He was joined by "Army Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, who was responsible for training Iraq's military and police in 2003 and 2004, and retired Marine Col. Thomas X. Hammes, who served in Iraq in 2004 and helped establish bases for the reconstituted Iraqi armed forces.”
Batiste was so incensed in October of 2006 that he and another military general called for a Democratic takeover saying the GOP has got to go. It’s too bad that Democratic takeover has not changed anything for these frustrated military men.
Retired general William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency reported to the Guardian in the UK in 2004 that: "Bush hasn't found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it's worse, he's lost on that front. That he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It's lost...Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving Bin Laden's ends."
The Guardian went on to report this in the same article:
W Andrew Terrill, professor at the Army War College's strategic studies institute - and the top expert on Iraq there - said: "I don't think that you can kill the insurgency". According to Terrill, the anti-US insurgency, centred in the Sunni triangle, and holding several cities and towns - including Fallujah - is expanding and becoming more capable as a consequence of US policy.
"We have a growing, maturing insurgency group," he told me. "We see larger and more coordinated military attacks. They are getting better and they can self-regenerate. The idea there are x number of insurgents, and that when they're all dead we can get out is wrong. The insurgency has shown an ability to regenerate itself because there are people willing to fill the ranks of those who are killed. The political culture is more hostile to the US presence. The longer we stay, the more they are confirmed in that view."
Moreover, Jeffrey Record (also in this same article) stated that, “I see no exit...We've been down that road before. It's called Vietnamisation. The idea that we're going to have an Iraqi force trained to defeat an enemy we can't defeat stretches the imagination. They will be tainted by their very association with the foreign occupier. In fact, we had more time and money in state building in Vietnam than in Iraq."
Thinking back to the time prior to the preemptive strike on Iraq, we remember that General Eric Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he thought several hundred thousand soldiers would be needed for a successful military operation in Iraq. That number was ignored and disregarded blatantly by Donald Rumsfeld, which to some extent led to the military backlash that has occurred.
The question now is if a military backlash which should occur will occur before we make the mistake of striking Iran.
A Slate article asked the question in October of this year: “Should Generals Resign if Bush Orders an Attack on Iran?”
A military man in these times has a profound struggle to deal with right now, a struggle similar to what a German general under Hitler experienced. As Slate highlights, members of the military have a “duty to provide civilian decision-makers with unvarnished military advice on issues of warfare and the obligation to obey all lawful orders by superiors. Under the Constitution, the president is superior to the highest-ranked general or admiral.”
Further down in the article, however, it is mentioned that the Iran war if it involves a high threat to national security, could result in several forms of dissent such as "public information" (a euphemism for leaking to the press?), writing a scholarly paper, testifying before Congress, engaging in "joint effort" (plotting?)—and, finally, if all else fails to change things, resigning.”
However, Slate correctly shows that “when officers retire, they do so with full benefits, health care, and continued membership in the fraternity of military officers. When they resign, they give up all of that.” So, people must realize a soldier is giving up all that he signed up for when he steps down in dissent. He or she is making the ultimate sacrifice knowing full well it could have a negative impact on his or her future (Slate cites his fact as reason why it has been 40 years since a U.S. general resigned.)
An attack on Iran means more than just Iran retaliating and possibly annihilating our naval fleets, as they have threatened to do. It means that realist foreign policymakers could see their worst fears realized: Russia and China may intervene in defense of Iran if they deem that their interests in the region must be preserved. The likelihood of this must be considered as Iran was recently granted observer status to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), an organization that is growing in importance and power in Asia every day.
When right wing conservative policymakers and hawkish generals are condemning a war with Iran, it’s time for a military coup, a military coup that may end the careers of many but will save thousands even millions of lives.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
