Violence... The story so far

Updated: 07 May '07

Never in US history has our military spoken out loudly against our civilian leadership -- until now. This may surprise many Americans. Just as surely, the military remains loyal to the concept of civilian control. But it is equally clear that many in the military are in uncommon dissent, especially over Iraq and Iran. Iran looks like a replay of Iraq. Neither American nor any European intelligence agency has turned up the slightest evidence of clandestine nuclear activity.

"The President has effectively gone AWOL, deserting his duty post, leaving American forces with an impossible mission, suffering wholly unnecessary casualties." General William Odom, Retired

"This administration and the previously Republican-controlled legislature have been the most caustic agents against America's Armed Forces in memory. Less than a year ago, the Republicans imposed great hardship on the Army and Marine Corps by their failure to pass a necessary funding language. This time, the President of the United States is holding our Soldiers hostage to his ego. More than ever [it is] apparent [that] only the Army and the Marine Corps are at war -- alone, without their President's support." Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton: Retired

These and similar statements are ground-breaking in all of American history. They are not just historic; they speak to a grave weakness in our system of governance. A cabal of Neocons, largely unelected, their basic purpose not well known, led us into a sharp decline as a democracy to be admired. How they did it is well documented by John Dean, a conservative Republican in the Barry Goldwater mold. John Dean is not just a disgruntaled ex...; he has The renowned social psychologists Philip Zimbardo and Bob Altemeyer providing the scientific proof if such proof is needed. As in many things scientific, these scientists in turn relyied upon Adorno's earth shaking analyses of the WWII German populace and Milgram's showing that Americans are not that different in their Authoritarian tendencies. Finally, Martha Stout peels back the curtain that usually cloak thje sociopathic personality. Her rendition is particularly troublesome for many of Mr. Bush's statements are indicative that he may suffer from that syndrom -- which by the way could explain his utter and otherwise inexplicable disregard for the constitutional role of Congress and the America electorate.

The following National Security Issue relies on: Seymour Hersh, Annals of National Security.

Nevertheless, Iran has now enriched uranium to the fuel grade of 3-5% U-235 and has every right under international law to do so. The scary part is that that very ability also enables the manufacture of 90%+ U-235, the grade to make one type of fission bomb. As yet there is no evidence that they have done so. Both Pakistan and India have done exactly that. Neither, along with Israel, signed the nuclear proliferation treaty while both Iran and North Korea have.

Badly burned by Iraq, this administration is contemplating a similar venture without the intelligence needed to justify it. This issue underlies the "General's revolt." General Peter Pace, the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is "...telling the president what to do politically." One of his arguments is the effect such an action against Iran would have on oil prices. Beyond that, the generals say they have no clue where to bomb, even if told to. An irony, critical to our future, is that our military is more astute politically than is our esteemed leader on Pennsylvania Avenue. Is this a first order failure of our system of government--where a resonant voice, name and theater substitute for wisdom and leadership? In this particular regard, the parliamentary system seems to have a better system for checks and balances, since national leaders are schooled in the principles of governance on their way to high office. They are better known quantities when they ascend to power than are their American counterparts.

Retired Major General William Nash asks: "What if we bomb Iran, they cannot retaliate by air -- only on the ground or by sea, and only in Iraq or the Gulf. A military planner cannot discount that possibility, and he cannot make an ideological assumption that the Iranians wouldn't do it. We're not talking about victory or defeat -- only about what damage Iran could do to our interests. ...Their first possible response would be to send forces into Iraq. And since the Iraqi Army has limited capacity, it means the coalition forces would have to engage them."

Hersh quotes a retired four star general: "The system [this administration] is starting to sense the end of the road, and they don't want to be condemned by history. They want to be able to say, 'We stood up.'"

---

That may well be. According to Robert Dreyfuss, Washington Monthly, Sept 2006, James Baker quietly organized a bipartisan commission to devise a fresh set of policies for a White House "famous for staying the course." Baker's forum for action was created by Congress as "The Iraq Study Group." Composed of private citizens, it operated in top-secret fashion, but it is a good bet concerned government insiders knew their thinking and developments. This group came about when Republicans realized that the war in Iraq was not going well and that public support for it was evaporating. Certain Republicans saw a "train wreck coming and they have called on Baker to reroute the train." So as patriotic as the commission was, it unavoidably had political overtones. Beyond that, many of its sensible suggesteions went totally ignored, as Bush pressed forward on his war agenda.

The commission had one feature anathema to the administration: it iwas centrist-bypartisan. This feature alone indicatesd the seriousness of Congress and the Republican insiders. And of course this worried the Neocons -- there were too few on the task force to allow the Administration a rubber stamp. Bush is proceeding to put his own stamp, that of a "war Presidnet, [aka storm trooper], on US international relations.

A phased withdrawal is now the only realistic option. Earlier, we were concerned that as wrong as the Iraq war was, that abandoning Iraq was to abandon the Iraqi prople to a three-way-genocidal civil war. That csivil war is now in progress with no significant sign of abating. Leaving Hussein in power seems now to have been a better option, as ironic as that sounds.

A military is vital to national survival in modern times, but its use against terror has only brought more terror. Ratherk it was used for imperialistic means, the basic reason, other than vengeance on Hussein, we are in Iraq.


We are indebted to an astute visitor who directed us to much of these materials.