Iran, Not Iraq, Fuels the ‘Rumsfeld Rebellion’

[RedEarth]

The retired generals (presumably, as is typical in U.S. public life, speaking on behalf of those still on active duty, since they can’t speak for themselves) who have — in a political sense — dumped Donald Rumsfeld’s body on the White House lawn, are not men prone to launching offensives on the impulse of vengeance or any other whim. They have spent years in military academies and on battlefields learning the art of picking their battles with a view to advancing an overall strategy, with their targets and their timing always chosen not simply with the optimal conditions for winning a particular engagement in mind, but also with an overriding sense of how that particular engagement advances the overall aims of the war. (Trust me, it’s there in Clausewitz’s definitions of strategy and tactics; I never kept the page reference.)

While we may all enjoy the spectacle of the most stupendously arrogant member of Bush’s cabinet being taken down by those entrusted with defending America — even as a couple of generals he appointed rush to his defense, along with President Bush (”You’re doing a heck of a job, Rummy…”), we still need to ask why this is happening, and why now.

After all, the egregious errors of which Rumsfeld is being accused were made in 2003, and America has chafed under the burden in blood and treasure that the Iraq misadventure has cost for at least the past two years. So why have the military men chosen this moment to break their silence? And, for that matter, why have they chosen Rummy as their target?

While they accuse the Defense Secretary of resisting sound military advice and authoring spectacular tactical errors, it’s long been pretty obvious that the military brass regarded invading Iraq as a colossal strategic error even before the tactical mistakes came into play. It was the likes of former Marine commander Anthony Zinni who warned that taking down Saddam’s regime was a bad idea because it would produce precisely the sectarian equation we see today. And when members of the top brass, such as Shinseki, told the Pentagon civilian leadership that they’d need at least 300,000 or more troops to pacify Iraq, this was not simply because they believed it was true, but also because they believed that these numbers would render invading Iraq politically prohibitive for the Bush administration. And for the same reason, the war’s most fervent advocates, such as Paul Wolfowitz, shot down those estimates withouth even seriously contemplating them — they were seen as an attempt to delay or even cancel the march to war.

http://tonykaron.com/2006/04/17/iran-not-iraq-fuels-the-rumsfeld-rebellion/

[jimshoes]

1. Napoleon Solo

and Illya Kuriakin plan the next episode of "The Man From Uncle" ... oh, wait that's Don and Dick. Never mind.

[Jack Rabbit]

5. Well . . .

[leveymg]

2. "This isn't about Iraq; it's about Iran", I wrote here this morning

in response to a post citing Pat Buchanan:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=204275&mesg_id=204275
THE GENERALS' REVOLT
Pat Buchanan
http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=pb...


As of Good Friday, the Generals' Revolt has created a crisis for President Bush. If he stands by Rumsfeld, he will have taken his stand against generals whose credibility today is higher than his own.

About this, I wrote:

"If Bush persists, it won't be the ex-Generals he has to worry about.

There's a coda behind these messages. This isn't about Iraq; it's about Iran. The uniformed military is more aware than anyone that any strike against Iran is going to fail militarily, short of a full strategic strike, just as surely as it would fail politically to bring about "regime change". They also know that a preemptive strike -- particularly a nuclear first-strike -- will brand everyone involved as a war criminal.

The General's Revolt has the potential to result in another sort of coup, if BushCo and the neocons don't heed the warnings."

[Demeter]

3. It's About Iran, Because It's Too Late For Iraq!

Believe me, it's about BushCo and Cheney/Halliburton.

[leveymg]

4. There are some institutions bigger than BushCo-Cheney/Halliburton

And far deadlier. Don't trade shots with career spooks and trained soldiers. They'll win every time.

By comparison, the Administration is just the Mafia.

[Demeter]

6. If So, They Are Taking Their Own Sweet Time About It

Unless they are in both camps.

[leveymg]

7. Nobody wants to resort to the last resort

That would be seen as a failure for all sides, and mark a general collapse of the system of observed civil customs that have kept this country together since 1865. One would have to go back, even before Watergate, to 11/23/63 for the last real breakdown and failure of self-correcting checks and balances. But that failure was contained and kept secret from the general public, and even most of the intelligence community believed the cover story that the triggermen were serving Castro.

You're right. People are all over the place on this, as one would expect. Let's hope that there isn't some even worse grey eminence pulling the strings behind this crisis. If there is I would guess it's the multinationals trying to cripple the dying Rogue Superpower so that money can be moved into Asian capital markets before the currency collapses, and the thing tears itself apart.

[cliss]

8. Well, now it's official.

You can't fight a war without an army. And now, the army has given a thumbs-down to the war.

Here's the most amazing fact about the march to Iraq. General Shinseki warned that we would need something on the order of 300,000 troops to "pacify" Iraq when we marched in 2003. He was soundly criticized for it. He was even ousted for that statement.

Rumsfailed got his way. I always thought he was doing it "on the cheap" because he was a tighwad.

NOT SO!!! The reason we only used such a small number of troops is because that's all we had. They were so desperate to wage a war, that they "used the military they had, and not the one they wanted". They would not have been able to wage war. So they compromised. That was all the troops we had!

Amazing.