Sidney Blumenthal (The Guardian): Revolt of the generals

[Jack Rabbit]

From The Guardian Unlimited (London)
Dated Friday April 21

Revolt of the generals
The denunciation of the administration's handling of Iraq by former US army chiefs is unprecedented
By Sidney Blumenthal

The analogy between Iraq and Vietnam has proved to be most compelling to the generals who planned and conducted the Iraq invasion. They kept to themselves their profound disquiet about the rapid rejection of the original plan for invasion that took 10 years to develop, the inadequate downsized force, the absence of preparation for the occupation, and the disastrous decision to disband the Iraqi military.

Almost all voted for Bush in 2000. Serving their civilian neoconservative superiors, they endured contempt. Donald Rumsfeld's closest aide, the undersecretary of defence for intelligence, Stephen Cambone, joked that the army's problems "could be solved by lining up 50 of its generals in the Pentagon and gunning them down", according to Michael Gordon and General Bernard Trainor in their new book on the Iraq invasion, Cobra II. In September 2001, Rumsfeld held a Pentagon meeting where he declared the "bureaucracy" - the career professionals - to be "a serious threat to the security of the United States".

The generals have been wary of engaging in public debate for fear of being misconstrued as political. But they are haunted by Vietnam and deeply influenced by HR McMaster's 1997 book, Dereliction of Duty, which argues that the joint chiefs of staff of the Vietnam era failed in their constitutional responsibility to object strenuously to misguided strategies. (McMaster is a general serving in Iraq.) As the generals have stepped forward to demand Rumsfeld's resignation, they speak in the language of McMaster's book.

Read more.

[Selatius]

1. They voted for Bush. I lost interest after that sentence.

They were in far better positions to judge both Gore and Kerry than any ordinary citizen ever could during that election, and apparently they preferred Bush's corporate agenda and war profiteering instead.

They voted to cast a cloak of darkness over this land. They got their wish.

[leveymg]

2. Sounds to me like the firing squad analogy may work the other way

Here's more:

On March 19, retired Major General Paul Eaton, who was in charge of training the Iraqi army, called Rumsfeld "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically". On April 2, retired General Anthony Zinni, former chief of US Central Command, said: "Poor military judgment has been used throughout this mission." On April 9, retired Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold wrote: "I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat - al-Qaida."

On April 13, retired Major General John Riggs and Major General Charles Swannack, former commander of the 82nd Airborne, went public. "They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda," said Riggs. Swannack emphasised that Rumsfeld bore "culpability" for the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

SNIP

"History? We don't know. We'll all be dead," Bush remarked in 2003. "We cannot escape history," said Abraham Lincoln. The living president has already sealed his reputation in history.


German SS guards were lined up against the wall and executed by the American liberators

History repeats itself.

[cliss]

3. When you think of Rumsfailed,

think of a virus, like the bubonic plague or malaria. The virus enters the host. It proceeds to take over the vital functioning of that organism. It moves into cells and starts to break them down.

The U.S. (or the Pentagon) was in some kind of weakened state, so the virus moved in and started dismantling it.