Before I casually float this idea that our military leaders should lead a coup, let’s think of the alternative to not staging a military coup, which would be a Bush administration “saber-rattling” and ratcheting up the rhetoric and pretense for war with Iran or what we have now and also getting Democratic leaders to complicitly go along with plans to strike Iran.
Now that we’re done thinking, let us seriously ask ourselves: Why is the military taking this bullshit from the Bush administration? And why has it been doing it for almost eight years?
Maj. Gen. Simmons recently reported, “Iran seems to be honoring a commitment to stem the flow of deadly weapons into Iraq, contributing to a more than 50 percent drop in the number of roadside bombs that kill and maim American troops.”
On October 1st, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen said, “I think we have to be very mindful of risks associated with follow-on steps which would engage us in a third country in that part of the world in any kind of conflict.” Also, Mullen told the Financial Times recently what would seem to be the Democratic talking point on Iran for the 2008 Election: “None of this is helped by the continuing stories that just keep going around and around and around that any day now there will be another war which is just not where we want to go.”
Along with him, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates although he was responsible for extending all twelve month tours of duty to sixteen months has been calling “for international efforts to economically pressure Iran, while making clear that the military option offers little appeal.”
A source within the Times out of the UK reported on an anonymous source from within the Pentagon that, “There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran...There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.” The publication goes on state, “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.”
Fmr. Secretary of State Colin Powell, who has long since leaving office proved unredeemable yet may still be walking around with his tail tucked between his legs as a result of what the Bush administration did to him by having him testify with false and imprecise information on Iraq’s WMDs, said days ago, “I think Iran is a long way from having anything that could be anything like a nuclear weapon.”
Remember the Iraq fiasco---the quagmire---the wretched “Mess O’Potamia” that we created that caused many U.S. military generals to retire since ’02-’03.
In April of 2004, “Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni wondered aloud yesterday how Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could be caught off guard by the chaos in Iraq that has killed nearly 100 Americans in recent weeks and led to his announcement that 20,000 U.S. troops would be staying there instead of returning home as planned.”
He stated, “I'm surprised that he is surprised because there was a lot of us who were telling him that it was going to be thus," said Zinni, a Marine for 39 years and the former commander of the U.S. Central Command. "Anyone could know the problems they were going to see. How could they not?"
The rest of what Zinni had to say was telling as well:
"I've been called a traitor and a turncoat for mentioning these things," said Zinni, 60. The problems in Iraq are being caused, he said, by poor planning and shortsightedness, such as disbanding the Iraqi army and being unable to provide security.
Zinni said the United States must now rely on the U.N. to pull its "chestnuts out of the fire in Iraq."
"We're betting on the U.N., who we blew off and ridiculed during the run-up to the war," Zinni said. "Now we're back with hat in hand. It would be funny if not for the lives lost."
The military’s huge disapproval of Rumsfeld resulted in three former military generals demanding his resignation in 2006. Before the Democratic Policy Committee, Maj. Gen. John R.S. Batiste testified:
If we had seriously laid out and considered the full range of requirements for the war in Iraq, we would likely have taken a different course of action that would have maintained a clear focus on our main effort in Afghanistan, not fueled Islamic fundamentalism across the globe, and not created more enemies than there were insurgents.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
