Fitz ‘em all!

April 20, 2006 — Beating Bush’s NSA e-mail surveillance simple. According to NSA sources, there is a simple method to avoid having one’s e-mail captured by NSA Internet filters that have been installed within major Internet exchanges, such as the AT&T facility in San Francisco, which is the subject of a class action suit against AT&T. By typing “Viagra” or “Cialis” in the message text, the filters will automatically identify the e-mail as spam and ignore it. The e-mail could contain the words “Al Qaeda” or “Bin Laden,” but as long as Viagra or Cialis are also contained in the text, the e-mail will pass through the filters without being intercepted.

Farthammer(Charles Krauthammer) stands logic on its head in his latest Swiftboating, character assassination of the likes of Generals Zinni, Eaton and Clark.

“That happens in places such as Hussein’s Iraq, Pinochet’s Chile or your run-of-the-mill banana republic. And when it does, outsiders (including the United States) do their best to exploit it, seeking out the dissident factions to either stage a coup or force the government to change policy.”

In his world, these Generals will secretly conspire with Russia or China to overthrow the Bush Government.

My God, they are so damn desperate that they will take a hammer to every last institution this nation holds dear and that makes what is left of this place a democracy.

After reading Kevin Phillips and John Dean, I have become a glum man today.

-GSD

We all knew this was coming.
It was only a matter of time before they stared to eat the officer corps….

“our generals”

heh. Just found it amusing that you found a couple retired generals whom you’re willing to support. Support the (retired anti-war) Troops!

Great Idea, Taylor!!! Let’s give the generals the tools to throw the slime back in the GOoPers’ faces!!!

As a hopeful aside, Joe McCarthy went down in flames when he went after the Army. Of course, we don’t have an Eisenhower on our side this time . . .

ck, I want this to stick. It’s simply unacceptable what the Republicans do to troops who dare to have an opinion, even as private citizens.

Did you see comment at #5? Another weak Republican swiftboating the troops.

SS…#5

Another troll Self-Shitting himself
Now we know what SS means

I know …don”t feed them

Cambone is getting in his machine gunning of 50 generals alright. A metaphorical machine-gunning no doubt, but just as deadly.

The nation is hurtling towards the gravest crisis since the 1860’s.

-GSD

Laws of Unintended Consequences.

As malicious as swiftboating is, do you really believe that with respect to career military men it will have the effect hoped for by the repugs?

Yeah, yeah, I’m the first to say they don’t have any new tricks, but I also, if you follow my posts as you should, have stated I think that is a good thing.

It is one thing to “swiftboat” Kerry in an election before the country came to see them as the toy soldiers that they are.

It is another thing to try and “swiftboat” career military men, AFTER you have totally fucked up the phony war that was supposed to be a milk run and that you lied your way into, and EVERYONE knows that.

I say it boomerangs. Not that you shouldn’t collect the quotes and go after them.

But, and I have also said this before, the more they ratchet up their rhetoric, the more new “enemies” they have to attack, the better for us.

I know a lot of former army officers (mostly West Point grads), and regardless of their politics, they put the military first, and attacking military leaders for speaking out on behalf of the military and soldiers is something you can’t do without pissing them off. I

Will see, but Chimpco is on dangerous grounds. Last refuge of scoundrals, I think so.

Krauthammer in true Pavlovian fashion was the latest to attack the generals. Here’s my take on why his argument is absolute nonsense and why George Michael needs to watch his back.

they are just “old school” complainers and whiners, clintonites too boot.

And they don’t like Rummy and Bushies “reforms.”

http://biglizards.net/blog/arc…..rom_t.html

« Argument By Redefinition – Again | Main | Grumbles, the Coincidental Coda »
April 13, 2006
Grumbles From the Griped
Future of Warfare
Hatched by Dafydd

I must admit, I am less than impressed by the gaggle of retired Army generals (and a couple of ex-Marines) who have lambasted Defense Secretary Rumsfeld recently, as recounted by Thomas Ricks in the Washington Post — which is sure to be scrupulous about finding any contrary evidence, we all believe.

I noticed several things right off:

1. These generals appear to be mostly from the Clinton era. Why is that important? Because, while progression through the rank of Colonel is more or less based upon military performance, elevation to flag rank is by direct presidential appointment. They are, in a sense, Clinton appointees.

Typically, presidents don’t hand out stars to people who object to their philosophies; think of LBJ and Gen. William Westmoreland. So the first assumption is that if President Bill Clinton elevated an Army colonel to a Brigadier General — or made him Commander in Chief of CentCom (paging Anthony Zinni) — that general is probably a Clintonista.

2. All generals have been in the service for decades. For decades, we have refought World War II — in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Bosnia, and Kosovo… by which I mean using more or less the same tactics (mass bombings, invasion by massive, centrally commanded divisions, and so forth). Those at the warfare styles to which these generals were long accustomed.

Even before the Iraq War, Secretary Rumsfeld embarked upon a revolutionary reformation, not only of how we fight wars but also the entire organization of our military forces. He is pushing towards smaller units, more unit independence (moving command decisions down the ranks), much greater reliance on Special Forces, and a reorganization of units to be self-sufficient rather than specialized.

It’s hardly surprising that some men who have invested so much of their lives in one particular way of running a war would be angry, rebellious, and confused by a completely different way of running a war… or that some of them would lash out at the symbol of that change. They are no different from vice presidents at General Motors or IBM who furiously denounce splitting those companies into self-reliant business units instead of the normal corporate divisions they’ve had for twenty years.

Here are a few snippets from the Washington Post article that I believe tend to prove my case:

[Retired Army MG John] Batiste said he believes that the administration’s handling of the Iraq war has violated fundamental military principles, such as unity of command and unity of effort. In other interviews, Batiste has said he thinks the violation of another military principle — ensuring there are enough forces — helped create the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal by putting too much responsibility on incompetent officers and undertrained troops.

Unity of command and unity of effort

Literally, the first means a soldier (of any rank) has one and only one commanding officer above him; but when combined with unity of effort, it implies not only bottom to top heirarchy but top to bottom. That is, at each level, the soldier makes only the little decisions and leaves the big decisions to his CO.

From Chapter 4 of the United States Army Field Manual FM 100-5:

Unity of command obtains that unity of effort which is essential to the decisive application of full combat power of the available forces. Unity of effort is furthered by full cooperation between elements of the command.

Wikipedia expands this slightly:

Unity of Command – For every objective, seek unity of command and unity of effort. At all levels of war, employment of military forces in a manner that masses combat power toward a common objective requires unity of command and unity of effort. Unity of command means that all the forces are under one responsible commander. It requires a single commander with the requisite authority to direct all forces in pursuit of a unified purpose.

This has more or less been standard military doctrine for centuries, from Julius Caesar through Washington, Napoleon, Eisenhower, and Westmoreland.

However, in the modern era with modern communications and intelligence technology, this doctrine sometimes leads to soldiers being “over-officered,” as in Vietnam — where a platoon might have a lieutenant in command with them, a major in constant communication from a nearby command truck, a colonel giving direct orders from back at the base, and a general flying overhead demanding to know the situation on the ground every five minutes.

It also can make militaries unwieldy and too slow to react, like the Soviet officers who had to clear every attack with the Kremlin, no matter how urgent it was.

One of Secretary Rumsfeld’s reforms is, without question, to bend this doctrine without actually breaking it. Thus, rather than have one fellow ultimately directing every operation in Afghanistan and Iraq, Rumsfeld wants units to operate more or less independently and on their own initiative — while keeping in contact with the other units around them and bearing in mind the ultimate goals. Rumsfeld believes that the lieutenant, captain, or major on the ground — or in many cases, the first or master sergeant — is in a better position to respond quickly and appropriately to situations that can literally change by the minute.
The Colin Powell Doctrine of Overwhelming Force

I’m sure the Powell Doctrine is what MG Batiste means by the principle of “enough forces.”

The Powell Doctrine simply asserts that when a nation is engaging in war, every resource and tool should be used to achieve overwhelming force against the enemy. This may oppose the principle of proportionality, but there are grounds to suppose that principles of Just War may not be violated. [Emphasis in original]

Again, Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush reject this doctrine as outdated with today’s warfare/statecraft challenges… hence, though we used a half a million troops to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in the Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm), we used a scant 200,000 troops to take over the entire country of Iraq — though it would have been about 220,000 if the 4ID had been able to traverse Turkey and invade Iraq from the north.

Each doctrine has its attendent advantages and disadvantages; but Secretary Rumsfeld has concluded that contemporary warfare is better handled with the “small footprint” of OIF than the “overwhelming force” of the Gulf War. Clearly, MG Batiste completely disagrees… which is why he felt compelled to leave the Army rather than fight under Donald Rumsfeld.

But the fact that an old general dislikes the new style of warfare is not a refutation of that style. It just means MG Batiste is “Old School.” But Old School is not necessary the best school.

Back to the New York Times article:

Last month, another top officer who served in Iraq, retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times in which he called Rumsfeld “incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically.” Eaton, who oversaw the training of Iraqi army troops in 2003-2004, said that “Mr. Rumsfeld must step down.”

Um… wasn’t 2003 and 2004 the period during which our training of the Iraqi Army was completely botched? There was a lot of controversy at the time among those who thought we should have just kept the Baathist Iraqi Army and put new commanders in charge. The training during this period was a disaster, with Iraqi Army units literally fleeing in panic from the insurgents and the terrorists, the first Fallujah campaign (where the Iraqi Army let Zarqawi and his al-Qaeda In Mesopotamia escape), and so forth.

I don’t grant MG Eaton much credibility to talk about what Rumsfeld is doing wrong!

“The problem is that we’ve wasted three years” in Iraq, said [retired Marine Gen. Anthony] Zinni, who was the chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, in the late 1990s. He added that he “absolutely” thinks Rumsfeld should resign.

Zinni is the epitome both of an Old School general and a Clintonista. To say we’ve “wasted three years” in Iraq is so absurd and demeaning to the troops — including Marines — that only politics can explain (but not excuse) it.

I know the Left is going to make much of this; but citing this as a “scandal” is just another iteration of their tired, old approach: find a controversial issue — then quote only one side, to make it appear as if the other side is indefensible. In closing, I quote myself quoting Robert Anton Wilson channeling Lemuel Gulliver as could have been written by Jonathan Swift:

And so these Learned Men, having Inquir’d into the Case for the Opposition, discover’d that the Opposition had no Case and were Devoid of Merit, which was what they Suspected all along, and they arriv’d at this Happy Conclusion by the most Economical and Nice of all Methods of Enquiry, which was that they did not Invite the Opposition to confuse Matters by Participating in the Discussion.

Wilson, Robert Anton, “The Persecution and Assassination of the Parapsychologists as Performed by the Inmates of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Under the Direction of the Amazing Randi,” Right Where You Are Sitting Now, And/Or Press, 1982, p. 67.

SS – did you ever “support our troops” by serving in the military?

#5 —-

ss illustrates AGAIN the trouble w/ the gop faschist / zombie mindset.

they support clusterfuck like i support my mommie. she is incapable of doing wrong, above questioning. don’t talk bad about mommie!!!

a question: is complexity beyond them or are they willingly suspending it.

a bit of both i suppose.

According to Abc’s Note, Fitz’ grand jury is meeting today.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics…..?id=156238

Craphammer and the other leading lights of the right always drag out “history” to lend weight to their to their spin. This is why Hasen is so important to them. If one looks a conservative “history book” it’s always full of white-out and cut-outs.

EPU–the law of diminishing returns.

That attack the messenger tactic works like a charm at 90% approval. But, with 33% approval–all the attacks are landing on the remaining 67% of the population now.

Not too smart.

No wonder the base is eroding, they are attacking them now too. These Generals are in many regards classic parts of the Republican base. Not lockstep, but indeed, part of the base.

I say 27% within a week if they keep this up.

The Terror has come to America, the Revolution is truly consuming its own.

-GSD

Gay in PA?

Have friends who are Gay in PA?

Hope to someday be Gay in PA?

Care about marriage equality?

Then you need to be on my blog…And right now!

***ACTION ALERT***

Monday, April 24th, the PA State Legislature will be voting on the “Marriage Protection Amendment.”

Today is the last big push to defeat this hate-based measure.

Http://usagenda.blogspot.com

Thank you in advance…I wouldn’t post this in your comments if I wasn’t desperate…And desperate I am!

GSD – Yeah, that too.

OT: Roots Project

There will be a front page Roots Project Update probably this weekend, but for those who want to know more about the Roots Project, check out these now publicly available notes at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/21/125817/793

State groups are accelorating their efforts to meet with their senators’ offices, and some meetings have already taken place. I will let this community know more about tohse successes soon.

chicago tom #13
The President does not sit on the General Officer Selection Board. Suggest you look at Tittle 10

Rosa Brooks comments on the swiftboating of the dissenting generals in today’s LA Times OpEd page:

“…. After all, every student of recent history knows that if you dilute civilian control of the military, you end up with fascism or a Latin American-style military junta. Because constant security threats are necessary to maintain the power and credibility of a military regime, a nation that lacks civilian control of the military gets ensnared in unending, pointless wars, often against an increasingly vaguely defined threat. Gradually, the broader society becomes militarized. Dissenters are denounced as cowards or traitors, and domestic surveillance becomes common. Secret military courts and detention systems begin to supplant the civilian jucicial system. Detainees get tortured, and some end up mysteriously dead after interrogation.

We definitely wouldn’t want that kind of regime to control the United States, would we?”

Whoops!!! (My comment, summarizing Brooks’ next paragraph.)

“…… If Rumsfeld thought he could get away with calling himself Il Generalissimo, don’t you think he’d do so in a heartbeat.”

What I find particularly disturbing at this time (among about 895 other things), is the power vacuum that is emerging in the US. A majority of people feel that “incompetent” is the adjective that best describes our leader (or our “decider”, as he so incoherently refers to himself), and certainly his words and deeds seem to uphold that view.

People are waking up to the prospect of having an incompetent decider at the head of the government for THREE MORE YEARS. This is an absolute nightmare. Think what happens to a family when there is no parental leadership. The chaos and destruction that are unleashed in a nation in which this vacuum of leadership occurs is greater by an unimaginable order of magnitude.

We have no mechanism in our Constitution to deal with what in a parliamentary democracy would be a national vote of no confidence. I find this a scary situation. (Controlled massive understatement).

chicago torn #13

get your own blog

Great campaign, Taylor. I hope people jump in!

Just asking,Can Bush be held liable for any offenses that violate the UCMJ,while serving as Commander in Chief?

EPU – I agree completely.

Swiftboating can be a useful tactic against another political candidate (although it is, of course, morally reprehensible to employ such tactics).

However, one must be extremely careful when smearing members of the military or veterans.

In particular, retired military officers, unlike rival candidates, don’t have to worry so much about the political impact of a vicious counterattack against the swiftboaters.

Also, military vets probably have access to a hell of a lot of dirt on the current administration than Kerry ever did. Thus they have a lot more ammo with which to retaliate against the swiftboaters.

Also, let us not forget certain another swiftboated and otherwise trampled-on group: the CIA.

Do you think the CIA appreciates it when the administration leaks the names and identity of its undercover agents for political gain? Or when they are blamed for the faulty intelligence prior to the Iraq War?

And do you think they might have access to some damaging information on the administration?

I think we are seeing a critical mass primed for a counterattack.

Clinton Era Generals who have been in the military for decades?

Wouldn’t that make them also: Bush I Era Generals, Reagan Era Generals, Carter Era Generals, Ford Era Generals?

-GSD

“The nation is hurtling towards the gravest crisis since the 1860’s.”

-GSD @ 10– apropos of that, Dru just sent me this poem this morning from the latest New Yorker:

To the Republic

I dreamt I saw a caravan of the dead
start out again from Gettysburg.

Close-packed upright in rows on railcar flat-
beds in the sun, they soon will stink.

Victor and vanquished shoved together, dirt
had bleached the blue and gray one color.

Risen again from Gettysburg, as if
the state were shelter crawled to through

blood, risen disconsolate that we
now ruin the great work of time,

they roll in outrage across America.

You betray us is blazoned across each chest.
To each eye as they pass: You betray us.

Assaulted by the impotent dead, I say it’s
their misfortune and none of my own.

I dreamt I saw a caravan of the dead
move on wheels touching rails without sound.

To each eye as they pass: You betray us.

-Frank Bidart

I’ve already made an appointment with Dr. Trex, so please stop scratching at the trolls.

Questio re Reid Iran statement – does anyone have the full text of his statement? It was not on his site when I checked and I would like to see the context of his statement. There’s a big difference between “attack on Iran is not a military option because our troops are busy elsewhere” and “attack on Iran is not a military option because it would be a violation of international law” – I would like to see which way he’s going before saying it’s a good thing.

OT – Siun – I will go order one of those books.

Please, please don’t feed/respond to trolls.

FDL is for responsible (albeit snarky) non-toxic comments and discussion. Please.

That’s how we can get 500+ comments on a thread where every single one has something worthwhile to say.

I miss Redd and her magic trolls-be-gone trexx wand. Come home soon.

OT.

Drip, drip, drip.

Ney’s no-no.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2….._0421.html

-GSD

Thanks be to God, honor and dignity have been restored.

Interesting read by Pat Buchanan …

The Generals Revolt
http://www.townhall.com/opinio…..93777.html

EPU – OT – I’ll post a few titles later today – his work is a mixed bag and some I would not recommend but others, wow!

Great thread last night – what fun!

I too believe that this last attack on service will fail. The glowing support of Bush and the so-called transformation of Rummy only works if one thinks the war is a success. The scarey thing about Rummy is that with things like the Missle Shield in Alaska, we have just built another Maginot Line. Like the French, we’ve built an army to fight a type of war that never comes.

Wilkerson said last week that more leaks are coming, let us hope so.

Price Of Nuclear Secrets Plummeting

“About six months ago, one of our wiretaps recorded the sale of plans for a two-foot, 12-megaton warhead to a Quebecois separatist cell for slightly more than $1 million,” Romano said. “Yesterday, the plans surfaced again, this time on the Internet. It was eBay item #2899538529, and it had a ‘Buy it now’ price of $18,500.”

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30520

Siun #32

refer to my comment #19 previous thread

Are you thinking same as I?

Media Matters gives us this from Tony Blankley:

From Blankley’s April 18 column:

Consider two hypothetical situations. In the first, an Army general officer in a theater of war decides by himself that he strongly disagrees with the orders of the secretary of defense. He resigns his commission, returns to private life and speaks out vigorously against both the policy and the secretary of defense.

In example two, the top 100 generals in the Army military chain of command secretly agree among themselves to retire and speak out each one day after the other.

In example one, above, unambiguously, the general has behaved lawfully. In example two, an arguable case could be made that something in the nature of a mutinous sedition has occurred in violation of Article 94 of the Uniform Code of Military procedure. When does an expanded version of the simple honesty and legality of the first example cross over into grounds for a court martial? More specifically, can a series of lawful resignations turn into a mutiny? And if they are agreed upon in advance, have the agreeing generals formed a felonious conspiracy to make a mutiny?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604180006

Who is this “biglizard”?

and, when did the President start “handing out stars”? (Didn’t Zinni get his first star under Reagan? – I’m too lazy to look up the others)

Reading his klaptrap, I would say that what he knows about the military would likely fill a condom, and likely be worth somewhat less.

So, this piece of dung wants to blame it on the Clenisâ„¢. He should do some research, first.

GSD #29
You just knew that this somehow had to be Clinton’s fault. Good point on taking it back to the Ford era.

What was Gandhi’s reflection about the four steps of an enemy?
I can only remember what I believe to be
Stage 3 “Then they mock you”
Stage 4 “Then you win”
The first thing that came to mind in reading
Krauthammer’s slush was the above “mocking” as their last stage of desperation.
Could someone help correct my faulty memory about that quote?

OT – a Rove indictment today would cheer me up!

Larry, thanks for the Buchanan alley-oop.

“Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who travels often to Iraq and supports the war, says that the generals mirror the views of 75 percent of the officers in the field, and probably more.”

This is a very dicey situation. It is much more complex than it seems too.

Do we want a nation that allows Generals veto power over civilian leadership? Or do we want a civilian leadership that does not hear the concerns of the generals in the face of imminent disaster?

Puzzles. Puzzles. Puzzles.

-GSD

First they igonre you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. then you win.

-GSD

So, how soon before we start seeing the firing squads?

-GSD

Thanks for sending along the poem, Angie. (#30) Very moving.
Dee

Off topic, but important:

This story first came to our attention when someone posted some comments in one of last evening’s threads. In that post, you’ll see a link to the story on the Web site of Channel 10 in the Philadelphia metropolitan area.

Now that Reuters has written this story (just in time for this summer’s driving season), I’m wondering when the first announcements about the changeover from MBTE to ethanol appeared in the news. If I am not mistaken, the Reuters story indicates that shortages are more widespread than the shortages mentioned in the story mentioned in one of last evening’s threads.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12421486/

Gasoline supply problems hit U.S. East Coast
Shortages at distribution points from Va. to Mass. amid additive change

Reuters
Updated: 12:28 p.m. ET April 21, 2006

WASHINGTON – Some gasoline distribution terminals from Virginia to Massachusetts are seeing shortages as the industry phases out a water-polluting additive, the U.S. Energy Department said on Thursday.

The Energy Department has reported shortages at terminals near Richmond, Virginia, as well as the Tidewater area near Chesapeake Bay and Virginia Beach which distribute gasoline to service stations.

The terminals, which hold millions of gallons of gasoline in giant tanks, distribute supplies from refineries to gas stations.

Northern Virginia, Baltimore and Boston are also seeing shortages, the department’s Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability said.

The Baltimore-Washington, D.C. area has some of the highest retail gasoline prices in the country, with pump prices above $3 a gallon at many stations for regular unleaded fuel.

The National Association of Convenience Stores, whose 2,200 member stores account for 75 percent of U.S. gasoline sales, also said members had reported shortages at terminals around Wilmington, Delaware, and Philadelphia.

The shortages are not because refiners are not making enough gasoline, or because of a recent rupture on the key Plantation Pipeline that carries supplies from the Gulf Coast to the East Coast, industry officials said.

Rather, the oil industry is rapidly eliminating a gasoline additive called MTBE, banned in several states for polluting ground water, and replacing it with ethanol, a renewable fuel that can’t be shipped by pipeline because it absorbs water.

“There’s not a shortage of supply,†said John Eichberger, a spokesman for the group. “It’s a transitional issue.â€

Because ethanol is a solvent, it will strip corrosion and impurities that build up inside gasoline storage tanks, allowing them to mingle with gasoline supplies,

That means terminal operators must drain giant tanks that hold gasoline stocks and scrub out the impurities before they can be refilled with ethanol-enriched gasoline, he said.

“That’s going to compromise supplies for awhile,†he said.

The American Petroleum Institute said 40 percent of the gasoline produced in the United States by the first week of April was blended with ethanol, up from 33 percent a year ago.

You’re welcome, when I opened Dru’s email and read it, I got goosebumps and tears all at the same time…

GSD #46
Thank you! We are at stage 3 imo.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is not a military strategist, but he did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

-GSD

“But they rarely coalesce into factions. That happens in places such as Hussein’s Iraq, Pinochet’s Chile or your run-of-the-mill banana republic.”
I don’t have time right now to read comments – maybe someone made this point was made already: it sounds like Charles Krauthammer is calling the US a banana republic, run by a dictator like Hussein or Pinochet. Maybe someone on a Sunday talking-head show could ask him about his belief that USA is a third-rate banana republic run by a Pinochet-like dictator.

ccmask says:

April 21st, 2006 at 10:20 am
Price Of Nuclear Secrets Plummeting

Is this satire or political comedy? Please consider the source of the story from which you quoted.

GSD – We must have civilian control over the military. That said, look how long the Iraq mess has continued. There have been calls for Rumsfeld’s head for months from politicians, while Iraq devolved into civil war. At some point, when the president isn’t listening and things are getting worse and worse, frustration and urgency grip the generals and other soldiers. As private citizens they have a right and even a duty to give their guidance. Desperate times call for courageous pleas from people who know first hand what a disaster Bush and Rumself’s policies have been in the field. You don’t have to follow what they say, but you don’t mount a campaign to swiftboat brave veterans because they dared to speak out.

any sentence that involves cheney should always reference him as “a draft dodging coward” and a “civilian that has the nerve to overule our military strategists who have actual military training from our military academies, the finest in the world”

EPU @11:

I say it boomerangs, too, but you’re missing one major item in your post. The tactics that Taylor is proposing are not incidental to that happening – they are critical. Collecting these quotes puts their new “ratcheted-up rhetoric” in context, and that context is what will do them in.

BushCo doesn’t do nuance and it certainly doesn’t do change. Sadly for them, the world does both, sooner or later. For me, change can’t come soon enough.

Changing the subject a bit: bumpersticker seen in the Bay Area: “Cheney/Voldemort ‘08″ Great – now where’s that magic wand that mc @34 referred to?

From Pat Buchanan :

 ”In the last analysis, the Generals’ Revolt is not just against Rumsfeld, but is aimed at the man who appointed him and has stood by him for three years of a guerrilla war the Pentagon did not predict or expect.”

Note that they are saying that the generals didn’t see this guerrilla war.{The generals are just as blind as Bush} note that they are using words like coup. If it was a coup, Rummy’s body would be in the back of an APAC parked behind the Pentagon.

It’s imparrative that they inflate the language of this, Craphammer did it this morning.

This first line of attack was to say that Rummy didn’t MEET WITH the generals, not that he ignored them.

GSD #45

Questions for your questions:

How does the Generals’ veto power over civilian leadership equal the call for resignation of the SecDef? The retired “Generals” are not demanding full control over the military, nor is there any evidence so far that they attempted such. This question conflates the issue and leads to a sippery slope that the neocons are trying to push us down.

As for your 2nd question:
What is the nature of the “generals’ concerns”? Are we talkin’ about insufficient body armor, insufficient troops or deploying tactical nukes in an unprovoked attack upon a soveriegn nation?

To sum up, these questions are far more complex and sublime than the neocons and their ilk care to or can consider. I try to remember: propaganda by definition cannot be nuanced.

Here’s another question that perhaps has crossed the “Generals” minds at one time or another: Were the Nuremburg trials an ilusion, a dream, a wasted effort?

Note also the resurgence of “the people get one chance for input on how their government works, at election time, and other than that they should STFU and do whatever the president tells them.”

What fascists. Bush has only ever been interested in ruling, not governing.

“If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier – just so long I’m the dictator.”

Taylor —

What’s really needed is a separate blog to track not only the swiftboating of the Generals, but attacks on fighting Dems, lack of equipment for troops, cuts to veterans benefits, etc. A daily documentation of this Administration’s full out assault on our military.

This should be a major issue for Dems going into the election.

I was posing these questions in a broad sense. I am not buying into Farthammers pap. If this were an actual coup detat we wouldn’t be talking about what the generals are talking about, we would be talking about what the generals did…i.e. surrounded congress and the Whitehouse or blew-up the state dept.

In many regards it is looking like the Pentagon under Rummy is working with a rump of kooks like Meyers, Pace and Boykin to continue on with this folly of a war and the Generals are sending up warning flairs telling us that the system is busted up.

Ultimately, I hold the Unelected Chimp soley responsible for the quagmire and the ensuing chaos within the military.

Buchanans questions conflates Crumby Rummy and Feiths military ignorance with the generals..that is pretty weak.

-GSD

Peterr – I don’t think I missed it. I don’t think it is critical. I think the great, if not vast, majority of people will automatically/naturally look askance at talking heads belittling/demeaning/questioning the patriotism of/etc/etc/ career military men.

It has its own legs, without help.

You give too much credence to the power of talking heads to influence public opinion. If that were true, if the CM apologists for Chimpco (in all arenas, not just Iraq) held sway, then Chimpco’s poll numbers would be very different.

Now that being said, I still think it is an important and worthwhile project b/c only by exposing them and their phony ideologies can we get them and their tactics removed from the debate and bring some semblance of sanity back to American politics.

And, of course in case I am wrong (which regardless of the fact that I am a Universe with the cogitating powers of a genius size brain* with a big ego, is possible)

——————————-
* That would be a reference to Jethro Bodine of The Beverly Hillbillies, which we still get in the EPU.

Although it is very unlikely that I am wrong. Ever :)

The USA has jumped off the cliff and is in free fall to a crash landing as a second rate power. The Generals pleas to fire Rumsfeld are only the muted calls for help of persons clear sighted enough to see the rocks below.

It was on the second page but today’s Washington Post managed to point out all of the incredible blunders yesterday at the official welcome to the President of the world’s next superpower, China.

Today, there are reports of gas shortages around Washington, DC. If true, welcome back to the malaise of the 1970’s, writ large.

Stephen Parish: It was comedy. The onion.

Well, here’s one from a guy who is not only a disgrace to his uniform but should still be rotting in jail.

http://www.townhall.com/opinio…..94567.html

-x-

OT question.

Do I remember correctly? Wasn’t today the day that Team Fitz and Team Irving were to either argue or submit papers on the gag order issue?

If they had an argument scheduled for today (and this judge seems to schedule them in th eafternoon) it might make sense that PJF would have gone to Washington for the half week and spent some time Wed. and maybe even this AM in the GJ.

I have enough trouble keeping track of my own court dates w/o attempting to track somebody else’s case, but does anyone recall? There are so many here who seem to keep notes ont his stuff.

If the Truthout rumors are true, today might even be FitzEaster. I just wish I had my facts straight. Speculating is risky business when you do have your facts lined up. It’s downright reckless when you memory fails you.

Hmmm… I posted earlier on the subject of CIA backlash against Bush. Here is another whistleblower. Could be big news:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories…..7749.shtml

“SSâ€

How ironic. Or is that appropriate…

When you look back on the real history of American intel (OSS and Prescott Bush) and the transfer of critical technology from Nazi SS labs to what would become American Black Ops (Project Paperclip), modeled not unlike the SS structure of secrecy and security, via some of the most virulent Nazi perpetrators (so vile but so valuable that the technology they transferred ensured they did not even warrant a mention at Nuremburg) you begin to see a pattern of fascist infection (in both spirit and deed) that has delivered us to this point in history. Fascist infections that apparently are becoming more virulent everyday.

It would serve Military Intelligence well to look outside the commands of their fascist masters, masters who are possibly (consciously or subconsciously) conditioned and nurtured by their elitist, racist and genocidal pedigree, and examine the history of virulent fascist penetration (Project Paperclip) and original fascist nurture (Prescott Bush, Brown Brothers Harriman and the Bush family) to understand where the true threat to democracy and free market capitalism lies.

Eisenhower glimpsed it and McCarthy and the fascist agenda was stopped. It can be done again. It is the same virus. Only the mutant cancerous cells need be identified and exposed for what they truly are.

Without these cells this virus will perish.
~

Thanks, Chicago Tom in #13

I like the meme that if you disagree with Bush, you’re partisan and the unstated corollary that if you support Bush you’re nonpartisan (and patriotic). This seems to be a common tactic: create a definition (Clintonista)out of whole cloth and then use it thereafter as if it is not only valid but widely accepted.

I have to say I enjoyed the use of the “revolutionary reformation” of Donald Rumsfeld that the “old school” generals just didn’t get. A great piece of obfuscation and misdirection in that it completely ignores what a failure Rumsfeld has been. Apparently Iraq never happened.

The tap dance around the Abu Ghraib issue was almost worth reading such a long and idiotic article. You see it’s about flexibility which is good although it might have a few glitches, i.e. Abu Ghraib. Right…?

Does anyone know what the number of the grade of general officers, active duty and retired, is? Of the 8,000 number mentioned, I bet a hefty chunk of them are one stars.

DO NOT underestimate the Repukes’ motivation to win the elections in November. EVERYTHING hangs in the balance for them. They will lie, cheat, and steal to win.

Here’s my “Survivor” theory of Rovian politics:

1) Be true to your alliance and vote together as a bloc no matter what. So long as you stay in power you can enact your agenda. Compare the Dems’ fragmentation! They can’t even mount a plausible defense against Alito.

2) You don’t have to like us . . . just vote THEM off first! This is the origin of the swiftboating, gay marriage theme, etc.. They will continue to attack and attack until the Dems stand up and fight back.

I just hope the Dems are ready for this one.

Ed,

Leave it to Ollie North to drag Jane Fonda into the mix. That is such pre 9/11 thinking.

-GSD

Taylor, thanks for two great posts. I am not sure if this is exactly what you are looking for, a Rummy quote:
“I look back on those decisions, and I’m proud of them. They caused a lot of ruffles; let there be no doubt. … [T]o try to get from the 20th century, the Industrial Age, into the Information Age, the 21st century, from conventional warfare into irregular and asymmetrical warfare, is a difficult thing to do. And by golly, one ought not to be surprised that there are people who are uncomfortable about it and complaining about it.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2140318/
Our soldiers in the Middle East don’t have body armor and Rummy has no clue how to stop IED’s. Iran has also purchased supersonic, ship killing, missles such as the “Sunburn” from Russia and China. Our Navy has no proven defense against these, and this includes our aircraft carriers. If Rummy thinks he has “modernized” our military, I would really like him to point to an example.

cranky – Think Progress seems to be all over that one.

Why bother with generals and the chain of command when you have willing fascists like Gen Jerry Boykin to run your very own shadow Pentagon? And why not? Chains of command imply concepts like leadership, command, accountability, the rule of law. What we have here is just The Decider. And the Decider can just send Boykin to Iraq before Abu Ghraib to order them to torture people there. Heck, Boykin probably, with the Decider’s blessing, garnished the order with his usual evangelical hyperbole too. Gotta love these people.

HEY HEY HEY – sucking the life force out of babies is tiring! And his shipment of kittens didn’t come in yesterday, so CUT CHENEY SOME SLACK!!!

xyz #69–that is a promising one. Lots of people watch 60 Minutes. Of course some of us knew they were warping the intel all along, but there are still 30% of the sheeple out there who need to be hit over the head with the truth a few more times.

William Lind reviews a study done under the auspices of the Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College that is, in effect, the first after-action report on why we lost the war in Iraq.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind91.html

A money quote from the report, via Lind:
“Though the critics have made a number of telling points against the conduct of the war and the occupation, the basic problems faced by the United States flowed from the enterprise itself, and not primarily from mistakes in execution along the way. The most serious problems facing Iraq and its American occupiers – “endemic violence, a shattered state, a nonfunctioning economy, and a decimated society” – were virtually inevitable consequences that flowed from the breakage of the Iraqi state.”

In other words, it was a strategic blunder from the get-go on its own terms, not just a “failure of execution”.

You’ll no doubt be shocked, shocked! to learn that this piece is not prominently displayed on the AWC-SSI website. But you can download the entire report in PDF from the page linked below.
http://www.strategicstudiesins…..?PubID=637

me to me #56

Calling Cheney a “draft-dodging coward” is an understandable rhetorical flourish, given the contrast between his intellectual warmongering and his personal aversion to accepting the risks he visits upon others. As such, I have no deep quarrel with it.

On the other hand, having spent my own draft-eligible years opposing the Vietnam war, and of necessity avoiding the draft to do so, I’m particularly sensitive about such rhetorical flourishes.

Opposing what your elders have decided for you, and doing so on what you believe to be principle, doesn’t necessarily require physical courage, but I can tell you from experience that it takes more than cowardice to be reviled by nearly everyone, especially when — at 19 or 20 — you have no idea how your principles will be judged by either God or history.

As it turned out, all my stand cost me was my family (I was an army brat.) It hardly bears comparison to losing your life, but it was — is — painful. Still, I have no regrets. I would do it all again tomorrow. I’m respectful of the Kerrys who felt that their duty was to enlist, and I’m deeply sorry for the dead and maimed among my contemporaries who served. They did what they felt was right, and so did I. “Draft-dodging coward” may be a useful political meme, but it doesn’t begin to describe the complexities of personal moral choices. I’m just saying….

“Containing China.” If this article is true, than BushCo is endangering Taiwan, not helping it. And such an alliance with Japan, given its dangerously historical and current racist /genocidal attitudes toward China is completely unacceptable.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041906P.shtml

On topic wrt Rummy, but not exactly what you requested:
“Sorting out the Generals”

“In my mind, only one General counts, at least in this debate, and that is the five star guy, General of the Army, George C. Marshall. About two years ago on a blog I asked Wesley Clark if they still taught Marshall’s doctrine at West Point — and I meant that as a tough question, and he said they did.
I keep trying to push history into this dialogue — and perhaps this is an opportunity. When November 11, 1918 happened, George C. Marshall was a very junior Lt. Colonel, temp appointment, serving on General Pershing’s staff, and responsible for pushing an occupation division or two into the Moselie Valley — with no planning, and no military doctrine for any sort of occupation. Marshall spent a little more than six months reading the reports from a botched occupation, and breifing Pershing and then passing orders back down the chain of command.
What Marshall was witnessing of course was the rise of the Freikorps in Germany, parts of which morphed into the National Socialist Workers Party (otherwise known as NAZI at a later date) — and along with historians such as Walter Laqueur (See Young Germany — late 1950’s) he identified the core of the problem. In 1920 and 21 what Marshall was witnessing was the loss of the victory of combat arms because the victors did not know how to restore normal politics.
What’s important to comprehend is that George Marshall comprehended this in the early 1920’s — and from his “Major” position he worked to deal with what he understood as problems. He pressured Pershing to do what became the “Hunt Report” — the history of American Military Occupation 1775 -1922. When he taught at the War College — he used Hunt as textbook and problems to resolve — how do you do an occupation and accomplish political objectives? By 1934 he was more influential, and got the Army to commission a drafting commission to take up Hunt, and write a military doctrine and then an Army Manual for how to do it. Between 1934 and 41 it went through five editions and revisions. What happened in Germany post 1945 was according to this 5th revised edition of Marshall’s plan and one must understand that is not referenced to post 1948 Marshall Plan matters.
Doctrine: Marshall believed that no officer or soldier who had been blooded in combat should be used in occupation. For Germany in 1945 he trained 6000 officers, about 3500 NCO’s and about 120 thousand troops specifically for the “Military Government of Germany” and none of them were combat soldiers….”
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.c…..l#comments

lhp @ 68

No arguments today, just filings expected regarding the gag thingie.

Mui,

I have read that the US strategy is to actively push Japan to re-arm as a regional bulwark against China. Hence getting Japanese troops into Iraq was a big step in that direction, their first deployment anywhere since uh..WWII.

You can also find some news about a flap between Japan and South Korea about a small island that Japan wants to claim as theirs. Koizumi has sparks of teh old glory days still in him it appears.

Yep, Bush is looking to get the band back together–he’s hoping Japan, Germany and Italy(Just so long as Berlusconi doesn’t pull an AL Gore and give-up the fight) will follow his lead and then the US will reign for a thousand years.

-GSD

Blub #76

If you look back to the original Sy Hersh article, I think the chain went something like this. Rumsfeld and his deputy Cambone wanted more “actionable intelligence”. Cambone sent Boykin to Gitmo where Gen. Miller had been getting “results”. Miller went to Iraq and Abu Ghraib where he met with Karpinski and others about “gitmo-ization”. Miller btw denies this was the reason. Maybe he just went there for the air and because he had heard that Iraq was a swingin’ place. Purely by happenstance the pattern of abuse which became synonymous with Abu Ghraib began shortly after his visit.

http://townhall.com/opinion/co…..94567.html

Wow: Oliver North

Unlike the “six-pack” of generals now castigating the war they helped plan and execute — Vance had the integrity to make his views known during planning for the Iran operation — and the courage to quit when the commander in chief decided to proceed over his objections.

That archaic combination of honor and fortitude is apparently absent from the current crop of retired generals shouting “Dump Don!” into any available microphone.

Perhaps it’s unfair to expect equal measures of courage and character from senior officers in this age of political opportunism. After all, the modern “gold standard” for flag-officer fidelity was set back in 1992 by Adm. William J. Crowe. Appointed Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Command by Ronald Reagan in 1983, Crowe was subsequently named Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in 1985 — a position he continued to hold under President George H.W. Bush — a fellow naval officer and World War II hero. On retirement however, the admiral demonstrated his appreciation by endorsing and campaigning for William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. Clinton, showing far more gratitude than the admiral had for George H.W. Bush, appointed Crowe to be U.S. Ambassador to the Court of St. James in 1994.

OT.

80 is the new 70.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/060421……html?.v=9

-GSD

Question:

Where is Christy? Did i miss her leaving?

GSD, the Bush policy is disgusting.
A friend and I jokingly refer to the island as “the rock.” If I’m thinking of the same island it has no stratgeic importance and noone living there.

Edwards just sent out a letter asking for signatures on a “demand that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald be empowered to investigate the President’s role in manipulating intelligence on Iraq.” It’s here if you want to sign it. http://oneamericacommittee.com…..ility_act/

mainer

After winning the koufax, she went to Disneyworld :-)

I’ve heard and read the phrase “Clinton Generals†several times. That is one smear that could cause damage and that I think deserves close examination. Is there any way that these six people specifically represent the view-points of Bill Clinton? Or did they benefit in some special way by promotions due to political influence during Clinton’s term? Do they represent particular mind sets of the Clinton era?
I don’t know much about it, but I have to doubt it. These folks were working their way up the normal non-political promotion ladder for decades.
The other smears just seem silly. Lots of incoherent and self-contradictory double speak and nonsense, and baseless personal attacks.
The only other substantive line I see is the threat to civilian rule by ex-officers getting involved in politics. Well, that has a long history and the charge is too stupid to take seriously: George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor, WW Harrison, US Grant, TR Roosevelt, Eisenhower. Then from lower in the ranks are Truman, Kennedy, Carter, and a few of those obscure post-Civil War presidents. Those are just the presidents. McClellan was the embittered Civil War General who ran against Lincoln in 1864 after being fired from Union Command. McArther…
So, Clinton Generals is the only charge that might have traction with people on the fence, and I think that smear should be answered.
I think also, a commenter had a good suggestion that *substantive* commentary on quality of RumDum’s force modernization ideas should be examined. That would address the issue of whether RumDum’s side is a buch of genius whizzbangs or not. Seems like RumDum has and continues to drop ball in some areas: adequately equipping troops, defense against new generation of surface to surface missiles used in naval warfare, erc.
Another tack would be to list these generals accomplishments. Are they desk jockeys and time servers. Or do they have substantive accomplishments, whether on battle field, or in logistics, or operational planning, that give them some record of competence and distinction?

PS: great comment by Casper on history of doctrine of military occuptaiton! Knoweldge beats ignorance. The idea that civilian affairs is beneath military or they never did it before Clinton is either grootesque ignorance or fascist ideology. What was the US military doing in practically every Central American country from 1910 to the mid 1920s? Read Smedley Butler’s narratives.

This is my favorite comment from Charles:

“If they felt so strongly about Rumsfeld’s disregard of their advice, why didn’t they resign at the time? Why did they wait to do so from the safety of retirement, with their pensions securedâ€

First of all, that is exactly what some of them did…Resigned because they disagreed and then, as a civilian, complained.

But what is even better is how Charles contradicts himself. He says “why didn’t they resign†instead of wating for “retirementâ€â€¦Excuse me Charles, but when you “resign†as a General, it is called “retirementâ€.

FWIW: Cheney (who shot an old man in the face) just did a quick RNC fundraiser in Indianapolis. With only 2 days public notice a few rabblerousers stood outside carrying signs like
DON’T
NUKE
IRAN
Curious bystanders treated us well and we got no negativity. I wore a bright yellow hoodie for obvious safety reasons. Cheney refused to talk to reporters so they interviewed us ;-)

westgpc – Consider the message that “Clinton Generals” sends. Clinton was and still is damn popular. I bet many people who once supported Chimpco are wistful for the days of the Clenis.

Again, the effect they think their rhetoric will have vs. the effect it will actually have are very different things.

Unintended consequences, diminishing (if not opposite) returns……..

And there is a new post.

So, my kung fu is still strong.

The Republicans and the Pentagon are at each others’ throats, and we are coming to the defense of generals and the CIA?

I gotta lay off the absinthe. I think I’m hallucinating.

GSD #84

Remilitarization of Japan sort of has already happened in that their defense forces are just an army by another name. Projection of Japanese military power anywhere in Northeast Asia is deeply problematic. I don’t see the Japanese despite Koizumi in favor of it and none of the surrounding states with vivid memories of the last time this happened favor it either.

The seas of that area are peppered with small rocks which are convenient footballs for competing nationalisms. They acquire greater importance for the zones around them and the natural resources, primarily natural gas and fisheries, which they contain.

Evil Parallel Universe #96:
But to others it will be a smear. There are irrational Clinton haters out there who are losing sympathy with Bush. I know some personally. And the smearers use “Clinton General” as code for wussie, homo, pacifist, coward, corrupt, pinko etc. You can knock those smears down and not disturb the good Clinton combinations

GSD #62

Agreed. My rhetorical quizzing was merely to underscore my own pondering – that crazy-ass times like these require nuanced thought. Whether we express our thoughts with nuance or we sling it back in their face, well, that’s tactics. I, for one am all for slinging shit where shit’s been slung. But our questions to ourselves help frame our thinking. I was trying to broaden, “if you will” to quote Deadeye.

It’s times like these that I turn to history. So I note Nuremburg. For years, I’ve been hearing the old refrain: evil happens when good men do nothing.

I’ve been waiting for the “good men” to do something. I think what we are seeing is a collective (though not necessarily coordinated) attempt to wrench control from the neocosa nostra that’s taken over our fair nation. Or at least their criminal intent.

Oh please, let it be.

BTW, lhp #68, you are correct. But I believe Walton issued an order that the parties could respond in writing instead of a hearing – sometime last week. Sorry, too busy to dive into the world wide web to find.

meant “connotations”

GSD #62: Even that rump is sliced down to the bone. Pace won’t bald face lie at press conferences, and will contradict RumDum in public when RumDum issues a whopper. Then Pace will back down later when no one notices. Pace is not a full fledged kook, and therefore suspect in their eyes. Must be slim pickings to put up with a traitor like him.

I dislike/abhor/hate what Cheney, et al, are doing and trying to do to America and the world, however, I think it is off-base to attack him for his heart condition, which is most likely the cause of his naps. Rhythm disturbances such as Cheney has are the cause of daytime sleepiness and other symptoms. Other causes, such as sleep apnea, which are treatable, can also cause this. Apnea is also related to heart disease. Let’s keep our attacks politically and morally relevant. Okay? Please?

Re Cheney’s heart condition, in all honesty I think an honest-to-God good Democrat with a heart condition could find a way to run this country just fine. Cheny’s problem is not his heart condition – it is that he has no heart and has bombs for brains.

As always lots of good opinion, and some not so good, being expressed here.

One thing….

Look at the picture.

Do you think these guys have the energy to wipe their asses without help?

I don’t think so.

But of course they do have help. Help from the liars, paid and otherwise, in the MSM. The Fundies, the WingNuts of the Right and the ignorance of the RedAsses of the RedStates.

But all the help in the world ain’t gonna get ‘em past America running out of gas. It’s starting already and that is no accident. Do you think EXON or BP or any other major oil company wants Bush to bomb Iran.

Not so much dudes.

Our nation consists of more than the government. We are not wholy dependent on the voting process either.

Every constituentcy in our nation has ways to take action:

Hispanics take to the streets.

Generals talk “out of turn”.

Congresspeople prove recalcitrant.

The beuacracy throws a sabot in the paperwork.

I contend that the citizenry is working itself to a rage that will unite all in the insistence that BushCo go.

Moi

Thanks for the info. Now, we just wait for the filings to become public.

I always enjoy the filings.

Right-wingers are divided about the Generals calling for Rumsfeld to resign. They’re morphing the message, however. It’s becoming an issue of the Generals trying to “control” the country in some puny minds. This has clearly confused some people, who are shocked, shocked, to hear Generals actually have opinions:

Max Boot agrees that Rummy should go, but doesn’t think Generals are experts on “when to wage war”

“As it happens, I agree with their advice. As I first said on this page two years ago, I too think that Rumsfeld should go. But I am nevertheless troubled by the Revolt of the Generals, which calls into question civilian control of the armed forces. In our system, defense secretaries are supposed to fire generals, not vice versa.

The retired generals, who claim to speak for their active-duty brethren, premise their uprising on two complaints. First, many (though not all) say we should not have gone into Iraq in the first place. Former Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold calls it “the unnecessary war,” and former Gen. Anthony Zinni claims that “containment worked remarkably well.”

“That is a highly questionable judgment, and one that is not for generals to make. They are experts in how to wage war, not when to wage it. If we had listened to their advice, we would not have gone into Kuwait or Bosnia or Kosovo.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/op…..;cset=true

Ralph Peters, on the other hand, is defending the generals, and thinks Rumsfeld is the hypocrite:

“If serving officers can’t criticize public figures, neither should they offer endorsements. Secretary Rumsfeld notoriously cracks down on internal dissent, but he hasn’t chided Gen. Pace for his on-camera flattery. If you’re looking for the politicization of the officer corps, look no further.”

http://www.nypost.com/postopin…../67207.htm

Richard Brookhiser defends “tail kicker” Rumsfeld from the “soft” generals in that “corporation” called the Pentagon:

“In the soft days before 9/11, Mr. Rumsfeld came to the Pentagon intent on transformation—making the military more high-tech, breaking down the barriers to inter-service cooperation. This is an old fight, for the Pentagon, like any corporation, must evolve to live; if it doesn’t, it becomes General Motors. Tail-kickers like Mr. Rumsfeld naturally acquire enemies, for reasons bad (people don’t like rocking the boat) and good (maybe the boat sails well as it is).”

http://nyobserver.com/20060424…..khiser.asp

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit sets up straw-man arguments that the Generals want to run the country:

“They’ve been pushing the idea that generals should run things, not their civilian superiors, and (with Kerry) the idea that only a combat veteran should be President. Yes, those are opportunistic slogans of the moment. But they’re still slogans. Do they really want that kind of a country?”

And, Rachel Walker, a Joe Klein Clone if ever there was one, opines at instapundit:

“…the logic of this dissent puts their train of thought far into the (dare I say it) fascist line of behavior, since they are basically calling for the military to control all things.”

http://www.instapundit.com/

The logic of criticizing the generals is so tortured that I don’t think we need to concern ourselves with it. At just 33%, the right is left with John Birch types who will believe anything.

GSD,

Just got back and read your #52

Thats great!! Thanks for the laugh.

I did not post #103 or #104

The other day I saw some comments attributed to me also….how can this be?

lhp @ 106

I love the filings too, but my eyes tend to gloss over and I listen to the little oompah band in my head after a few minutes of reading them.
That’s why I rely on you guys to translate them for me.

I understand the need for civilian control of the military, but where, exactly, does civilian responsibility for military decisions come into play?

Seems to me that whenever there would be criticism about troop levels and equipment, the standard response from the civvies was, “we leave it to the commanders in the field to tell us what they need,” and Rumsfeld and Bush and Cheney made clear that the commanders were not asking for more troops or more and better equipment (even though there are reports that the commanders were asking for these things). This throws “blame” for how poorly things are going directly onto the military, and absolves (or so they think) the civilians allegedly in charge.

By this reasoning, the civilians cast themselves as being totally at the mercy of the military, and deem themselves powerless to step in and countermand the military. So, what, exactly, is it that the civilians are in control of? Managing the PR?

Several of the outspoken generals have mentioned that the military had been gaming a war with Iraq for something like 12 years, and were routinely updating it for current conditions. This plan was scrapped by the civilian leadership. Scrapped. Thrown on the junk pile. Shredded. Replaced with Rumsfeld’s vision for a sleeker, faster, more responsive military.

This wasn’t just “change” that career military were resistant to, it was a recipe for the disaster it has turned out to be. While no one argues that we have to keep the military on the cutting edge of technology and theory, it seems nothing short of criminally negligent to believe that such a sea change as the one Rumsfeld wanted to implement should get a try-out only two years into Rumsfeld’s tenure.

It cannot be that no one understands or appreciates that these generals would have stuck around not out of cowardice, or to protect the size of their eventual pensions, but out of a belief that having been part of this Iraq war gaming for so long, thought they might be able to mitigate the half-assed and dangerous decisions being made by civilians who had never seen action in any military theater, ever. Discretion may be the better part of valor, but abandoning your troops at a time when they might most need your experience and guidance is not valorous.

All indications are that these outspoken generals are being encouraged to continue speaking by those still deployed and still in theater, which tells you something about how the leadership of Rumsfeld (and by extension, Bush and Cheney) is viewed from within.

Cranky #61

You said

What’s really needed is a separate blog to track not only the swiftboating of the Generals, but attacks on fighting Dems, lack of equipment for troops, cuts to veterans benefits, etc. A daily documentation of this Administration’s full out assault on our military.

You know — nobody is using the Washington Post blog anymore — let’s just use that one for the daily documentation. Doesn’t look like Jimbo needs it anymore.

Civilian control of the military refers to chain of command. In the military, it’s considered taboo to break the chain of command; you just don’t go to your “bosses boss.” But when you retire, you can say what you like, and every one of those Generals is retired. They have as much right to speak out as the “military analysts” like Jack Jacobs do on MSNBC. It has nothing to do with civilian control–that’s simply a right-wing straw man. The fact is the Generals GOT THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS THE HARD WAY–THEY EARNED THEM. They not only swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States (that’s right, no military swears an oath to uphold and defend the GOP), but they sacrificed and put their lives on the line for those constitutional rights.

Odd. I don’t remember any of these wingnuts being outraged when active generals were threatening mutiny early in the Clinton years….

And now that recently retired generals are taking an ethical and unprecedented stand against the leadership in the WH, now suddenly generals are wimpy lefties? I have a hard time understanding anyone who buys this crap but obviuosly they are very, very lazy and uninformed.

Where it gets a little scary is in the willingness of a certain hard Right crowd to push a party line above all common sense and above all American values… Do college Republicans issue jackboots yet?

Directly on topic: This one really stuck in my craw on Monday. The Wall Street Journal published a letter from four generals, condemning the generals’ criticism of Rumsfeld. I don’t have a WSJ subscription, but this CNN item quoted a bit from it that got under my skin:

“It unfortunately appears that two of the retired generals (Messrs. Zinni and Newbold) do not understand the true nature of this radical ideology, Islamic extremism, and why we fight in Iraq. We suggest they listen to the tapes of United 93.”

In short, in trying to swiftboat the generals, they’re reconnecting Iraq and 9/11, again! (or still)
You can see my own commentary here, but there’s not much more there than what I’ve already said here. Oh, except to ponder when everyone slamming the generals for speaking out is going to be tripping all over themselves to condemn these guys.

IN all fairness, Cheney’s “heart pills” are likely what’s puttin ghim to sleep during normal daylight hours, even if he’s had plenty of rest. It happens to my dad, as he’s on blood thinners, blood pressure control medication, and a few other concoctions.

“It unfortunately appears that two of the retired generals (Messrs. Zinni and Newbold) do not understand the true nature of this radical ideology, Islamic extremism, and why we fight in Iraq. We suggest they listen to the tapes of United 93.â€

I’d like to hear these generals explain just what the tapes of United 93 have to do with why we’re in Iraq. Oh, is it so we won’t have to fight them here? ‘Cause I don’t really remember there being any Islamic extremism going on in Iraq before we invaded them, although there were (and apparently still are) a lot of al-Queda left in Afghanistan. And Zarqawi aside, it still isn’t the primary motivation behind the insurgency. But please enlighten me.

It’s all a reflection of how morally debased and perverted the neocons and their apologists are. And now, they’re trying to remake all of our institutions in their sick and twisted image. If there’s one positive result from the money and resources that went into building Gitmo it would be that we now have a place to put all of them for the rest of their natural lives, if real justice ever has its way. If I had my further way, they’d be left without food or water, let them eat each other and drink each other’s blood for sustenance until the last one is left. “Survivor Gitmo”. And the prize is that you get to die like the rest.

Abou ben Adam

Abou ben Adam (may his tribe increase!)
awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,
And saw, within the moonlight of his room,
Making it rich, and like a lily in bloom,
an angel, writing in a book of of gold.
Exceeding peace had made Ben Adam bold,
And to the Prescence in the room he said:
“What writest thou?” The vision raised its head,
And, with a look made of all sweet accord,
Answered, “The names of those who love the Lord.”
“And is mine one?”said Abou, “Nay, not so,”
Replied the angel. Abou spoke more low,
But cheerily still, and said, “I pray thee, then,
Write me as one who loves his fellow men.”
The angel wrote, and vanished. The next night
It came again, with a great awakening light,
And showed the names whom love of God had blest,
And lo! Ben adam’s name led all the rest.

-James Leigh Hunt
204.10.70.77

Chicago Tom spends an awful lot of words spinning the line that because the generals got their stars during the Clinton era (and I believe that part of the promotion process goes through Congress, which was republican at the time), which therefore makes them “Clintonistas” (never mind the fact that Bill was nowhere in sight when they started their careers, and the fact that their promotions took place during his administration was pure chance), that we can dismiss their demands for Rumsfeld’s resignation as the grumbling of “dinosaurs” who were too old-school to get with Rummy’s fantastic new program to reform the military into a 21st century fighting force. Of course, this alone allows him to completely invalidate their criticisms of Rumsfeld and the administration’s handling of the Iraq situation. Clintonistas, y’know.

Setting aside whether or not Chicago Tom has any professional military experience (and all I have to offer is a tour as an infantryman in Vietnam, not the commodity it used to be, as Max Cleland can attest), I might point out that our problems began in Iraq the day after we took Baghdad, when we lacked both sufficient troops and the right kind of troops (Military Police) to prevent the looting and lawlessness that broke out, which was exemplified by the ransacking of the Iraqi national museum (although the Oil Ministry was well guarded). While a compact, mobile combined force may have been sufficient to outmaneuver and defeat Iraq’s weak army (and there’s nothing novel about that idea, btw. In 1940 the Germans defeated a French army that outmanned and outgunned them using this) a much larger force was clearly necessary to consolidate and secure our gains and insure the stability of post-invasion Iraq. And the Iraqis were paying attention even back then as to what our priorities seemed to be, and their safety and security didn’t seem to be high on the list.

That’s not old-school thinking, that’s simply common sense, something replaced by wishful thinking in Rumsfelds’ war “planning”. “Boots on the ground” (probably “sandals on the ground” back in Roman times) is a timeless principle in military doctrine, because nothing holds and controls ground like an infantryman standing on it. We never “took” Iraq with our 200,000 soldiers and marines, we defeated their army but left key installations, such as massive ammo dumps, unsecured, not to mention most of Iraqs’ oil infrastructure, omissions which are hurting both Iraq and our soldiers every day.

What’s conveniently ignored by simply painting the generals’ opposition to Rumsfeld as dissent from his “reforms” is the fact that none of these generals has criticized Rumsfeld for his ideas on force structure or decentralization of command. Their criticisms aren’t being made because they’re “angry, rebellious, and confused by a completely different way of running a war”, they’re being made because the people running the war don’t know what they’re doing and are playing with real soldier’s lives with disastrous results for those soldiers and the military in general.

Ooops, grabbed too much text. Please start reading my above post after “Abou Ben Adhem”. Damn, I need to go to bed.

There is a huge conflation going on here.

The question about an Art. 94 of the UCMJ (not the Uniform Code of Military procedure, but rather Justice, a set of regulations, with the force of law, to be found in USC 10, consisting of 134 articles, and covering more than just those acts which are criminal, but I digress) is null, and void.

Because when they protest, they are civlilians. If a group of generals got up and starting speaking like this while still serving, that would be a violation (it might be insubordination, it might be disobeying an order [or command, but the distinction is subtle, and not worth going into], it might be a violation of Art. 134 if it could be shown it was, “detrimental to the good order and discipline of the service).

But to get out, even if they talked about it beforehand isn’t mutiny. They have the right to political opinions, they have the right to retire, and they have the right to talk about those opinions with each other.

As for the nonsense that they are “Clinton” generals, not only were they in service from the days of Ford, but Congress approves the Generals, and from 1994 to the present those generals were approved by a republican congress.

There are, for those who care, the total of serving flag officers is 875 (see this table. When one factors the up or out every four years or so the total number of flag officers (retired and serving) and the ageof retirement (usually about 55) the projection is for about 2,500, with about half being one star, and that leaves about 1,250 retired flag officers with two-stars, or more(showing that Rumsfeld isn’t as aware of how many general officers he has).

Which makes the criticisms of him a bit more damning.

TK

Here’s a good argument from Rosa Brooks in the LATIMES about the swiftboating thing: It’s fairly short (mea culpa for posting it in full, but thought it was justified this once) and Brooks nails it:

http://www.latimes.com/news/op…..t-opinions

From the Los Angeles Times
ROSA BROOKS
A 4-star defense of the republic
Rosa Brooks

April 21, 2006

WHEN SIX recently retired generals criticized Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s handling of the Iraq war and urged his resignation, the Bush administration reacted as if the generals had announced an impending military coup. Within days, administration loyalists were suggesting that the generals had been disloyal not merely to Rumsfeld but to American democracy itself.

The dissenting generals seemed almost surprised by the speed and savagery of the administration’s counteroffensive. Maybe they had assumed that their combat records and decades of service would protect them. Or maybe they had been lulled into a false sense of security by the administration’s floundering Iraq policies and assumed that Rumsfeld and his White House backers were just too distracted and incompetent to go after a few courteous, highly decorated critics. But the generals should have known that this administration can be ferociously competent when there’s something really important — like President Bush’s poll numbers — at stake.

On the right, the key talking point in the War Against the Generals quickly emerged: “Civilian control of the military.” It was an effective line of attack, and so clever that even many who ought to have known better were suckered. The Washington Post editorial board on Tuesday, for instance, fell for it hook, line and sinker, worrying that the retired generals were threatening “the essential democratic principle of military subordination to civilian control…. If [the generals] are successful in forcing Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation, they will set an ugly precedent.”

They even had me nodding along there for a few minutes. After all, every student of recent history knows that if you dilute civilian control of the military, you end up with fascism or a Latin American-style military junta. Because constant security threats are necessary to maintain the power and credibility of a military regime, a nation that lacks civilian control of the military gets ensnared in unending, pointless wars, often against an increasingly vaguely defined threat. Gradually, the broader society becomes militarized. Dissenters are denounced as cowards or traitors, and domestic surveillance becomes common. Secret military courts and detention systems begin to supplant the civilian judicial system. Detainees get tortured, and some end up mysteriously dead after interrogation.

We definitely wouldn’t want that kind of regime to control the United States, would we?

IT WAS AT THIS POINT that I got the joke — because, dear reader, we’re already well on the way to having that kind of regime. If Rumsfeld thought he could get away with calling himself Il Generalissimo, don’t you think he’d do so in a heartbeat?

In the looking-glass world the Bush administration has brought us, it’s the civilians in the White House and the Pentagon who have been eager to embrace the values normally exemplified by military juntas, while many uniformed military personnel have struggled to insist on values that are supposed to characterize democratic civil society.

Iraq is only one of the many issues on which military personnel have stood up against foolish or immoral administration policies. In 2003, the three generals and one admiral who collectively head the JAG Corps of the various services wrote strongly worded internal memos opposing the administration’s authorization of interrogation techniques that border on or constitute torture. Navy Rear Adm. Michael Lohr, for instance, condemned the techniques as “inconsistent with our most fundamental values.” In January 2005, five retired generals filed an amicus brief in a case before the Supreme Court opposing the administration’s argument that suspects tried by military commissions are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. Many more examples could be cited.

The claim that the six dissenting generals are betraying the principle of civilian control over the military is both silly and sinister. It’s silly because polite, reasoned criticism from retired generals is just free speech, a very far cry from “forcing” the Defense secretary out. And it’s sinister because civilian control is a means of safeguarding democracy, not an end in itself. When that gets forgotten, the phrase becomes just another way to stifle dissent.

Military officers must obey all lawful commands and refrain from using “contemptuous words” about their civilian leaders. But when officers take the military oath, they also pledge to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, [and] bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”

That’s a hard oath, because bearing “true faith” to the Constitution requires military personnel to speak out, regardless of the cost, when they think our civilian leaders have gone beyond the pale. Both our democracy and the lives of the soldiers who fight in our name depend on it. If officers remain silent when our military policies go terribly wrong, there’s little the rest of us can do to set things right again.