's kept a low profile because of style (he's not the screaming type) not because he does not hold grudges.
April 16, 2006 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The funny thing about the rebellious generals is that they've literally ensured that Rumsfeld will stay at his post for the foreseeable future.
No way Bush will surrender to a "putsch" of retired officers in cover-your-ass mode.
Once again, the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Which truly seems to be developing into some kind of specialty at the Pentagon.
April 16, 2006 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dogs seem to know something the White House doesn't. Dogs who know they'll lose don't pick fights. They smell the other dog and pee (or something like that).
Will someone tell Bush that smelling and peeing (ie, in this case, negotiating a grand bargain with Iran) is pretty much the only option left where the US can come out on top...
Or must Bush have his way and put an end to the "American Century" ?
April 16, 2006 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"but I feel it is more likely that we will simply take far more casualties than we are at present - probably enough to horrify the US population, which would be a good thing."
Uh,what part of taking big American casualties is a good thing? The whole evil of the Right was suggesting that this would all be painless, the suggestion that that that pain when totally tallied in casualties would be a "good thing" puts you beyond the Pale. Anyone who suggests that Americans being killed or wounded is justified on political grounds can kiss me royal white ass.
April 16, 2006 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which Richard Clarke article are you referring to?
April 16, 2006 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The generals are saying that the Bush administration has been a disaster for our military. I certainly agree with them. Whatever you can fault them for earlier they're on the right side of history now, in my view.
Tom
April 16, 2006 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get a Dem majority in both houses of Congress and then investigate, impeach, and convict these criminals.
Tom
April 16, 2006 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom,
I almost agree. I certainly appreciate their warnings. But some things bother me.
Why have they waited so long? From what they say, they have know for years that Rummy has F***ed it all up. The implication is, they would suck it up as long as it was just Iraq. Now that Iran is on the table, they are ready to spill their guts.
The other question is, what is their objective? There is so much about protecting the Army or the military. Excuse me for thinking that the military should not be worried too much about protecting the military. We have seriously warpped public policies. The miliatry (I don't mean the soldiers, I mean the generals) has been complicit in them for some time. I appreciate their turning on Rummy, that might stop yet another stupid policy. But that doesn't excuse their past.
If it's good for me it must be Good 4 A MericaApril 16, 2006 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Dem majority in at least one house is getting pretty certain at this point. I bet on the Senate, you cannot jerrymander the Senate. The House is tougher, but not impossible.
But, how do we keep the idiots out Iran for 7 more months?
If it's good for me it must be Good 4 A MericaApril 16, 2006 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess it's just me, but does this whole argument over Rumsfield sound extremely staged?
Anyone heard Sen Warner make any comments? This is his area, and it is not as if he is shy or retiring.
Are generals (even retired ones) always this polite when when staging what amounts to a mutiny?
Myers never struck me as being one of the brighter stars in the sky, but he should have been livid over this.
Why hasn't the White House come out with a mudslinging attack against the generals? I mean, they viciously went after Murtha and Kerry without the slightest hesitation.
I think something has already happened (or they know it will happen) and they are doing PR before it becomes public. It will be interesting to see if some more generals go public this week. It will be VERY interesting to see what happens in the next two weeks or so. I wonder if there will be a major terrorist incident soon?
April 16, 2006 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Today's op-ed in the NY Times.
Tom
April 16, 2006 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep talking it up. If enough citizens got off their collective butts and started screaming to the media and their Reps we can stop this. Even a messianic moron like Bush can be reined in by Rove and others (I hope) if the Repubs know they're going down in November, because they don't want to be investigated. Of course W will pardon the whole bunch the way his dad did with the Iran-Contra crew. I still think we can stop them with a massive uprising similar to what has been seen in other countries.
Tom
April 16, 2006 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Generals are worried about Iran, period. Iraq was never that much to worry about in terms of consequences for bad or no statesmanship. Personally, their "past" isn't even interesting to me in this context - we have to mobilize whatever we have to stop Bush from doing Iran. Look, we don't have that much power to stop it. I say we worry about recriminations later, after Bush is put out to pasture in Crawdad, Texas. Then we can have our Robespierre moments.
Neoboho
April 16, 2006 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reading between the lines on Seymour Hersh it sounds like some JCS resignations are coming if Cheney/Bush don't back off of the nuclear option on Iran.
Tom
April 16, 2006 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Congress needs to impeach and remove Bush/Cheney immediately. They will do this when the American people demand it. So we need more people to get off their butts and spend less time watching American Idol and cheering for their favorite sports teams. Otherwise, we, our children, and grandchildren may be doomed to Lord knows what in the future.
Tom
April 16, 2006 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, if you see JCS resignations, pray for America. We will need all the help we can get.
I read today that some people think Rove is planning to use Iran to pump up support for Republican candidates. The story goes that an attack on Iran would be beneficial in stiring up the Republican base.
If that is their thinking I think they have lost their minds. An unprevoked attack on Iran would lead directly to veto proof democrat majorities. In this climate of distrust it would take something truly remarkable to bump Bush's ratings.
Ron Byers
April 16, 2006 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mean that if the public is horrified at the casualties, they'll put a stop to the war - if they can, of coure, which is not certain.
I'm not saying the casualties are a good thing (although as a Transhumanist, I really don't care), but stopping the war as a result of it would be.
Richard Steven Hack
www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com
April 16, 2006 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only thing that Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rummy/Rove can do that will make me like them is if they enter into a suicide pact and complete it. All by themselves.
Jan Knaus
April 16, 2006 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
While it's never easy to assess others' motivations, it would seem likely, at least to me, that these retired generals are speaking for their friends who remain in the Pentagon and whose opinions are not getting the traction they believe they deserve. But what are those opinions?
Now, generals don't decide whether or not the country goes to war; they decide how the war should be fought. Generals' issues are tactics, not geopolitics. The assumption is that the Pentagon generals aren't being listened to and that they've called on their friends outside the service for help. And since the inside-the-Pentagon arguments are likely over tactics (what else do generals care about?) and no one gets particularly exercised over "war game" tactics, that they are excited means it's the real thing and we're damn close to war with Iran.
By destroying Iraq Bush has invited the creation of a Shia empire headquartered in Tehran and controlling most of the oil in the Middle East all the way to the Saudis' Gwahar super field. If he draws down troops in Iraq he leaves the geopolitical field to the mullahs and Ahmadinejad.
He cannot leave this situation festering; it would be a blight on his historical reputation. (Can you imagine what GWB thinks of the idea of Hillary Clinton bailing him out)
War with Iran is coming.
April 16, 2006 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not convinced that the primary motivation for a war on Iran is just Republican poll numbers.
I'm sure Rove thinks that way, but he really isn't the guy in charge. He may be in charge of Bush's political aspirations, but let's face it - Bush isn't running again, so why would Rove care that much? Rove may want to make sure the Republicans retain control of Congress so as to enable Bush's plans, but Rove isn't making Bush do this stuff just for that reason.
I see Bush as doing this partly for his own reasons (war profiteering for his cronies, his "legacy" - whatever he thinks that is - and various other mean-spirited and narrow-minded reasons.) Plus I think he's being egged on by the usual neocon suspects.
So just harping on the poliical consequences isn't going to stop him doing it.
Also, it's not so much that attacking Iran will stir up the Republican political base (although it will - just read the right wingnuts on all the blogs - they're all for attacking Iran RIGHT NOW!). It will primarily throw into disarray the entire domestic political scene just as much as the international scene.
Just imagine the constant drumbeat of news about the war edging out the Republican bribery scandals and the like. (Gee, Josh, you might actually have to give up the bribery stuff and follow the war! I'm so sorry!)
Depending on how the war goes, forget about any other issues getting serious coverage. Remember how the Iraq war media frenzy went? Well, double or triple that for the Iran AND Iraq war going on simultaneously.
This is a benefit for Bush, Rove and the Republicans as well.
But I still don't think it's the main reasons for this. And getting to those reasons should be the main focus of the Dem/leftist opposition.
But RIGHT NOW what needs to be done is for Dems/leftists to put THE FEAR into the US public of the consequences of this war in Iran as being ten times that of Iraq and 9/11 combined. Get the public to force Congress to block the Bush war plans.
THEN the Dems can concentrate on taking the House and Senate and prosecuting everybody as war criminals for Iraq.
Going the other way isn't going to work because Bush can launch the Iran war before the elections. And getting Bush impeached will take far too long - you couldn't get that done this year - and that still wouldn't stop the war. Do you think Cheney taking over would be any better? Do you think Cheney AND Bush could be impeached in one fell swoop? Get serious.
Richard Steven Hack
www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com
April 16, 2006 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Why hasn't the White House come out with a mudslinging attack against the generals? I mean, they viciously went after Murtha and Kerry without the slightest hesitation."
It is very telling that Richard Pearle felt compelled to come out and say the Military’s publicly stated beliefs are of no consequence.
On the contrary, it is hard to over estimate the significance and ramifications of the Pentagon’s public condemnation of the Bush Presidency. This is a complete and utter disaster for the Bush White House.
The American public now knows that the US Military believes that this Presidency’s Neocon agenda and reckless actions have seriously harmed American strategic and national interests, and directly caused thousands of unnecessary casualties of American troops and Iraqi civilians. The White House must be in complete lockdown and turmoil.
April 16, 2006 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
One reason they waited so long is that you cannot remain in uniform and criticize the civilian leadership. They also did not disagree with the goal of removing Saddem by force. They object to the sloppy and unthoughtout way the effort has been carried out. They don't like Rumsfelds meddling at the same time he refuses to listen to advice nor display knowledge about the issues at hand.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
April 16, 2006 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
www.billmon.org
..........What we are witnessing (through rips in the curtain of official secrecy) may be an example of what the Germans call the flucht nach vorne – the "flight forward." This refers to a situation in which an individual or institution seeks a way out of a crisis by becoming ever more daring and aggressive (or, as the White House propaganda department might put it: "bold")....... flights forward usually don't end well........
For Bush, or the neocons, or both, regime change in Iran not only may appear doable, it may also look like the only way out of the spectacular mess they have created in Iraq. The logic is understandable, if malevolent. Instead of creating a secular, pro-American client state in the heart of the Middle East, the invasion of Iraq has destroyed the front-line Arab regime opposing Tehran, installed a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad and vastly increased Iranian influence, not only in Iraq, but throughout the Shi'a world. It's also moved the Revolutionary Guard one step closer to the Kuwaiti and Saudi oil fields – the prize upon which the energy security of the West depends. By the traditional standards of U.S. foreign policy, this is a fiasco of almost unbelievable proportions. More to the point, the neocons may believe that unless they can do something dramatic to recoup those losses, they won't be able to safely withdraw large numbers of troops from Iraq........
In other words, the administration, and the Pentagon, have gotten themselves into one hell of a jam – militarily, strategically and politically. As desperate and reckless as attempted regime change in Iran might seem to us, to the Cheneyites it may look like the only move left on the board.
April 16, 2006 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
George W. Bush was the replacement for Bill Clinton. So who are you going to put in to Pres. Bush's place. and I would so bold to guess that whoever you replace Sadam Hussain with will eventually be worse than he was. your stuck and that rhymes with oh xxxx.
in the first quarter when it became clear to me that they would make war. i sent communications to the whitehouse (like their gonna read it) and expressed my extreme displeasure in that possibility. i was looking at wolfowitz as the brainiac culpret i think chainey had another of his own. i really have no problem with Jewish people being the chosen one's. but i do have a problem with people who learn everthing they know from books. people who write books make things sound greater than they are. now in science experiments dealing with tangible items, temp, weights, time, and such. you can come up with some pretty good absolutes. but when you put ego's in the mix you don't know what you are going to get. my best guess is kiss your love ones, tell them how much you love them, pray a little bit (okay maybe you had better make that a whole lot) try not to do or say anything to piss anybody off. pick out a spot about 10 feet in diamiter. pray some more. cuz i believe the shit is fixing to hit that fan we have all heard about.
oh by the way after expressing my opinions to the whitehouse, those around me proceeded to tell me how if i didn't like this country why don't i just leave. (most of them never served this country in any way i am a vet and i was curse by this country in that as well) then i started having these legal problems and my attorney didn't seem to want to help me. any way i eventually lost everything including my wife. she passed april 28 last year from something that i am told could have been cured. she safe now and i am certain she hasn't given me a second thought. so you guys go ahead and try to solve this thing. when i was young i was told the story of the little engine that could keep saying this "i think can, i think i can..."
i am gonna go and tell some people i love them. except for one person he'll be last on my list last night he said "your a terrorist." i guess that's because i critisize my government when i believe they are dead ass balls wrong. i later to the whitehouse the target in nyc was not the people, the buildings, or such but our constitution, bill of rights, with the amendments. and that he was being drawn into a fight. they will wait and when we so screwed up they will strike. may G_d have mercy on us cuz i don't think they will.
i do apoligize i have run out of cigaretts and beer. you see my government wishes to help by charging outragious taxes on something use. kind like a sin tax. G_d knows i am a sinner. so maybe i can break away from this post. i sure hope so cuz i do have a lot to tell like i am eating pickles for food. AMERICA THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.
April 16, 2006 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our Constitution puts the military under the command of the President, whether that president is a lunatic or a second coming of Winston Churchill. At this time it would be nice to have the officer corps refuse to obey the orders of this particular president (maybe), but very rarely in our history has this been the case if it ever has been before. And, it isn't a good idea in any case.
South American countries, and most countries in the world, do not put their military directly under the control of the civilian government. That has led to wholesale military coups taking place, sometimes every few years in some countries. Very rarely have those coups benefited the ordinary citizens of those countries. We must not ever get into that kind of situation in this country.
Once an officer is retired, he is a citizen with the full rights of any other citizen to criticize anyone in the government. So, these retired generals are well within their rights to be speaking out now. And, they could not have done so when they were in uniform, no matter how beneficial that might have been for the world in the short term.
Hoppy in Sacramento
April 16, 2006 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
After a decade of trashing every aspect of their enemeies, the worst the Republicans ca do is call their opponents opinions "of no consequence?"
It sounds to me like they don't really consider the generals enemies, and are worried about hurting them. And that opens up a can of nightcrawlers to consider.
The generals don't seem to be out after blood either. The worst they can come up with is "micromanagement".
This is the most polite, unoffensive political struggle in history.
I don't buy it.
The generals are using thier most potent weapon...and are only targeting Rumsfeld.
These are people used to thinking in terms of strategy and tactics, and they just wasted what amounts to most of their political firepower getting rid of one old man. If it had been just one general, I would possibly have accepted it as a grudge or honest belief issue, but more than six generals is a kabal, and it is not likely their political strategy would be so transparently inept. It takes a skilled politician as well to become a general, and this is not the acts of skilled politicicans.
I find it impossible to believe that getting rid of Rumsfeld is their only goal, if not Rumsfeld, there are many other candidates for the position that Bush could put in. Nothing would really change if they won.
If nothing else, they should have announced a more useful goal...no war in Iran, a replacement for Rumsfeld, etc. That they didn't means that whatever they are after, it is not being said.
There are several possibilities that come to mind.
One is that there is some other general (note the singular) that wants to say something, and they are trying to discredit or discourage him or her by prelaunchng their announcements first.
The other, of course, is that it's a decoy. Everyone will get worked up about this, and something wil happen that will prove Bush right and the generals wrong.
There is a third possibility, that Bush is trying to draw attention away from the immigration debate.
FInally, there is the possiblity that Rumsfeld has just been diagnosed with a serious disease that will cause him to step down anyways, and Bush is using that to setup his critics to look heartless.
April 16, 2006 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet we have words of caution from stories in, eg, the sf chronicle and NY times today, from historians who suggest that the generals speaking out endangers the civilian authority over the military. Jeezus h Christ! We are talking about potential crossing of the nuclear line for manifest political and machiavellian purposes here, and talking about a ridiculous level of incompetence in Iraq that is killing american lives, iraqi lives, and trashing our military. And yet to preserve this precious civilian authority the generals are to keep their traps shut? The historians say, to paraphrase, that it is principally the voters and the congress who are to remedy such problems and hold the administration accountable. Last I checked THERE ARE NO MORE VOTES ON THIs ADMInistRATION! And unless we throw the repubs out in the fall, THIS CONGRESS WILL NOT BE ACCoUnTABLE! Under the circumstances, bring on the generals! I will seek the civilian authority to be fully restored when we have a saner administration in place.
April 16, 2006 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
ADMInistRATION
Is that just random capitalization or a subliminal message?
April 17, 2006 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did this group of unethical morons have any minds to lose in the first place?
Tom
April 17, 2006 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Surprise! PNAC doesn't work and the military had to figure it out the hard way.
Any Rommels in the crowd?
"Twirling round with this familiar parabol, spinning, weaving round each new experience. Recognize this as a holy gift and celebrate this chance to be alive and breathing..." - Tool, "Parabola", 2001.
http://peopledontcareaboutpolitics.blogspot.com
April 17, 2006 5:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
It depends on what the generals objectives are.
It is not necessarily a war with Iran. If it was, they would have said it explicitly. More importantly, it doesn't fit in with the military culture to interfere with the civilian leadership of a war they are engaged in.
Widening the war they are engaged in is still part of military mission, and while the generals might object privately, it would be against militiary culture to openly disobey or attempt to divert a projected strategy, however ill advised.
Assuming this is not a setup, I think the key is to look at under what circumstances it is valid in military culture for a subordinate to attempt to remove a superior officer.
Generally speaking, the only thing that comes to mind is cowardice in the face of the enemy. Now while may other qualities may be ascribe to Mr Rumsfeld, cowardice with regard to the war (or widening thereof) does not seem to be one of them.
I think we need to look at the differences between military and civilian culture to determine the causes for their actions.
In 1990, it was predicted by some thinktanks that the divergence of military and civilian culture would cause a revolt in the military sometime about 2002. I remember seeing it on CSPAN.
From the point of view of military culture, the immigration marches were enemy combatants seizing control of american cities, albeit peacefully,
From the point of view of civilian culture, it is just a way of demonstrating support for an issue.
From the point of view of military culture, you don't let the enemy position their forces without positioning yours to effectively oppose them. To them, that means armed military units should be guarding the parade.
From the point of view of civilian culture, you simply ignore the marches, and showing any kind of force would simply exacerbate the situation. Military units could cause a riot. Everyone remembers Grant Park and Kent State.
From the point of view of military culture, the civilian culture response would be viewed as that their civilian leaders were showing cowardice in the face of the enemy.
And in military culture, ny soldier, even a civilian leader, showing cowardice in the face of the enemy may be removed by whatever means necessary.
That would explain why they are targeting Rumsfeld and nothing else. It would also explain the relative politeness involved and why some normally vociferous advocates are staying quiet. Since their actions are valid within military culture, any untoward attack, such as mudslinging, would unite the entire military behind the generals.
April 17, 2006 5:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said. Americans should listen to the retired generals, but should not hope for action from the active duty generals. Bush/Cheney will pass into history. We don't want Democracy to be damaged in the process.
We the people have to stand up and tell Bush/Co to stand down. We can do that in the polls. We can do that in the election. We can do that by putting pressure on the active duty congressmen and women who have been uniformly shirking their oversight roles. Did I mention we can do it in the coming congressional election.
Elect people who will represent us, not just corporate interests.
Ron Byers
April 17, 2006 5:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
In other words (arrgh, what has Bush done to that phrase?) are you saying that the generals are not taking a stand on whether or not to fight a war with Iran but rather on whether or not to do so under Rummy? Basically they are saying the sh*t has hit the fan and it's time to stop f*cking around.
That's close to how I see it.
April 17, 2006 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hoppy and Ronbyers:
I thought I was pissed off after katrina. Here's a sample letter that anybody can copy and paste and send to their Senator or Rep. It could be better, so please change it.
I fear the hope that more of these generals will come out asking for Rumsfeld's removal. I agree the issue is much bigger than that. It's time for the people- all of us- to accept some responsibility for thiis mess("not me, I voted for Kerry" won't really do much at the moment) and put an end to the threat these guys pose.
April 17, 2006 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Folks attempt to 'tease out' what Bush's motivations are, but after reading Bush On the Couch, I am convinced the guy is such an egomaniac, that his thought processes cannot be 'logically' determined. He will do what he believes is 'right' - period. If somehow, in his paranoid, ego-centric mind, Iran is a direct threat to HIS power, HIS authority and HIS legacy, he will attack Iran and not look back.
I believe that if we get out of the next three years without Bush starting another war or further engagering us with his crap policies we will have dodged one of the most deadly bullets our country has ever faced.
Beware of the fanatics, they never see gray.
April 17, 2006 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did get a very disturbing feeling from one of the Generals when he was commenting on The Jim Leher News Hour, I think it was last Tuesday.
The General kept going on about how he came back from the field in Iraq and he felt betrayed by the civilian leadership because the country was not mobilised for war. People were going about their business "like nothings happened", they were out "shopping" and the President was doling out "tax cuts" while we are at War.
Then the General went on to say that we can't quit and we need to win this and "I've never quit on anything in my entire life"
It seemed to me that his main complaint was that Bush and Rummy had not mobilised the nation like FDR did in 1942. His main complaint was that the USA had not gone on a total war footing to win this thing in Iraq.
He did criticize the strategic choice of going into Iraq but he did not see strategic retreat as an option, only total war intensity as a solution.
I wonder if any party could mobilise America to total war at this point? I found this aspect of the Generals thinking unrealistic; that America could go to a general draft with wartime austerity and a total war budget from Congress.
That moment has passed.
April 17, 2006 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree that the military culture thinks of prepositioning units to deal with domestic protests. Over the years, I've worked with many military professionals, and I find a universal abhorrence of being placed in domestic (and indeed foreign) law enforcement roles. It's not that they do not respect law enforcement, but regard it as involving a completely different set of doctrines and even reflexes.
Units assigned to peacekeeping in the Balkans and elsewhere usually needed retraining before being considered combat ready. There is a military distinction between peacekeeping and peace enforcement; the latter, where the peace force may act preemptively against a threat, is within the military scope, while the former is not. Before anyone calls them trigger-happy, do remember Canadian General Dallaire repeatedly asking UN headquarters to let him destroy or take control of Rwandan armories and radio stations, before the plane crash unleashed the horrors.
April 17, 2006 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
General mobilization is not synonymous with the draft. The existing military is not set up to make effective use of draftees, and no military professional I know wants other than volunteers on his or her flanks.
Now, I have known military officers that don't want to go into combat without a national mandate, at least as in the Powell or Weinberger Doctrines, and quite preferably a responsible Congressional assumption that war is not domestic business as usual.
I'd really need to examine this particular general's remarks.
April 17, 2006 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was a disturbing interview as well. Did you notice how Jim was particularly probing on the question of whether the generals had been in touch with one another regarding their statements prior to making them? The idea of a group of generals (retired) meeting to organize a concerted political effort is frightening. It's not as frightening as what Bush appears to be planning though.
April 17, 2006 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good letter, lambisrob! I have copied it and will change it to my writing style before sending it to my Congresswoman and Senators. The Constitution does place a lot of responsibility on the Congress, and the Congress under Republican control has largely given up that responsibility to the president. If only our Democratic members of Congress had been willing to stand up and challenge the Republicans so much could have been different. But, there is no time better than now for them to start doing it. I hope everyone who reads that letter also sends their version to their members of Congress.
Hoppy in Sacramento
April 17, 2006 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Glad you mentioned that book because as time goes on it becomes clearer and clearer that the author knew what he was talking about. What is so amazing is that so many continue to treat Bush as a rational human being. The emperor has no clothes on yet nobody is willing to acknowledge it.
April 17, 2006 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
It wasn't a public statement, but a MACIV Major - a West Pointer to boot - asked me to think one thought every morning when I awoke for the remaining 4 or 5 months of my tour of duty in Vietnam: "The Viet Cong are the only friends these people have."
Dissent among serving officers has a special clout, since they are putting their careers on the line. Remember Light Colonel John Paul Vann?
This reminds me so much of an interview I once read with Yevgeny Yevtoshenko - he said that the very conservative Russian people were wholeheartedly in favor of sending seditious poets to Siberia for their crimes against the state, and upon release of the poets, they would become enormously popular. Why? Because the Russians loved poets who would suffer for their art!
Neoboho
April 17, 2006 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I first finished the book I was quite depressed, because the 'prognosis' for surviving this type of individual is poor. As time goes by, the behaviors of Bush do match up well with what the good doctor described in the book. Three more years of this egomaniacal individual is simply scary.
Beware of the fanatics, they never see gray.
April 17, 2006 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Vann did not retire due to dissent. Vann retired because he had a skeleton in his closet that made him potentially unpromotable.
As a civilian working for AID, he was put into a unique position that gave him the effective status of a major general. I don't begrudge his effectiveness, nor his death in action -- although the latter may have been caused by bravado.
April 17, 2006 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm doubtful about that. Vann was yanked from MACIV because of his attack on General Harkins, and resigned a few monts later. He was only 37 when he made Lt. Colonel - I think Halberstram said he was the youngest Lt. Colonel in the Army at the time. As for skeletons (especially sexual indescretions) these were common in the '60s among the Officer Corp - especially in a combat zone - so it wouldn't have been something that blocked a promotion.
I don't think that anyone remembers Navy Captain Archie Kuntze - The American Mayor of Saigon - who served as Chief during the early days of the military build-up. His administration was incredibly corrupt, but he was best known for providing his courtesan, Madame Sun, with an air conditioned limosine (at tax-payer's expense) which she used for her shopping expeditions. The consequences of his administration were enormous - including promoting inflation in real estate prices - way over the top - which eventually caused the US Embassy to step in and order the US Army real estate office reactived (it hadn't operated since the Japanese occupation) to put a cap on real estate prices. I just know this because I was assigned to the real estate office.
Kuntze was eventually courts-marshalled for his extravagances, but remarkably the only charge levied against him was for illegally bringing in a bolt of Thai silk (for Madame Sun?). But here's something interesting: one charge that was suppressed by his superiors was Kuntze's knoweledge of and involvement with high-scale construction contracting corruption, with the firm of Brown, Root and Jones as the principle beneficiary. I am having deja-vu.
Anyway, my point is that John Paul Vann's dissent was real, regardless of his personal life. And I believe that he was drummed out of the Army for it.
Neoboho
April 17, 2006 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This recalls the Vietnam war where one of the senior generals questioned the lack of "full mobilization".
I think it is absolutely clear that if the US attacks Iran, and if it actually invades and attempts to seize the province of Khuzestan (let alone any of the rest of Iran), the US will face a guerrilla war for the next ten years which will require at least one million troops on the ground to deal with it. It will be at least twice as bad as Vietnam - except possibly that the enemy will not be quite as clever, nor have the superior camouflage of jungles to operate in (not that Iran's territory is in our favor.)
How anybody can imagine that we can sustain a ten-year war with one million troops without reactivating the draft is beyond me.
One should also note that certain right wing types have long advocated the draft because they feel it would produce a society of young people with more "discipline" - having been forced to serve in the military. Even some left wing types have suggested compulsory national service inside or outside the military for the same reason.
So I'd say it is a one hundred percent certainty that an attack on Iran will produce the reactivation of the military draft within a year or so of the war beginning, when it becomes apparent that the available forces simply aren't enough.
Especially since the Iraq Sunni insurgency will be on-going as well, with many of the Shia militia fighting on the side of the Iranians as well.
I can easily see this costing the US taxpayer some $20 billion a month on top of the $5-6 billion being spent in Iraq - for the next ten years.
Richard Steven Hack
www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com
April 17, 2006 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then why did he get unprecedented military authority for a civilian later on?
No, I find Sheehan's account convincing. Remember that he had not taken the career punches required at the time; he was detailed to infantry from a support branch. It appears that he took considerable steps to remove the sexual indiscretions from his records.
Some superb combat commanders, at company and field grade, also play well as generals: Abrams, Yarborough, Shoup, etc. Westmoreland played general as a plebe. Vann was a quite competent MG-equivalent, but I'm not convinced he had the right skill set to rise to a position of leading the Army.
April 17, 2006 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, look, hc - I'm not sure where this is all going in view of the original topic - my only point in mentioning Vann was to establish that dissent does exist inside the military, and fear of retribution often silences dissent. If you want to kick Vann off the list of examples, go for it. But if you are arguing against that idea about dissent by kicking him off the list, then we might have a decent dabate here which is more on topic.
Neoboho
April 17, 2006 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me try again. There are a couple of aspects to thinking in the military. Sometimes the issue is challenge inside or in public, and other times, the military loses something by not letting an atypical officer rise to general rank. It appears the British have historically done better with eccentrics than the US. Within the US military, it is interesting, especially with Pace as CJCS, that the Marines have historically nurtured eccentrics -- Grey, as Commandant, pretty well institutionalized it.
One is the people that go out, especially below general officer rank, who challenge the system more than it can take. Hackworth, Corson, and others are in this category.
Another is the class of serious thinker that for some reason can't rise above O-6: Boyd, Warden, etc. Warden, admittedly, had more of a problem playing nicely with others.
Yet another is the outstanding combat commander, and thinker, that is stereotyped, doesn't punch the tickets, or otherwise can't get to the level of influencing thinking. This was especially true of special operations in the past, as with Bank, Volckmann, or Simons. Some would put Hackworth in this category, but I don't.
April 17, 2006 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would agree about the military intensely disliking non combat roles.
What I am wondering is if they are viewing this as a combat situation, not a domestic situation. If you listen to the congressional debates on CSPAN, you realize that there is a certain amount of congresspeople who view the marches as enemy forces occupying American cities (because of the illegal immigrant aspect) If so, then it is a legitiimate concern for the military.
That is just specuation, though. The only thing I am seriously certain about is that,despite appearances, this cant be about Rumsfeld.
April 17, 2006 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would expect incredible pushback by the military against such Congressional suggestions. Without Presidential declarations of states of emergency, Posse Comitatus would apply.
Such declarations are an interesting tradeoff. GWB has demonstrated a general disinterest in Congressional opinion, but this might be yet another opportunity to push a fear-based political strategy.
Combat, to the military, is when you have an enemy force trying to kill people and break things. Whatever Congressional rhetoric may be, illegal immigrant demonstrations don't come close. Going back to the sixties, it is interesting, however, how regular military, as opposed to police and National Guard, performed in the Detroit riots. The brigade of the 82nd Airborne used speed and maneuver that part-timers simply couldn't match; they fired fewer rounds but captured or killed more shooters than the state and local organizations.
Forget domestic opinion; the military doesn't like most peacekeeping assignments. In the Balkans, they envied, for reasons not always obvious, the rules of engagement used by the French and others. Originally, the US ROE were such that they could return fire if fired upon. Other national contingents, however, were authorized to engage any Balkan force that seemed a potential threat.
Combat commanders fear that troops that have been conditioned to police-like rules of engagement will get killed when put in a combat situation. It was usually accepted that before a peacekeeping unit could either go to combat standby or deployment, it needed both local-level MILES training (a very realistic combat simulation using a militarized version of laser tag), and then full unit aggressor training at JRTC, NTC, or both.
April 17, 2006 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
So did DiFi in an LA Times op-ed.
April 17, 2006 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure you've created this sort of typology for good reason, Howard. I'm willing to confess it's over my head - I'm comfortable with the fuzziness of believing that there are a myriad of scenarios about officers, intelligence and opportunities for promotion. I actually served under a Butterbar for a few months in Vietnam who was metally retarded. I'm not being cute, he was retarded - a nice guy, and the son of a General. When we went out on a detail I had to ask him to go have a beer while I did the work - explaining that if he helped we wouldn't make the Major's deadline. He always agreed - and left with no hard feelings to have his beer.
I returned from Vietnam and was ordered to an Engineer battalion at Ft. Lewis. On reporting for duty, I was asked if I could type, and I said "yes." So I was made a legal clerk for HQ & HQ Co, 75th Engineers. It's a non-existant slot, as companies aren't authorized legal clerks - a battalion level job. It was just that the CO was such a horrible officer that he had massive disciplinary problems. The upshot was I couldn't be promoted, even though I was due a promotion and all that. Hell, I even got a Commendation Medal for service in VN while at Ft. Lewis, and I couldn't get promoted.
Neoboho
April 17, 2006 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Do 'ya think the new Bush National Security Strategy might have something to do with the General Dyspepsia?
Insecurity With Insolvency
The president’s National Security Strategy is vague on fiscal details and ignores geopolitical realities.
By Andrew J. Bacevich
April 18, 2006 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ran across this paper a few minutes ago...you might find it interesting http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/research/theses/tam06.pdf
April 19, 2006 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. How do you see it with respect to the current conflict between the policymakers and military? The thesis quite appropriately discussed that traditional role of the military as co-equal or source of policy in Asia, using Alagappa's model in Coercion and Governance: The Declining Political Role of the Military in Asia. That's an important worldwide model to understand, where the military takes a significant role in economic development and day-to-day local life. Such a role is not always bad, as with the role of the Turkish military as guarantor of civil rights against Islamism. There appear to be some viable examples in subsaharan Africa.
The Soviet model still had the Red Army as one of the three checks and balances among Party, Army and Security Organs. Again, this doesn't fit the US tradition, but it's interesting to think what a professional military, oriented to civil rights, might do in places such as Iraq.
In the US, there is a delicate balance, and the overt military does not act as a formal check and balance, as in the sense of the congress and judiciary, or an informal but real guarantor of policy, as in Turkey or the fUSSR. This, I believe, is good.
Yes, there are the concerns first articulated by Eisenhower about a military industrial complex. Truth, I suppose, lies somewhere in between the corporate interest in national security being there only to serve, and the theories of some that US national security policy exists principally to support corporate interests. MG Smedley Butler, USMC, was a pre-Eisenhower proponent of that theory. Complicating this is the increasingly technical aspect of warfare, which no longer lets the military do its development in isolation. WWII science advisor Vannevar Bush
April 19, 2006 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, actually, I study Sino American economic warfare, so everything I say is colored by that. Can't know everything.
In this particular case, I thought one section was a good summary of the possible relationships between civil and military forces in society.
Here is the problem as I see it. The present civil/military relationship has been destabilized. What is called the generals revolt is actually a symptom of that destabilization.
Here is why I think it is destabilizing. The elimination of the draft moved the military into a separate culture from civil authority.
And the institutions of the two cultures have been moving farther and farther apart. For the most part, those institutions do not overlap, as you pointed out.
Over the past few years, there has been a tremendous rise in non traditional warfare, where state boundaries are not respected. I am not talking about terrorism, (which is traditonal, by the way) but more along the blurring of multinationals and governments.
What this is doing is bringing military institutions into overlapping the sphere of civil authority. Because of this, the relationship of the miltiary to the civil authority is going to be forced to change. Is guantanamo bay a civil or military issue where American citizens are prisoners?
Another good example is the the illegal immigrant issues.
It is very clearly the duty of the military to defend American against an invasion of the Mexican army, and there would be a military coup if the civil authority decided to surrender rather than fight.
On the other hand, what does 12 million illegal immigrants represent? Is an army defined as wearing a specific uniform under todays rules? They have definitely occupied United States territory they have no right to, thats the whole meaning of illegal. Does that constitute an occupying foreign force?
Obviously not, from a civil authority point of view. Obviously it does, from a military point of view.
I suspect everyone would just like to ignore it, but that is not going to happen. Right now, the military is letting civilian authority take the lead. But what happens if the demonstrations turn violent, as they are likely to in four months?
At that point, every military person is going to have to make a decision about where and to what extent their duties overlap with civil authority, and it is not going to be easy.
April 19, 2006 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
if they reactivate the draft people will not show up.
April 20, 2006 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink