What We Have Going on Amidst the Generals -- Present and Former

[cal04]

Buzzflash Editorial
What We Have Going on Amidst the Generals -- Present and Former -- is a Mutiny. It's Not An Armed One, Not Yet.

What we have going on amidst the generals, present and former, is a mutiny. It's not an armed one, not yet.
When most Americans think of a mutiny, they think of armed crew members seizing the captain and taking over command of a ship, as in the famed "Mutiny on the Bounty." But, what we are seeing in the United States is a public rebuke of the commander-in-chief, his vice president and his secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, without an active military revolt as of yet -- although that can't be ruled out.

As Richard Holbrooke, a former ambassador to the United Nations, points out in a Washington Post commentary, "it is also clear that the target is not just Rumsfeld. Newbold hints at this; others are more explicit in private. But the only two people in the government higher than the secretary of defense are the president and vice president. They cannot be fired, of course, and the unspoken military code normally precludes direct public attacks on the commander in chief when troops are under fire."

In short, Rumsfeld is the civilian with command oversight who is responsible for the abysmal failures in the Middle East, but he serves at the pleasure of the president -- he reminds us -- and the vice president. They are three peas in a pod. That the mutiny will expand appears likely. As BuzzFlash has asserted since John Murtha -- the blunt Democratic "hawk" -- first made his emphatic denouncement of the management of the Iraq War, Murtha is speaking for the active career brass whom he knows well. They are silenced by the military code that requires public loyalty to the commander-in-chief, but Murtha, it is clear, is the spokesperson of many top Pentagon staff given the military gag order. Remember, he is a diehard Pentagon Democrat.

So, the revolt of the retired generals is likely just the tip of the iceberg. What is occurring, on such a massive scale -- as BuzzFlash has said -- is without precedent. It is a vote of no confidence in the civilian military leadership by the military itself. It is a cry from those who have been career soldiers that the Bush Administration, through Rumsfeld, are ruining the armed forces and leading us into defeat into the Middle East. It is a stunning development -- and the significance of the call for Rumsfeld's resignation and change of course going unheeded cannot be underestimated.



more
http://www.buzzflash.com/?track=Head

[BlueManDude]

1. I think that career intel people have been at war with this admin

for 4 years.

[FightingIrish]

2. The fact that these military professionals are now speaking

in unison suggests that the insane talk about nuking Iran is more than talk. I wonder if the revolt of the generals will push * to expedite the war on Iran. What's also interesting is the lack of any similar statements from retired Air Force brass. Iran could be primarily an Air Force show.

[cliss]

3. It appears that through Rumsfeld's incompetence,

this administration has been effectively checkmated. The importance of this development cannot be overemphasized.

If the military is mutineering against Rumsfeld, then he must be removed. The problem is, Rumsfeld is the PNAC, he is co-partner with Cheney. And Cheney is the de-facto ruler of this country.

If the military revolts, this attitude will spread down to the troops. The military is crucial for carrying out their plans. Without the military, there is no war in Iraq and Afghanistan, or anything else.

Here's my hunch as to what they will do. Rumsfailed will fight for his life. He'll insist that he's doing a Fantastic job. He'll trot out as many generals as he can find. He'll do photo-ops. Surprise visits to the troops in Iraq (again). The administration will turn up the thumbscrews. They'll start court-martialing against insubordination.

Because without the military, they are truly finished.

[peacebird]

4. King George will have a military - as long as KBR gets cash - mercenaries

or "private security forces" or -

in my opinion more likely - the new Homeland security forces....

[tulsakatz]

6. since the PNAC plan relies so much.....

.....on the military it's a shame they didn't try to treat the military and the CIA better.

I mean, without the military, their plan is basically worthless!

[Post]

5. What are The Generals Saying about Iran?

Anyone know what they're saying about the "planning" on Iran? Hope they're speaking out BEFORE, instead of waiting. Tony Blair won't help. Check it out: http://postanapology.blogspot.com/2006/04/tony-blair-says-no-to-us-on-iran.html#links

[teryang]

7. Bushistas attack the military as a traditional institution...

...underpinning and defending our (former) Republic. Without our traditional institutions maintaining their heritage of values developed over two hundred years, the Republic is lost. Nuremberg, the Geneva Conventions, the tradition of military justice and human rights, all stand in the way of totalitarian power. The Air Force is most allied with PNAC plans as aerospace advocates are the most divorced from reality on the ground.

The imposition of total corporate rule involves undermining traditional institutions in Federal and State government. The uniformed military officer is the final target of the corporate fascists.

The Patriot Act and the "Homeland Security" reorganization of the Federal government undermined most of the executive agencies and subjected them to total white house control. It takes quite a bit more effort to undermine the armed forces because they are so indoctrinated and conservatively oriented toward traditional American values.

Hitler faced a similar problem with the Wehrmacht. Much as Dachau and the SS compromised and intimidated traditional German conservatives, the mini-gulags at GITMO, and Abu Ghraid have sullied and compromised the military. Officers know these institutions compromise them personally, professionally, and politically. They are in a struggle for survival and in order to save themselves they must resurrect their institutional identity and core values. Initially, they are inclined by instinct to follow orders. Ultimately, they must stake out their ground politically when the constitution is abandoned or give up their privileged position in a free government.

[bemildred]

8. Yeah.

I've been speculating whether we would see a civil war between the professional military and the mercenaries one of these days. Is our own Praetorian Guard being constructed as we speak? And it is worth considering that the destruction of the Army in Iraq is not entirely accidental. But perhaps that gives the Bushites more credit than they deserve.

[teryang]

10. Respect your scepticism but it is deliberate

There are two undercurrents in popular military thought. The first is the sense of executive mission. Get the job done. Fools are not suffered gladly nor are legalisms. This no nonsense pragmatism makes most officers conservative.

However, failure is not tolerated as just something to cover up with PR. There is a WTF factor going on which arises from deliberate policies of Rumsfeld, Cheney, and their PMCs, torture, tooth to tail, the invincibility of technology and so on. This involves a deliberate undermining of military tradition. The false justifications for war and the rules for due process proceedings at GITMO, compare with Katherine Harris' determination of the Florida vote in 2000. They share one thing in common, completely arbitrary rule. War plans for Iraq and Iran also share this same sense of arbitrariness when stripped of cultural chauvinism and political lies. There is an "apres moi, le deluge" quality to the corrupted political leadership, more characteristic of a failing autocracy.

While conservative officers often joke (as W did) that dictatorship is more efficient and that the military is not a democracy, they are deeply committed to the Constitution and their traditions at a deeper level. As I'm sure you know, management in the military is not entirely top down. Leadership failure usually follows such an institutional model. There is a limit beyond which they will not go if they are properly trained.

Minimizing the uniformed officers claim to propriety in armed conflict goes hand in hand with changing the resource balance between unaccountable groups and a responsive effective military institution. The creation of unaccountable autonomous institutions outside military command structure in combat conditions is deliberately destructive and a feature of dictatorship. The uniformed military is faced with a dangerous prospect by Rumsfeld and company, go fascist/venal/arbitrary, or become irrelevant.

[bemildred]

11. And I respect your POV.

I am aware from my own professional life of the distaste for the professional army and the citizen soldier found in our ruling elites, it goes back at least to the post-VietNam period; at least that is as far back as I know about. It stands in striking contrast to attitudes towards the military during earlier periods in our history. I used to have occasion to talk it over with old artillerymen and tank commanders and the like, who were not happy with the policies now represented by Dumbsfeld and his propellerhead minions, and it is probably worth remembering that these loons came up during Vietnam. And what is going on in Iraq is certainly suspicious, from that point of view. The current fascination with special forces and mercenaries is certainly related to that distaste for and distrust of the regular military. But incompetence, ignorance, and neglect through indifference must be given their due. It is entirely possible, and consistent with the nature of these people, that they lie to themselves as well as the rest of us.

The desire for arbitrary power you have correct, of course. Anyone observant with experience in these bureaucratic structures knows that it's all about control, and the rules are observed or ignored as they serve that end. And this contrasts greatly with the "By The Book" military we once had.

But, whatever level of conspiratorial planning lies behind the present situation, you have the dilemma that it presents to a principled professional soldier correct, there is not room for both the Bushites and the professional military, as it once existed, in this country. One or the other will be destroyed, perhaps both.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. And this is a terrifying prospect. Not that...

we'll see "Seven Days in May" any time soon, but the entire concept of civilian control over the military is a fragile one and based on the civilians using the military properly.

It's Marine and Army officers complaining because they have the very reasons for their existence being undermined by incredibly arrogant and incompetant civilian leadership, but there are undoubtedly Admirals and Air Force officers upset by developments, too. That they don't speak out says more for their training and understanding of the relationship to civilian authority not being undermined than any real agreement with what's going on. It takes an extraordinary amount of galling to get a military officer, even a retired one, to complain about civilian authority.

How many times in the past have they spoken out his way? Was there a "mutiny" when MacArthur was fired for disobeying civilian orders? McClellan? There was Smedley Butler, but he spoke more of the moral question of foreign adventures than of the competence of the civilians to use the military without destroying it.

They are destroying our air, water, land, economy, and now the military for some purpose, and the only question is whether they are stupendously inept or incredibly craven.

Or, perhaps. both.