JFK Episode Suggests Obama's Iraq Plan at Risk

[Matilda]

"The decision by President-elect Barack Obama to keep Robert M. Gates on as defence secretary has touched off a debate over whether Obama can pursue his commitment to rapid withdrawal from Iraq even though Gates has defended George W. Bush's surge policy and opposed Obama's 16-month timetable for withdrawal."

(snip)

"But the one historical precedent of a president seeking to get an unwilling military to go along with a presidential troop withdrawal plan suggests that Obama will be unable to implement his plan for Iraq without the defence secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff fully on board.

That is the lesson of President John F. Kennedy's effort in 1962 and 1963 to get the U.S. military commanders in Vietnam to adopt a plan for withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Vietnam by the end of 1965 -- the only other historical case of a president who tried to pursue a timetable for rapid withdrawal of combat troops from a war against the wishes of field commanders."

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/11/28-3


Remembering Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex
(and we have ample evidence that he was right on the button on that one),
this article leads to two questions:

1. What did the military know about the Kennedy assassinations (both of
them), and when did they know it?

2. Can it happen again?

[BeFree]

1. So

One could wonder if the MIC told Obama in no uncertain terms that he would not be able to kill the Iraqi war cash cow?

But Obama threw them a bone by claiming all along that the Afghan cash cow would live?

Face it, Obama is in a pickle. The MIC could have had JFK done in...

Well, we all need a target for our frustrations and the MIC/DoD should be it. It actually makes a damn good target, eh?

[Matilda]

2. And it's sad but true that war makes some people very rich.

Morality counts for nothing when profits are at stake ...

[BeFree]

4. Morality

That word in your post made me think of a new name for the DoD:

The Department of Mortality.

There's big money in killing folks.

[defendandprotect]

10. See: Brig. General Snedley Darlington Butler "War Is A Racket--!" ...

Interesting man --!!!

[Loudmxr]

3. I don't think so. For three reasons

I have noticed for the past few years the reticence of the military to follow our fearless leader. I have maintained that our last line in the defense of democracy, with an administration out of control and a spineless Congress unwilling to rein it in, has been the military. Remember when Bush went overseas and complained of internal conspiracies to undermine his foreign policies? That confirmed my suspicions that the Commander did not have a loyal force to command.

Obama has three things in his favor as CIC.

1. The loyalty of the active service soldier. With their high contribution level they already voted with their money.

2. His commitment to rebuild a military that has been stressed to the point of being ineffective and embarrassing.

3. Defense jobs are American jobs.

Slam dunk.:fistbump:

[BeFree]

5. Yeah

1. The loyalty of the soldier is headed more toward more peace less killing, For now. That could easily change.

2. Some generals - those with some morality - are worried about how the foot soldiers are wearing out.

3. While most defense jobs are American, a whole bunch of dollars fill foreign coffers, so that's added pressure to keep the DoD growing.

There is gonna be tremendous pressure on Obama to leave things pretty much alone. Then if we have another 9-11 type attack, all limits to the DoD budget will evaporate. No slam dunk, sadly.

[defendandprotect]

11. No one in Military succeeded in stopping Bush -- many tried ....

1. The loyalty of the active service soldier. With their high contribution level they already voted with their money.

So did IKE and the Pentagon/CIA etal betrayed him --



2. His commitment to rebuild a military that has been stressed to the point of being ineffective and embarrassing.

We should be concerned with restoring health and well-being of our troops --

Depleted Uranium ...!!! And Lawd knows what other poisons --!!

HOWEVER, when a military is usable it generally gets used ...

Like weapons -- they make them and itch to try them out -- use them.



3. Defense jobs are American jobs.

Are you sure --?


Slam dunk.

Well, I have my doubts.

[Captain Hilts]

6. No. This article is drawing conclusions that evidence does not support. nt

[defendandprotect]

7. IKE was also betrayed by MIIC . . . .

IKE ordered halt in U-2 flights for months preceding Paris Peace talks --

They sent Gary Powers out anyway under suspicious circumstances in plane --

ID that shouldn't have been there, etc --

Overall IKE's agenda was toward peace -- but he was betrayed.

Fletcher Prouty's books are a good source on this --




PS: And that's Military Industrial INTELLIGENCE Complex --

In the speech warning us he had put in "intelligence" and they

took it out --

IKE put it back on and they took it out again ---!!!

[Matilda]

8. That's interesting about the word "Intelligence".

I didn't know that.

I take it he was referring to bodies such as the CIA and FBI?

[defendandprotect]

9. Yes....

But, you know, I think most of them have intelligence units --

Like even Air Force--!!!

It's $$ and competition, status ...???

Ike was certainly betrayed by Joint Chiefs --

Now what would make them think they could get away with that---???

Must have been something---???


Fletcher Prouty wrote a few books --
probably at your library.

[Thothmes]

12. It was Kennedy that bumped up the troop strength in Vietnam

from 300 in 1960 to 16,000 by Nov. 1963. Last time I checked, the President does not have "to get U.S. military commanders in Vietnam to adopt a plan for withdrawl." He was the C-in-C. He has the contitutional authority to order it to happen, if that is what he really believes to be done. Since he did not order it be done, I suspect that he was not to serious about withdrawl, at least before the 64 elections.

[WilliamPitt]

13. Gates was implementing and defending Bush/Cheney's policies

like the subordinate he is. I'm willing to wait and see if he will likewise implement the policies of the Obama administration, like the subordinate he is.

Cabinet members and department heads tend to set and implement their own personal policy initiatives when the upper management/command authorities are weak, disorganized and/or disinterested. If Obama sets a clear agenda, issues clear orders, and rides herd over his people to make sure they do as instructed, there's a better than even chance we'll see Gates and the others actually *gasp* implementing Obama administration policies.

Waving the bloody shirt of the Kennedy assassination is way over the top at this juncture, imho. These guys are nothing like Dulles, McCone or LeMay, and CIA is a shitshow shadow of its former self. Are they dangerous? Of course. Is the situation as insane as you paint it to be? We'll see, but once again, I'd be willing to lay money on Gates doing as he's told, provided Obama runs a stout ship.

My 2 cents. Cheers.