from Greg Palast's site...
http://www.gregpalast.com/index.cfm
Desert Rats Leave The Sinking Ship
Why Rumsfeld Should Not Resign
The Guardian - Comment
Friday, April 14, 2006
By Greg Palast
Well, here they come: the wannabe Rommels, the gaggle of generals, safely retired, to lay siege to Donald Rumsfeld. This week, six of them have called for the Secretary of Defense's resignation.
Well, according to my watch, they're about four years too late -- and they still don't get it.
I know that most of my readers will be tickled pink that the bemedalled boys in crew cuts are finally ready to kick Rummy in the rump, in public. But to me, it just shows me that these boys still can't shoot straight.
It wasn't Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who stood up in front of the UN and identified two mobile latrines as biological weapons labs, was it, General Powell?
It wasn't Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who told us our next warning from Saddam could be a mushroom cloud, was it Condoleezza?
It wasn't Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who declared that Al Qaeda and Saddam were going steady, was it, Mr. Cheney?
Yes, Rumsfeld is a swaggering bag of mendacious arrogance, a duplicitous chicken-hawk, yellow-bellied bully-boy and Tinker-Toy Napoleon -- but he didn't appoint himself Secretary of Defense.
Let me tell you a story about the Secretary of Defense you didn't read in the New York Times, related to me by General Jay Garner, the man our president placed in Baghdad as the US' first post-invasion viceroy.
Garner arrived in Kuwait City in March 2003 working under the mistaken notion that when George Bush called for democracy in Iraq, the President meant the Iraqis could choose their own government. Misunderstanding the President's true mission, General Garner called for Iraqis to hold elections within 90 days and for the U.S. to quickly pull troops out of the cities to a desert base. "It's their country," the General told me of the Iraqis. "And," he added, most ominously, "their oil."
Let's not forget: it's all about the oil. I showed Garner a 101-page plan for Iraq's economy drafted secretly by neo-cons at the State Department, Treasury and the Pentagon, calling for "privatization" (i.e. the sale) of "all state assets ... especially in the oil and oil-supporting industries." The General knew of the plans and he intended to shove it where the Iraqi sun don't shine. Garner planned what he called a "Big Tent" meeting of Iraqi tribal leaders to plan elections. By helping Iraqis establish their own multi-ethnic government -- and this was back when Sunnis, Shias and Kurds were on talking terms -- knew he could get the nation on its feet peacefully before a welcomed "liberation" turned into a hated "occupation."
But, Garner knew, a freely chosen coalition government would mean the death-knell for the neo-con oil-and-assets privatization grab.
On April 21, 2003, three years ago this month, the very night General Garner arrived in Baghdad, he got a call from Washington. It was Rumsfeld on the line. He told Garner, in so many words, "Don't unpack, Jack, you're fired."
Rummy replaced Garner, a man with years of on-the-ground experience in Iraq, with green-boots Paul Bremer, the Managing Director of Kissinger Associates. Bremer cancelled the Big Tent meeting of Iraqis and postponed elections for a year; then he issued 100 orders, like some tin-pot pasha, selling off Iraq's economy to U.S. and foreign operators, just as Rumsfeld's neo-con clique had desired.
Reading this, it sounds like I should applaud the six generals' call for Rumfeld's ouster. Forget it.
For a bunch of military hotshots, they sure can't shoot straight. They're wasting all their bullets on the decoy. They've gunned down the puppet instead of the puppeteers.
There's no way that Rumsfeld could have yanked General Garner from Baghdad without the word from The Bunker. Nothing moves or breathes or spits in the Bush Administration without Darth Cheney's growl of approval. And ultimately, it's the Commander-in-Chief who's chiefly in command.
Even the generals' complaint -- that Rumsfeld didn't give them enough troops -- was ultimately a decision of the cowboy from Crawford. (And by the way, the problem was not that we lacked troops -- the problem was that we lacked moral authority to occupy this nation. A million troops would not be enough -- the insurgents would just have more targets.)
President Bush is one lucky fella. I can imagine him today on the intercom with Cheney: "Well, pardner, looks like the game's up." And Cheney replies, "Hey, just hang the Rumsfeld dummy out the window until he's taken all their ammo."
When Bush and Cheney read about the call for Rumsfeld's resignation today, I can just hear George saying to Dick, "Mission Accomplished."
Generals, let me give you a bit of advice about choosing a target: It's the President, stupid
Posted by A Reader at April 14, 2006 02:42 PMPss, thnks mch fr s mch rsrch. ls, njyd th styl f prsnttn. Hwvr, r mltry crssd tht rvr Rbcn bck n k’s dy. Whn th pltcns bcm cvrt srvnts f th crprtns, th mltry sld th dl! mprl mrcn bcm rlty smwhr drng th 50’s. Crp, w lvd wth snc bms, tmc bmb tstng, bmb shltrs, y nm t, bt w ddn’t cr. W cntnd t rs chckns, cttl nd lflf. nd th crp/mltry lvd s!
My pnt s tht ll f s lvd th pltcl llsn tht th fcs n DC rn th shw. N, th crprtns nd thr mltry lls rn th shw. Th nly cvln prtcptn llwd ws smply t wv th flg n spprt, bt nly ftr r rwlln md pntd s n th rght mntl drctn.
Th mltry wn’t tk vr pltcs vrtly, fr thr lrds nd mstrs, y knw, th crprtns tht gv thm th tys f mstry, n mttr hw wk r ndvdl sldrs my msr-p, lrdy wn DC! Ths s why mny hv pntd t tht lttl Bsh wll prvl. Bsh s nt nctng hs wn plcy cnfgrtn, bt plns ld t dcds g by, ys, th crprtns! D w lv n d fct fscsm? Ys, bt, Lrd, s mch ‘kndr nd gntlr!’ thn tht rchc stff f Htlr nd hs mrrr mg f Blshvksm, Stln. Hw s ‘kndr nd gntlr’ fscsm dfnd? Gv th dprvd vrythng thy wnt; jst lk mprl Rm dd wth ts btch f dt rhds tht llwd nt nly th Csrs t d s thy pls, bt ctlly gv th wrld th ‘Px Rmn,’ whch wrkd wll.
Th prblm wth th lk f Khn nd Bcvch, s ‘xprts,’ s tht thy dn’t hv th blty t thnk bynd thr mnd-st f flshnss. Mrx, s pwrfl s mnd cld b, fld t cncptlz th pwr f th mdrn crprtn. Khn, t. l., dn’t hv th blty t thnk bynd thr cht sht tht bstrcts prhps frly gd hstry bk!
ls, lxndr ws htrsxl. ll f th Grk cty stts hd mndtry mltry trnng tht lstd dcds. Thy hd t brrck p nd vst thr wvs prdclly t mk sm bbs. Th hmsxls, wth thr ppr pshr psd-hstrns, lv t nvnt th fls ntn f qr lx. N. Phlp, lx’s dd, ws tgh. lx ws tghr. lx ld 30,000 sldrs, ll f thm n pk cndtn, nd kckd ss gnst mpssbl dds, nd nly stppd bcs th rmy ws trd. Thy ‘trd’ bynd th nds Rvr Vlly, ftr kckng ndn rmy sss, lng wth thr lphnts, wtht brkng swt. cld wrt fr lngr bt lx; bt b dvsd tht lx ws th Bblcl pctr f Stn. wndr wht r rmy wld thnk bt ‘Stnc lxndr?’ Yh.
Rdr, jst rd yrs, nd thnks. Yt, lttl Bsh dsn't cll th shts, t's ths gys nd thr Bldnbrg frnds, ll ft nd wht, th kng-mkrs, y knw, th mlt-ntnls tht sft dwn t chs th pltcls. dbt tht ny f ths Hll rhds rlly knw wh thy wrk fr; bt thn, r rhd vtrs dn't hv cl s t wh thy vt fr.
[Editor: ignore=off]the soviet army refused, out of a deep sense of serving the russian people rather than a specific government (it was said),
to participate in the rebellion in the early 1990's.
i would expect the same of the american military,
and much more besides!
at its lower levels,
the american military is composed of a lot of young yahoos, from private to captain,
as we saw in 2002-3 when bush was forcing the invasion of iraq -- lots of "war-is-great" and "we-can-handle-sadaam" from young-ho, gung-ho military and their families.
some of those young people are no longer with us. others are grievously wounded.
however,
at it highest levels, the american miltary are exceptionnalyy well-trained, exceptionally disciplined, exceptionally strategic in their thinking, and exceptionally responsible in the use of military power.
i cannot imagine any scenario in which the american generals would ever agree to participate in a coup, even if it were a disgused coup (which is precisely what any republican coup would be).
so
why have the generalse come foreward at this time to demand rumsfeld's resignation?
the assummption is that it has to do with iraq.
my guess is, that,
as much as iraq has done to damage the american military as an institution and an organization,
much of what upsets the general's now is rumsfeld's plan to attack iran -- repeat iran, not iraq.
i'm guessing what they see is utter folly,
and unaccountable folly,
in their civilian leadership,
aka, donald rumsfeld, secdef.
i suspect what we are seeing,
i hope what we are seeing,
is that the exceptionally well-trained and well-disciplined american military
are using the their judgement and collective influence with the american people
to prevent a bombing and invasion of iran.
none of us could ever have guessed,
that,
in american government,
the generals would have to rein in
a foolish, ideological, and profoundly incompetent,
american secretary of defense
maniacally inclined toward very bad military decisions.
Pessimist,
As usual, I stand ready to address your posts.
->Army Times
From the article: “…the Republican National Committee put ads in the Army Times and other service magazines attacking the Clinton/Gore record. To me that was, quite frankly, contemptible.”
Well, let Mr. Bacevich find it contemptible, but Army Times is owned by Gannett, a public-traded company that sells advertising as a source of revenue. As any competent advertising person will tell you: spend your advertising dollars with the most receptive audience. The Republican Party bills itself as Conservative (although it has not been in a very long time) and the military is overwhelmingly conservative – not Republican, Conservative.
-> Eisenhower
Your quote:
“Dwight Eisenhower, for example, didn't vote until he ran for president in 1952 - after he'd resigned his commission. Clearly, such political restraint among our officer corps is one of those 'quaint antiquities'…”
This particular observation on your part is at odds with your earlier observation:
“….(with help from Eisenhower and the rest of the military officer corps) in order to prepare the country for the war looming across the pond…”
Now, I am well aware that coherence and consistency are not your strong points, but to contradict yourself within the space of four or five sentences…well, I do believe that this is a new record.
(P.S. Do you know what rank Eisenhower was before he was elevated to the top spot in the US Army? Where was he serving just a few short years before the US entered WWII?)
-> Franklin D. Roosevelt
Your quote:
“He could force cooperation through the takeover of vital industrial facilities to be run by the military…”
Are you familiar with the War Production Board and how it functioned during WWII: defacto control of the means of production.
-> Military Promotions
Your quote:
“The military began to catch on to the game, understanding that as the military grew, so would the number of billets to which they could aspire for promotion. They remembered clearly the long years prior to WWII waiting for a senior officer to die or retire before advancement was even possible. By playing the Complex game, the military could almost write its own ticket. “
You call it “…the Complex game…” Actually, it was WWII and the increase in the size of the military necessarily increased the size of the officer corps. Every unit in the military has its own version of the Army’s TOC, which details the number of enlisted billets and the number of officer billets, as well as the associated rank / pay grade for each billet. There was no “…Complex game…” it is pure numbers.
-> Colin Powell
Your quote:
“My interpretation: Before Colin Powell left the Joint Chiefs under Poppy Bu$h, he saw to it that the military wasn't going to face deep cuts from that no-good liberal Billary Clinton!”
Well, Pessimist, never let it be said that realty intrudes on your interpretations. (I guess that is how things work in the “reality based community.”)
You really have no idea about the reductions that took place in the military between the end of Reagan’s second term and the end of Clinton’s second term. Google it – it will be a revelation to you!
-> And On
And the rest of this post is, as usual, sloppy, uninformed, ignorant, and bigoted.
Posted by Bagley at April 14, 2006 06:16 PM"And the rest of this post is, as usual, sloppy, uninformed, ignorant, and bigoted."
Oh, and aren't we so thankful that you, Bagley, come here to set us straight.
Posted by at April 14, 2006 09:48 PMand once again the head up his ass tea bag chimes in with the usual apologist bullshit..just fuck off tea bag...
Posted by headxray at April 15, 2006 06:13 AM"Oh, and aren't we so thankful that you, Bagley, come here to set us straight."
Well, actually, you should be: consider it my charitable contribution to the nation's metal health! No need to thank me....really, no...thank you...thank you....I consider it my civic obligation.
"and once again the head up his ass tea bag chimes in with the usual apologist bullshit..just fuck off tea bag..."
headxray,
Those xrays are getting to your head. No disputing my post, simply insulting me. This is what is so great about leftists: you can always count on a leftist to ignore reality and fall back on their juvenile inclinations.
Posted by Bagley at April 15, 2006 04:59 PMSaturday, April 15. 2006
General Revolt
http://www.mightymiddle.com/index.php?/archives/866-General-Revolt.html
=That's a marine uniform.
I believe that makes seven:
The grievances aired by half a dozen retired flag officers in recent days resonated with many military veterans. "I admire those who have stepped forward, and I agree with the arguments
they are making," retired Marine Lt. Gen. Paul K. Van Riper said in an interview yesterday.
"I count myself in the same camp."
Van Riper, a lifelong Republican who voted for Bush in 2000 but did not vote in the 2004 election, said Rumsfeld has failed in a number of ways, including "disastrous" war planning and execution and fostering a poor command climate.
Why does it matter that general officers from the Army and Marine Corps are criticizing Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and calling for his resignation?
Because it says we're losing this war. ...
Posted by Podkopayeva at April 19, 2006 03:44 AMThe long-term goal of Rumsfeld/Cheney, et al, is to destroy the military as a public institution
and replace it with a privatized military, which we will pay for with our tax dollars, but which
will be not be answerable to us.
Firms like Blackwater are already expanding to take the place of the military personnel that
Rumsfeld has been paring away. The advantage is obvious: these firms pay 3 to 4 times what
the military does, so can attract skilled employees, and taxpayers don't care because they
don't understand that they are making up the difference.
Nobody will cry crocodile tears over the death and dismemberment of private contract
soldiers. Anyone who quits and blows the whistle on a private contractor will be dismissed
out of hand as a "disgruntled former employee".
Well-compensated mercenary soldiers can be counted upon to enforce martial law when it is
declared, because their loyalties lie with their company, not with their country.
Rumsfeld is not going anywhere -- he has been completely successful so far in carrying out
the goals of the Bush administration
Reuters: Rumsfeld Potentially Liable for Torture
14 Apr 2006 22:23:19 GMT
Source: Human Rights Watch
(New York, April 14, 2006) – Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld could be criminally liable for the torture of a detainee at Guantanamo Bay in late 2002 and early 2003, Human Rights Watch said today. A December 20, 2005 Army Inspector General's report, obtained by Salon.com this week, contains a sworn statement by Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt that implicates Secretary Rumsfeld in the abuse of detainee Mohammad al-Qahtani. Based on an investigation that he carried out in early 2005, which included two interviews with Rumsfeld, Gen. Schmidt describes the defense secretary as being "personally involved" in al-Qahtani's interrogation.
Human Rights Watch urges the United States to name a special prosecutor to investigate the culpability of Rumsfeld and others in the al-Qahtani case.
"The question at this point is not whether Secretary Rumsfeld should resign, it's whether he should be indicted," said Joanne Mariner, Terrorism and Counterterrorism Program director
at Human Rights Watch. "General Schmidt's sworn statement suggests that Rumsfeld may have been perfectly aware of the abuses inflicted on al-Qahtani."
Gen. Schmidt said that Secretary Rumsfeld was "talking weekly" with Gen. Miller about the al-Qahtani interrogation, and that the secretary of defense was "personally involved in the interrogation of one person." Schmidt's statement indicates that Rumsfeld maintained a high level of knowledge of and supervision over al-Qahtani's treatment. Although Schmidt said that he believed that Rumsfeld did not specifically order the more abusive methods used in the al-Qahtani interrogation, he concluded that Rumsfeld's policies facilitated the abuse.
(snip/...)
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/HRW/d4e77d346f...
Posted by LenaDavid at April 19, 2006 03:53 AM