Greg Palast: Desert Rats Leave Sinking Ship

[Jack Rabbit]

From the website of Greg Palast
Dated Friday April 14

Desert Rats Leave The Sinking Ship
Why Rumsfeld Should Not Resign
By Greg Palast

Well, here they come: the wannabe Rommels, the gaggle of generals, safely retired, to lay siege to Donald Rumsfeld. This week, six of them have called for the Secretary of Defense's resignation.

Well, according to my watch, they're about four years too late -- and they still don't get it.

I know that most of my readers will be tickled pink that the bemedalled boys in crew cuts are finally ready to kick Rummy In the rump, in public. But to me, it just shows me that these boys still can't shoot straight.

It wasn't Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who stood up in front of the UN and identified two mobile latrines as biological weapons labs, was it, General Powell?

Read more.

[saltpoint]

1. No argument from me on the point on Powell at the U.N. but Uncle Don

is still as bad as the generals say he is.

After Abu Ghraib, any president with even a shred of nobility would have had Rumsfeld publicly hanged.

[Jack Rabbit]

2. I agree with you on this point

Just because Rumsfeld isn't the only bad apple in the barrel doesn't mean he shouldn't be tossed with the others.

Palast's piece is of value in that it points out that in addition for Rumsfeld's head, we should be calling for Bush's, Cheney's, Condi's, etc., etc., etc.

And yes, you're right. The torture and other human rights violations that take place in Bush's network of gulags, for which Rumsfeld is also partly responsible, are more charges that can be leveled at him in an international tribunal and should be. Even in that case, however, we mustn't be too hasty to lay it all on Rummy. It's Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, John Yoo, Miller and Sanchez, among others. They should all be charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity.

[saltpoint]

5. Jack Rabbit, you're right. I ought to have included the entire wagonful

of them.

There's plenty of blame to go around and I should be careful not to limit it at Rumsfeld's desk.

[Atman]

4. But everything is going exactly according to plan!

Why should the fire Rummy? He helped write the goddam plan. They saw the intel they didn't want anyone else to see, they just didn't let anyone else see it! They knew full well what would happen. But it's just "job security" for all of their sorry lot. Halliburton et al gets no-bid contracts well into the next decade. CHA-CHING. Rummy got paid up front, and will be taking in residuals for years. The Caspian Sea pipeline got built. We're about to go into Iran, with Syria in the on-deck circle.

What the hell did Rumsfeld to wrong? Nothing. Besides, anyone expecting the puppet to tell the puppeteers they're fired just hasn't been paying close attention to the puppet show!

[saltpoint]

7. It's a complex and disheartening set-up, I realize. But the forward

motion of the unquestioned war machine has been slowed, and nearly halted.

I do not believe the U.S. congress -- even the hapless Republicans like Lugar and Warner -- will support an assault on Iran without express concessions from the White House that Foreign Relations and Armed Services will monitor/approve operations.

The will of the voters, such as it is, is no longer persuaded that the "terra-ists" must be destroyed in Baghdad and Tehran etc. so that we "don't have to fight them here," blah blah blah.

When generals start calling for the head of the Secretary of Defense, the forward motion of war is in serious question.

[Atman]

10. But BushCo is claiming Congress authorized ANY ACTION NECESSARY

to fight terra.

That's how they'll do it. It didn't stop 'em from illegally wiretapping our phones...TERRA! They gotta chase the evil doers over there, man! Chase 'em straight into Iran!

Congress will pass a resolution saying "NO! YOU CAN'T!" and BushCo will say, "Thanks for your advice. Now piss off."

[saltpoint]

17. I'm more optimistic that the GOP chairs of Foreign Relations and Armed

Services will put up roadblocks.

I think Bush's wildass intervention days as a military bully in the Middle East are done with.

There is no sustainable percentage of support from the voters and the old time GOP stalwarts will only let the little jerk go so far.

The generals doubtless already spoke with Lugar and Warner before going public.

[Canuckistanian]

22. You think so?

I'm not seeing the generals consulting Congress at all. These are career men, and they're just fed up and sick of Rummy.

I really don't see more than that.

If they really went to the Armed Services Committee (in any official capacity), wouldn't we be hearing from Hillary about this?

[saltpoint]

23. Not necessarily. A GOP set of stalwarts like Lugar and Warner would

command a long-time Congressional contacts relationship with generals, CIA folks, etc.

The precedent for U.S. military brass to call for the resignation of their civilian commander "in a time of war" is nil. This is big news and it's probably only the tip of the iceberg.

[Canuckistanian]

25. Hmm, good point

All the more reason for Lugar and Warner to make their concerns known. But then, maybe they have, to no effect.

[saltpoint]

26. Yikes. You're frightening me with that last consideration.

And it's plausible enough to worm its way into our worrying.

Still I have some optimism. Bush's support is now at record lows and there's no sign of change in that, according to The Cook Report, a very reliable gauge of U.S. political life. The man is stuck in a deep hole of his own making.

The way out will be painful, even devastating to BushCo. But gradually encouraging for the rest of us.

Nice to see you tonight on DU, Canuckistanian.

[Canuckistanian]

27. Thanks, likewise

[OregonBlue]

12. EXACTLY what my husband and I have been saying since this whole

thing started. Everything is going according to plan. THIS WAS THE PLAN. When will the American people wake up and realize that things are going just the way they want them.

[Wetzelbill]

15. yes and no

it's going their way in certain areas like you mentioned, but these guys thought it was all going to be much easier. They figured to have cleaned out the whole theater by now, instead they're bogged down in Iraq. Sure Halliburton will continue getting no bid contracts, however, it will be in Iraq not in those other countries. We won't necessarily go into Iran, Syria, or any of the other countries the way we did in Iraq, because militarily we can't. A bombing campaign and some covert action is the best we can do. It's bad, of course, but we can't handle a full scale invasion. That's the big problem for them, and probably their undoing. Iraq ended up being a big enough mess that it will still be a major burden even when Bush is long gone. They hoped they could just go in and transform the whole Middle East while Bush is in office. Now, unless McCain gets elected, once Bush is gone the Neo-Con vision of modernizing and reforming Islam will go straight to the trash. It already pretty much is, but the danger here is Bush is so stupid and Cheney is such a vile bastard that you never can tell just what crazy action they are going to pull next. But, as for the whole grand Neo-Con plan, well, that's dead and gone. They'll push it still, but it's not even remotely feasible, especially not anymore.

[Atman]

18. I disagree. The "cake walk" comments were meant purely for us

To agree with your post I'd have to agree that they actually didn't see any of the intel which warned of exactly what is happening. Which is almost all of it, which is why Poppy Bush opted not to do it. But these wanted in SOOOO BAD, that they simply created an entirely new "Intelligence" division and filtered out the bad stuff. Not "didn't see the bad stuff," simply filtered it out. They knew what the CIA and NSA was saying, but it didn't fit the script they needed to sell this crap to the public.

I don't believe for a gnat's half-life that they thought it would be cake walk. That's why they had all the bullshit stories ready to go, the statues tumbling, the Jessica Lynches...they knew full well it would be nasty physical war over there, so they were prepared for a nasty propaganda war here. Thus the embedded reporters, etc. Everything, EVERYTHING was about selling the war. But nothing was about winning it.

[Wetzelbill]

24. oh no, some of the true believers

definitely thought it would be a cake walk. No doubt about it. In fact, it pretty much was a cake walk until they got into the reconstruction phase. They didn't filter out the bad stuff. Not at all. They simply looked for what they wanted to see. At least as far as WMDs were concerned. About the going to war part, none of these guys have any expertise in the Middle East at all. Not Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney etc. They knew little about that area of the world. But, what they did know was an ideology, especially Wolfowitz. He's a firm believer in promoting democracy and freedom and engaging in preemptive theater wars.

When you believe in an ideology it's not that you filter out the bad stuff, it's more like you know what you believe and you just stick with that, no matter what. That's why Wolfowitz and some of the other guys in the administration were putting forth some of Laurie Mylroie's theories about Iraq being involved in the first WTC terror attack etc. Wolfowitz was so bad that he didn't even know the number of casualties our troops suffered in Iraq. Its living in an echo chamber. Those bullshit stories weren't necessarily because they thought it would go bad, they just constantly do propaganda like that. At that time it was so early in the war they could get away with hyperpatriotism and propaganda efforts like that. It actually wasn't that nasty of a war, really, the reason it got nasty was because they did absolutely no planning for the aftermath they thought it would be so easy. They were so confident they assumed they could just jump up and utilize the old Iraqi ministries to set the country back up, but by the time General Garner even got there, the ministries were nonexistent. They literally had to go out and rebuild them in the most half-ass ways. I know this because my professor was in charge of rebuilding the foreign ministry in Iraq, he worked directly under Garner and Bremer. I've been published on the Project For A New American Century before.

If you go back and look at the work of Leo Strauss and his interpretation of Plato, and apply his ahistorical view to way guys like Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol and Richard Perle think, you'll see just how confident they are in the infallibility of their ideas and the use of power and propaganda to accomplish their goals. Now Cheney, he's a little different. He's a Neo-Con, but not really a true believer. He'd more or less knife his own mother in the back for a dollar. However, from an ideological standpoint, he was as dismissive of other points of view as anybody. For Cheney, not going to Baghdad after the first Gulf War has always been a sore point. Over time it became one with him. When Brent Scowcroft and others voiced dissent about going to the war, of course Cheney knew that and saw the intel. He just didn't care, because he didn't believe that would happen. He was getting info from Ahmed Chalabi and other sources that said different. That's what he chose to believe. Cheney's a delusional guy, a lot of this stems from the fervent belief that Ronald Reagan singlehandedly won the Cold War. This promotion of freedom, while utilizing aggressive rhetoric and combative tactics is a Neo-Con staple, it's why they prefer to be called Reaganites. To them the world is much simpler than how you or I or Poppy Bush or Brent Scowcroft or John Kerry may see it.

Poppy Bush, Jim Baker and Brent Scowcroft have Realist views of foreign policy. They see the world as anarchical, and believe the United States should only look out for it's own interests and power. Reaganites believe the U.S. is more of a hegemon and that we need to assert our place in the world. They also believe in the idea that history has come to an end. Meaning that liberal Democratic and free-market capitalist systems have won, and proven they are the best ideologies. They will blindly promote those systems and relish the idea at doing it, especially at gun point. Poppy Bush/Scowcroft/Baker may look at intel and make a decision on it's merit. A Neo-Con doesn't care, because his mind is already made up. It's ideological. The propaganda effort has nothing to do with whether they felt it was going to be a long war or not. That is all window dressing. What really mattered is the action itself, and that decision was made long before anything else was considered, be it intel, propaganda or whatever. They would have never attacked Iraq if they didn't believe it would be easy. Iraq was always the beginning step in the Neo-Con vision, precisely because it was considered a cakewalk. They didn't care what anybody else thought, nor did they really prepare for another scenario.

[pacalo]

8. You speak for me, Old Crusoe, about Powell & Rumsfeld/AbuGhraib.

It is extremely disappointing that the generals didn't speak out 4 years ago, but when I remember back about the political climate & the overwhelming "kick their @ss" cheering going on (with the media perpetrating it 24/7), I think they felt threatened, particularly by what happened to Gen. Shinseki.

Idealistically, generals shouldn't allow intimidation to lead their judgement, but the reality is, they were bullied by a very punitive administration that would have ruined them, both financially & personally.

[saltpoint]

11. Yes. And hi to you, 8_year_nightmare. Nice to see you on DU today

going into the weekend and one of these days, we'll meet on one of these boards and a president and vice president and their Cabinet will be people we have praise for.

Abu Ghraib was shocking to me, disheartening, and shocking, and I am ashamed that any government of mine would consent to the operation of these camps. And for this, I hold the Bush administration accountable generally and Rumsfeld particularly. He presides over these operations there and at Guantanamo, and it is dark and disheartening that the view other world citizens have of Americans is in the shadow of these torture camps.

Let's get a blue Congress in November and then throw in behind a strong Dem ticket in 08 and clean a little house!

[pacalo]

13. Yes!

A big :hi: to you, Old Crusoe!

[Robbien]

3. So his point is Rummy is just the guy who relays BushCo orders

if Rummy is dumped, another guy will be put in his place to relay BushCo orders.

Doesn't matter who is sitting in that seat, the driver is someone else.

Yup.

[HereSince1628]

6. a priori it looks like the Generals are shooting a target of opportunity

They can take pot shots at Rumsfeld.

Palast thinks they should have shot at more important target a long while ago.
While it's true enough they aren't shooting at Bush. I just have to wonder who is urging on this little drama right now?

High ranking officers are about pretty adept at corporate and government politics. It seems unlikely they would take a shot at Rumsfeld unless they thought it was necessary and also of limited and acceptable risk.

Just who is giving the high sign to take down Rummy? Is there perhaps an advisor to Poppy Bush who knows these player and who is moving behind the scenes?

[seafan]

9. I'm happy that the Generals' statements are getting public attention.

But, I do agree with Greg Palast that the real target is */Cheney.

It all begins at the head of this snake. We are in dire straits because of the illegal and unprecedented executive power grab by these two men, at the expense of the other two branches of our government and our citizens .

* and Cheney crouch and chuckle at the controls while Rumsfeld is merely a ruthless roller in this deadly machine.

There's no way that Rumsfeld could have yanked General Garner from Baghdad without the word from The Bunker. Nothing moves or breathes or spits in the Bush Administration without Darth Cheney's growl of approval. And ultimately, it's the Commander-in-Chief who's chiefly in command.

Even the generals' complaint -- that Rumsfeld didn't give them enough troops -- was ultimately a decision of the cowboy from Crawford.

snip

President Bush is one lucky fella. I can imagine him today on the intercom with Cheney: "Well, pardner, looks like the game's up." And Cheney replies, "Hey, just hang the Rumsfeld dummy out the window until he's taken all their ammo."

When Bush and Cheney read about the call for Rumsfeld's resignation today, I can just hear George saying to Dick, "Mission Accomplished."

Generals, let me give you a bit of advice about choosing a target: It's the President, stupid.

[Notoverit]

14. I seem to remember generals oposing this from the start: Clark, Zinni

and a number of others. That was the absurdity - that W wanted war and the generals wanted peace. Even the sell-out Powell (far it be from me to defend him) feebly voiced some timid objections at some point. Yes, he stood at the UN with that vial - and the media & some Democrats used that as an excuse (Powell's legendary "credibility" thingy)
But the blame for this war rests not with the Pentagon.

[Wetzelbill]

16. yeah, it comes from the top

Bush and Cheney. Those are the rats infesting the whole nest. Sure Rummy is bad and all, but he doesn't make the final decisions on any of this stuff. If somebody should get blamed it should be the President, he's the one accountable in the end.

[Jack Rabbit]

19. Even if Bush is a figurehead who doesn't know more than Cheney tells him

. . . he's still there and he's still responsible.

A lot of people would feel better if Bush had fired the people who lied the way into war. Of course, that would be assuming that they lied to Bush, too, and that he would be outraged about it.

But he promoted them all. So we can't assume he's a fool.

Either way, he is accountable.

[Maraya1969]

20. More from the article

I think my head is going to explode.


"Let's not forget: it's all about the oil. I showed Garner a 101-page plan for Iraq's economy drafted secretly by neo-cons at the State Department, Treasury and the Pentagon, calling for "privatization" (i.e. the sale) of "all state assets ... especially in the oil and oil-supporting industries." See it here. The General knew of the plans and he intended to shove it where the Iraqi sun don't shine. Garner planned what he called a "Big Tent" meeting of Iraqi tribal leaders to plan elections. By helping Iraqis establish their own multi-ethnic government -- and this was back when Sunnis, Shias and Kurds were on talking terms -- knew he could get the nation on its feet peacefully before a welcomed "liberation" turned into a hated "occupation."

But, Garner knew, a freely chosen coalition government would mean the death-knell for the neo-con oil-and-assets privatization grab.

On April 21, 2003, three years ago this month, the very night General Garner arrived in Baghdad, he got a call from Washington. It was Rumsfeld on the line. He told Garner, in so many words, "Don't unpack, Jack, you're fired."

Rummy replaced Garner, a man with years of on-the-ground experience in Iraq, with green-boots Paul Bremer, the Managing Director of Kissinger Associates. Bremer cancelled the Big Tent meeting of Iraqis and postponed elections for a year; then he issued 100 orders, like some tin-pot pasha, selling off Iraq's economy to U.S. and foreign operators, just as Rumsfeld's neo-con clique had desired.

[Canuckistanian]

21. Interesting perspective - But Rummy is part of the conspiracy

All of them - Cheney, Shrub, Rummy, Rice, Bremer. Are all part of the same conspiracy.

Powell was the dupe, the puppet. The expendable outsider. He served his purpose.

[TheBaldyMan]

28. Forget Rumsfeld: It's the President, stupid.

food for thought JR. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. K&R'd

[bklyncowgirl]

29. That's a great line--and he is right.

Bush & Cheney are a team. Rumsfeld is doing their bidding. Iraq is the way it is because they want it that way. The goal is a permanent military presence in Iraq with the goal of gaining control of the oil.

In their eyes Rumsfeld is doing a fine job indeed. A heckuva job one might say.

[Me.]

30. K & R

[Spoonerian]

31. Excellent article.

"Generals, let me give you a bit of advice about choosing a target: It's the President, stupid."

I disagree with this a little bit. As Palast said, not only can't they shoot straight, but they're 4 years too late. The US lacks the moral authority to invade or occupy Iraq. 1 million troops backed by John Kerry, the UN, and the G8 wouldn't be enough.

Only when these Generals do the honorable thing and commit hari kari by pulling the triggers on pistols put to their own heads as penance for 4 years of mass murder will they finally be shooting straight.