|
Ellsberg describes the earlier Seymour Hersch-reported story of military insiders stopping the initial threat of Bush war on Iran, one that included nuking Iran. But Ellsberg feels there is renewed danger of what would be a catastrophic attack on Iran--nukes or no nukes--catastrophic for the Middle East, catastrophic for Americans, and catastrophic for our military. He doesn't provide new evidence, but he is certain the plans for such an attack are still operational (ready to be employed at any time). His article is mostly a compelling description of the two wars that the U.S. was led into, on a pack of lies: Vietnam and Iraq. He writes in detail about his regrets for not blowing the whistle on the Vietnam War seven years before he did--that is, before Congress' vote on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution (1964). Ellsberg published the Pentagon Papers in 1971, after 50,000 American and a million Vietnamese lives had been lost. Sen. Wayne Morse (one of only two Congressional votes against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution) told him later that IF he had come forward in 1964, Morse could have prevented Congress from voting for that resolution. This stung Ellsberg badly--when he was already under threat from the Pentagon Papers publication--but he thinks that it could be true. And he draws a direct analogy to 2002 and the Iraq War resolution. IF those who knew--such as Richard Clarke (still serving the Bush regime, at that point)--had come forward PUBLICLY--had not just taken notes to write a later memoir--the Iraq War resolution could have been stopped. And he feels we are in the same situation right now--the Bush Junta going forward with SECRET plans to bomb and/or invade Iran, which will be sprung on Congress and the American people, accompanied by yet another set of lies--possibly Gulf of Tonkin II (a phony Iranian "attack" on US forces in the Persian Gulf)--and that a patriotic insider COULD stop it now, by disclosing more than what was disclosed to Hersh--disclosing documentation (like the Pentagon Papers), and doing it in person, not anonymously. The penalties could be severe--certainly loss of job, loss of career and possibly prosecution. But it could prevent the deaths of millions of innocents, and yet more disaster for the U.S. in the Middle East.
I don't know if I agree with Ellsberg (or Morse) that the Vietnam War could have been prevented by Ellsberg or someone else whistleblowing earlier--prior to the Gulf of Tonkin incident. I tend to agree with Ellsberg's speculation that LBJ might have found another pretext for escalating the Vietnam war. Gulf of Tonkin II, III, IV, would likely have been swift in coming (wholly trumped up attacks by the No. Vietnamese, on US forces that were there in support of the trumped up, CIA-created, corrupt government of "south" Vietnam). A wider disclosure--of the overall war plan, and plan for escalation (not just the trumped up Gulf of Tonkin incident)--could possibly have slowed LBJ down. But stopped it? I tend to believe that the whole reason Johnson was in office--why JFK was assassinated--was JFK's executive orders, just prior to his death, withdrawing US military "advisers" from Vietnam (combined with his rejection of the other CIA plan to start a war--the invasion of Cuba). The Vietnam War was a completely unnecessary, unjustified war in which, eventually, 2 million people were slaughtered (in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos). It was concocted by WAR PROFITEERS. The US economy had never been demilitarized after WW II. And the jackals needed another war to stay at the pig trough.
They killed Kennedy for this, and then his brother (running for president on an anti-Vietnam war platform; would have won), five years later, and in the same year, Martin Luther King (who had finally come out publicly against the war--in defiance of political advice to "stick to civil rights"--and gave a very strong speech against). My considered opinion, looking back. The two threads that tie these leaders together--JFK, RFK and MLK--are, a) civil rights; and b) opposition to unjustified war. The success of the civil rights movement was assured. Even Johnson supported it, and pushed the legislation through (the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965). Also, the success of the civil rights movement was a potential economic boon (empowerment of a new segment of the middle class). And it was vital to calming civil unrest on racial issues (such as the Watts uprising in 1965.) It had no downside. But the war was a matter of billions and billions of dollars in profit for the war industries.
The Vietnam War COULD NOT be stopped. Even with the country in massive revolt against it--by '68-'69--NOTHING could stop it. Even LBJ's fall couldn't stop it. Nixon was elected on a platform of "peace with honor" and escalated this horrendous war into Cambodia and Laos, for FOUR MORE YEARS of slaughter--and billions into the pockets of the manufacturers of stuff to kill people with.
So, if they needed to invent ten Gulf of Tonkins, they would have. And consciousness of this situation was so low in 1964, that I think they would have gotten away even with disclosure of plans for escalation of the war. They would have lied that these were merely contingency plans, war games, or whatever, and would have promised (if they even needed to) not to attack No. Vietnam unless US forces were attacked. In Congress, there were ONLY TWO votes in the House (Morse and an Alaskan member--can't recall his name) against the '64 Gulf of Tonkin resolution (dramatic escalation of the Vietnam war, based on a false incident), and I think only ONE in the Senate (Senator Fulbright). War profiteering was the thing (then as now). And there was, simply, NO antiwar momentum at that point. Ellsberg, if had whistleblown at that point, would have spent the war in jail--his efforts gone for naught. His efforts were far more effective in 1971, and very likely helped to prevent Nixon from nuking Vietnam into submission. (That was on the table, by then.)
In 2002, ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS voted against the Iraq War resolution. FIFTY-SIX PERCENT of the American people OPPOSED the Iraq war BEFORE the invasion (Feb. '03), that is, even before all the lies were exposed. 56%! (That would be a landslide in a presidential election--and it is very likely close to the amount by which Kerry won, in 2004.) This contrasts very starkly with the level of opposition in Congress (near zilch) and among the American people (zilch) to the Vietnam war in 1964.
But neither would the Iraq war have been prevented by early whistleblowing (as Ellsberg suggests). Why? Because the Bush Junta didn't give a crap what the American people thought, or what Congress thought. Furthermore, it was well-known, by the UN, its weapons inspectors and the entire international community--and seems to have been known by around half of the people in the US--that Bush was full of crap, and so was Colin Powell.
56%! About half of that 56% opposed the war outright. The other half would only agree if it were a UN peacekeeping mission (i.e., international consensus that the threat required military action). In other words, they DIDN'T TRUST BUSH. (That number also, by the way, had to include some Republicans!)
And yet we had the war ANYWAY. How could they proceed with a war that had so little support?
Because they knew, at that point, what the next coup would be: Electronic voting machines, run on TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by Bushite corporations, and fast-tracked all over the country with $3.9 billion in funding--a coup engineered by the biggest crooks in the Anthrax Congress, Tom Delay and Bob Ney, abetted by corporatist 'Democrats' like Christopher Dodd. Coming down the pipe: a twisted, perverted, Bushite 'bait and switch' on election reform (after the 2000 debacle in Florida). The so-called "Help America Vote Act."
And with assured re-election, they could do anything they wanted to. And either Congress went along, or they would be poisoned by anthrax, or their top-of-the-line private planes, with top-the-line de-icers on the wings, and two topnotch pilots on board, would fall out the air near the landing field, on a clear cold day with no significant wind factor.
And not only with assured re-election, but also with assured control over almost everyone else's re-election. All now (s)elected by close buds of the Bush Junta, at Diebold and ES&S.
Add in the war profiteering corporate news monopolies (all news/opinion in the country controlled by 5 billionaire rightwing CEOs), to cover up whatever needed covering up (lots), and to trumpet rightwing views way out of proportion to their numbers, and to create the ILLUSION of support, for the war and for Bush, and that rounds off the arguments for the inevitability and unstoppability of this war. Millions of people marched against it. A big majority of the population against it. A good portion of Congress against it. Most of our allies against it. The UN against it. No matter.
So, if Richard Clarke, or any other insider, had blown the whistle against it, a few feathers would have flown and settled quietly on the graves at Arlington, and that hero would be dead or in jail--or maybe merely "swiftboated" with blackmail information gathered by the Bush Junta's extensive domestic spying.
Which brings me to the present situation: Iran.
Would a whistleblower coming forth in person and with documents stop the unjust invasion of Iran and the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people?
Yes, I think it could--despite all of the above. But actually I don't think it will be necessary for that purpose (it would be good for other purposes--openness in government, etc.), UNLESS the Democratic leadership is so corrupt--has so gone over to the Dark side--that IT would permit that plan to go forward, or gain the White House in '08, and then carry it out. I think our Corporate Rulers are dumping Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, because they've become bad for business. (They've "lost" South America, for one thing--but that's another story.) The torture/suspension of habeas corpus bill might even be a good sign that a deal has been struck--immunize them for the worst of their past crimes, and they will go quietly, without nuking Iran. I think some genuine patriots in the military/intelligence communities may also be involved in getting these maniacs out. And it may all occur without public discussion of the plans to invade Iran (as Ellsberg sees as necessary to stopping this second disaster). The political landscape--and the war landscape--are both changing very rapidly, and, although Ellsberg published this article two days ago, it was probably written more than a week ago. And things are changing that fast, as to outrun his call for a whistleblower.
It also appears to me that China, Russia and Europe have given a thumbs down on the Bush Junta plans to invade Iran. I don't think it's going to happen in Bush's term, except by rogue action (which can't be ruled out with this gang). They've had to bring James Baker in, to calm down what appears to be a huge inner Bushite fracas over Iraq. The Iraq situation is rapidly deteriorating. We might even be looking at emergency evacuation of US forces.
What Clinton did vis a vis Iraq was to destroy the country's economy with sanctions--following the battering of the Iraqi army in Gulf War I--and to bomb the perimeter, to further weaken Iraq, which ended up nearly defenseless, and with no air force. That's when the Bush Junta cowards struck. Iraq didn't have a chance. But Iran is different story. It's well-defended. It has not yet been battered by sanctions or other punishments. It has not invaded anyone and been beaten back. The people are pretty well off (--not drained of their oil riches by Arab sultans and princes). Morale is high. It will take years to defeat Iran, and I just don't think our Corporate Rulers will attempt it, unless and until it can first be beaten down in other ways. And China stands in the way of that. It is going to take diplomatic finesse. Enter the Corporate Democrats?
That's how I see it. We're actually going to have a victory Nov. 7, and the super-rich might have to endure a tax or two--but it won't be the end of the Mideast war, as long as the war profiteers are still running things.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
