From Vietnam to Iraq: The revolt of the Generals

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2006/April/opinion_April71.xml§ion=opinion&col=

WASHINGTON - THE US has suffered decisive defeat in Iraq by failing to achieve its strategic political objective of turning that nation into an obedient, oil-supplying colony. No one in official Washington will yet admit this fact, but the writing is clearly on the wall. Last week, six retired generals stunned the Americas by publicly accusing Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld of arrogance, mismanagement and failure of leadership in the Iraq war.

This dramatic general’s revolt, unprecedented in modern times, reflects the unspoken fact that the US has lost the Iraq war. It was clearly intended to lay blame for the Iraq fiasco where it belongs — on the White House. The most devastating criticism came from Marine Lt. General Gregory Newbold: "Commitment of our forces to this fight was done with the casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions — or bury the results." Meaning, of course, superhawks George Bush and Dick Cheney, both of whom managed to evade regular military service during the Vietnam war.

Marine Corps general Anthony Zinni, former Centcom (Central Command) commander, blasted Rumsfeld and the conduct of the war. Zinni repeatedly and correctly warned it would produce an Iraq far more dangerous than one under Saddam Hussein. He has become a particular target of hate-mongering by pro-Israel neoconservatives. Former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, the smartest man in Washington when it comes to foreign policy, joined the fray, saying the trumped-up aggression against Iraq has led to ‘delegitimisation’ of America across the globe.

The White House and Pentagon unleashed a massive public relations counter-attack to defend Rumsfeld, but the damage has been done. The Bush camp was not helped by comments made by former secretary of state Colin Powell’s outspoken chief of staff, Col. Larry Wilkerson, that a pro-Israel ‘cabal’ in the Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had cooked up the war against Iraq for the benefit of Israel. Or that a number of senior neocon figures in the Pentagon were ‘card-carrying members of the Likud Party.’

[exlrrp]

1. Fresh from the Khaleej Times

Where the hell is khaleej, anyway?
this was in the article, cut off at the bottom in your exerpt
"As a long-time admirer of Rumsfeld, I was deeply dismayed he did not stand up to Dick Cheney and his shadowy cabal of neocon warmongers and refuse to send American soldiers into an illegal and calamitous colonial war."
I think this shows the mental imbalance of the author--a "long time admirer of Rumsfeld?" The guy who did the Republicans bidding selling arms to Saddam? Rumsfeld would never "stand up to Dick Cheney and his shadowy cabal of neocon warmongers" he's a main part of their plot, their most useful and willing tool

[NNN0LHI]

2. This paper is from the UAE and the article was written by Eric Margolis

And you left out the last sentence for some reason?

>>>Rumsfeld should admit the war was wrong and resign.<<<

Don

[exlrrp]

3. The mental imbalance

Well I left out a lot of sentences, just picking on the one that seemd most germane to what I was saying. You also left out the most important part of that sentence for some reason?: "To preserve what honour he retains...." This indicates metal imbalance on the part of the author: Rumsfeld "retains" no honor at all.
Margolis is dead right on the rest of that last sentence, but further mental imbalance is indicated by the thinking that Rumsfeld is, or has ever been admirable, which Margolis cops to doing. Rumsfeld is a slimy cockroach who would **** his own mother for a lousy buck and always has been.
The notion that he would "do the right thing" indicates mental imbalance.