The Few, The Proud, Armies of One

[Daveparts]

The Few, The Proud, Armies of One
By David Glenn Cox




Again and again they stand before the complicit media and say no, that is incorrect.
The President makes claims and they repeat no, that is incorrect. Nancy and Harry talk a good game but all while they bob and weave denouncing the Presidents plans but funding them all the same. The media anointed presidential candidates of both parties do their best to distance themselves from the President. But when push comes to shove they all agree with the President that pushing and shoving is the only answer.

But there is only one group of people affiliated with the United States government that have stood tall and answered sir, no sir. Sacrificing careers and positions of prestige they have again and again repeated sir, no sir. This is strangest group of anti war resisters in US history, during the Vietnam conflict thousands of young men burned their draft cards as a show of defiance. This revolt is different however in that it has been from the officer’s ranks of the armed services that have burnt their own punched tickets by saying sir, no sir.

Last week the former top US commander in Baghdad Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez described the war in Iraq as "a nightmare with no end in sight". This latest honest and bluntest assessment is just another in a long line coming from the upper echelons of the military’s elite officer corps.

Sanchez speaking before a meeting of military correspondents and editors in Arlington Virginia described the administration as, "incompetent, inept, and derelict in the performance of their duty". Thems mighty strong words to be coming from a a career officer with direct access to the inner circle. A man whose goal in his military career was to reach those very heights. A man with enough character to say sir, no sir

The retired general discussing the Presidents surge strategy explained "Continued manipulations and adjustments to our military strategy will not achieve victory," he said. "The best we can do with this flawed approach is stave off defeat." The military officer corps was once considered the bastion of Republicanism yet this administration has witnessed a revolving door exodus of officers fleeing the pentagon.

Yet Sanchez wasn’t finished please read this quote carefully and then stop and think about what the general actually is saying, "There has been a glaring, unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders," the retired general complained. "In my profession, these type of leaders would immediately be relieved or court-martialled." Is general Sanchez calling for the removal of national leaders? It sure does sound like it, when was the last time you heard a military officer speak about the removal of national leaders? Only by qualifying this remark with “In my profession” does he keep his toes just this side of sedition.

But there is a larger question, who was this remark aimed at? The media didn’t find it important enough for general public consumption. General Sanchez no doubt understood that the corporate media would ignore such remarks but it was addressed to military correspondents. And the corespondent’s audience would be the military themselves.

It cannot be underestimated what the general is saying and who he is saying it to. It would be easy enough to dismiss if he were alone. But the line of retired, fired and cashiered generals grows longer by the day. As Sanchez continues firing with both barrels, "There is nothing going on today in Washington that would give us hope," he insisted. US politicians in both the administration and congress have too often chosen loyalty to their political party above loyalty to the constitution because of what he called "their lust for power".

From Colonel Karen Kitowski’s disclosures of the Vice Presidents actions during the run up to the Iraq war to the recent Air Forces public disclosure of the improper movement of nuclear weapons. It would appear that a tug of war is going on between the administration and the pentagon and the patriots are in the pentagon.

General Peter Pace Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff lasted only two years while doing his best to convince the administration of their folly. Pace had said Guantánamo ought to be closed and the US should adhere to the Geneva conventions. Pace had also said it was time to realize that a new strategy was necessary in Iraq. The only modification the administration was willing to consider was the removal of General Pace. The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.

The administration chose to replace Pace with Admiral Michael Mullen a highly respected navy man who was in fact a two fer. Being that’s its considered inappropriate for the top two positions of the Joint Chiefs to be held by any one branch of the service. Out goes Pace’s aide Vice Admiral Giambastiani. But the administration was tiring of dealing with these professionals and their advice based on years of professional experience.

It was about this time the President claimed that what was need was a war czar an officer to coordinate all the activities of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. A person to insulate the President from those who would inject reason into the arguments of madness. To subvert and subordinate the roles of the Joint Chiefs, a yes man, a man that wouldn’t say sir, no sir.

But finding a general to help the administration subvert the military power structure is easier said than done. Among the four star generals there were no takers or as General John J. “Jack” Sheehan put it, "The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," "So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks.' "

Finely among the second tier of candidates Lt. General Douglas Lute accepts the role of war czar. Lute will be acting as the President’s adjutant giving orders to those of superior rank. Working outside the system to subvert the system a man who in the eyes of military cadre has gone over to the other side. He assumes his highest military position and his last.

The evidence is clear, the evidence is incontrovertible, and from the privates to the generals the message is consistent. Only the administration and it’s toadies refuse to hear, the Dino’s (Democrats in name only) feign their regrets of how they would stop them if only they could. Sick, sinister, sycophant’s with mercenary machinations willing to trade blood in folly for prestige of office.

Yet we out here in the blogisphere can profess our own partisan positions we can call for the removal of the national government and who will listen to us? After all who are we? The anonymous, the unknown, members of the great unwashed. Who cares what we might think, but listen well. When an army general in the highest echelons of United States military power structure says what you and I have been saying. Or if a General in Russia or Pakistan where to say, "There has been a glaring, unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders," "In my profession, these type of leaders would immediately be relieved or court-martialled."

What signal would we think they were sending? Which begs another question, where is the front line in this war now? In Baghdad or in Washington?

[mainegreen]

1. When has the front line ever not been in DC?

Good post.

[0007]

2. Very good Dave!