Pentagon Refusing to Be Drawn Into NeoCon Scripted Iran-Isreal War?

[McCamy Taylor]

Someone posted a link to this CNN story for the purpose of some Israeli bashing (or bashing of Israeli bashers, I didnt bother to check which it was). However, what struck me as important about the story is that US Military advisers are telling members of the press some very non-flattering things about Israel designed to make the American public believe that this is a war of choice, not of necessity, almost as if the Pentagon is saying "We refuse to be drawn into another war in the Mid East on top of the one that we can not win in Iraq." It is not beyond the realm of possibility. They refused to wage an air war against Iran when W. wanted one back in early 2005, choosing instead to leak the whole thing to Sy Hersch. They refused to even consider nuking Tehran to teach it not to have nuclear weapons. So, why shouldn't the US Military draw a line in the sand and refuse to send troops it does not have across that line into yet another middle Eastern battle field?

Here is the CNN link

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/06/rs.01.html

And here, before CNN has a chance to scrub their site, is the quote:

KURTZ: And joining us now ... Thomas Ricks, Pentagon reporter for "The Washington Post" and author of the new book "Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq."

Tom Ricks, you've covered a number of military conflicts, including Iraq, as I just mentioned. Is civilian casualties increasingly going to be a major media issue? In conflicts where you don't have two standing armies shooting at each other? THOMAS RICKS, REPORTER, "THE WASHINGTON POST": I think it will be. But I think civilian casualties are also part of the battlefield play for both sides here. One of the things that is going on, according to some U.S. military analysts, is that Israel purposely has left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they're being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon.

KURTZ: Hold on, you're suggesting that Israel has deliberately allowed Hezbollah to retain some of it's fire power, essentially for PR purposes, because having Israeli civilians killed helps them in the public relations war here?

RICKS: Yes, that's what military analysts have told me.

KURTZ: That's an extraordinary testament to the notion that having people on your own side killed actually works to your benefit in that nobody wants to see your own citizens killed but it works to your benefit in terms of the battle of perceptions here.

RICKS: Exactly. It helps you with the moral high ground problem, because you know your operations in Lebanon are going to be killing civilians as well."

There is another thread in which people can post whether or not they believe that any of the accusations made by US military sources are true. I am much more interested in the fact that they are telling the Pentagon reporter for the Washington Post these suspicions.
Any comments?

[leveymg]

1. People tend to forget that the Plame and OSP-AIPAC prosecutions

were started by the heads of the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

If the neocon cabal hadn't been prosecuted, who knows what the hell we might have done by now? When history is finally written, it'll come out that the real war has been between the neocons, led by Cheney and Rumsfeld, and the career officers in U.S. intel and the Pentagon.

I'd say the top neocons are about to be rolled up.

[KittyWampus]

2. Also, keep in mind Karl Rove is NOT a NeoCon

he's a ruthless political operative who wants to stay on top./

[bananarepublican]

15. self delete

[Jeroen]

3. It depends on the strategic goal of Israel

This goal is clearly to disturb the Lebanon economy and democracy. By doing so it undermines the aspiration and inspiration of the Palestinians. A regional war is not in its interests. Syria and Iran don’t want to be engaged in a war against Israel. The warmongering rhetoric of its leaders has only domestic purposes. And besides: a weak, undemocratic Lebanon is not a bad thing for Syria and Iran.

For the Israelis, the PR war is extremely important. The U.S know this. If the statements by the U.S. military annalists are intentional and calculated, they would indicate some sort of tension between the Bush administration and Israel. Perhaps the Bush administration wanted Israel to widen the conflict and Israel refused to do so (attack Syria) The Bush administration cannot afford to withdraw it’s support to Israel openly. But it can punish Israel in a subtle manner by damaging its PR war.

My guess is that Israel has decided that the Bush administration lost credibility in the ME and is military weakened by the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a sense it is powerless (for the time being). So they continue to weaken Lebanon (and Hezbollah).
Israel doesn’t have to consider U.S. interests in the region until a new president is elected. U.S. ME policy has failed and Israel is taking advantage of the current situation. And so do does Iran.

[Canuckistanian]

11. Substitiute "Likud Party" for "Israel" in your post

And you're right on.

[Jeroen]

14. Yes, you are right. Should have thought about that

[sweetheart]

4. The pentagon is just a building

I remember having lunch in the middle at the outdoor food joint after walking
through a bazillion boring corridors. Since when did a building give sovereign edicts;
since when did a building get a foreign policy.

[McCamy Taylor]

5. Same time the White House did and Congress and the Supreme Court?

That is sort of a non point you just made, in the context of this story. I realize that governmental bodies are made up of people, but the people who comprise the governmental bodies have tremendous power based upon where they work and whom they control and to whom they answer in the chain of command.

People tend to forget that the career military leaders at the Pentagon have a power that is all their own and which they control independent of the judicial, legislative and administrative branches of the government. Despite its flaws, it does tend to produce individuals who display unusual courage when it comes to protecting certain American ideals--including, in some cases, democratic principles. For instances, when the original Melons and Scaifes attempted a military coup against FDR on the grounds that his health was too poor for him to lead, the general they selected to rule the country turned them all in as traitors.

[sweetheart]

6. timocracy?

Last time i checked, there were 3 branches of government. When the pentagon became the
0th estate, i did not see where it was penned, accepting your common-lawesque argument of
existance and the pentagon's right to exist.

I don't want to know about the decisions of the pentagon, only its civilian commanders, and
the instant i hear one, i hope it is squashed like a bug. Military is action, not talk, and
why am i hearing from them or about them? It is very unbecoming for them to take any profile,
or it would be a timocracy and not a corrupt effective plutocratic democratic republic.

But hey, it worked in athens!.. ;-0

[McCamy Taylor]

9. Ummm, this is nice in theory, but when our selected Prez uses his

power as commander in chief to tell the US military to suspend elections or do some other Orwellian shit as part of one of Cheney's mad power grabs and the Justice Department under Al Gonzales backs him up and the GOP Congress fails to do its job of checks and balances, you are going to be pretty damn glad when military commanders say "Hell no! I'm not answering this call to enact martial law on (fill on the blank with US city of choice) and mow down US citizens. I'm an American, dammit! And so are my troops!" Or, look at it this way, if any of us (including Cheney) thought that the military would go along with a WH ordered martial law declaration in response to a bogus terror threat, people in America would be much more alarmed than they are now.

The only reason we did not conduct an air war against Iran in 2005 shortly after the election, when W. still had political capital to spend was because the military refused and they conducted their own pr war.

[sweetheart]

10. its gotta hurt

Being a serious honourable commander or warrior in the services is to be betrayed
by the very corporate stench one is pledged to fight. Then to defend the constitution
from domestic enemies still means someting to the honourable, and to defend the constitution
from enemies abroad does as well, and those persons have been entirely betray.

Cheney has betrayed us all and he should hang.

[McCamy Taylor]

13. Amen (except Cheney should be hung out to dry, cause Im anti death)

[Nikki Stone 1]

7. The real military has had problems with this administration from the getgo

We could make a long list of all the times in the past 6 years that the military has spoken out, either to the Bush administration or to the public (usually the retired military officers who act as the voice for those in the military who cannot.) Those active officers who told Bush the truth about the resources that would be needed got fired. Those retired generals who spoke out were called traitors and told they were putting the troops in danger.

[BeHereNow]

8. Perhpas they are negotiating their stock holdings before

sending our kids to die?

BHN

[AntiFascist]

12. This explains 9/11 and LIHOP in a nutshell....

the reason for a "catastrophic and catalyzing event --- like a new Pearl Harbor"

[bananarepublican]

16. FANTASTIC POST! This gets close to 9-11 and the War On Terra! rationale...

Interested party's should start researching "Operation Northwoods", "The Gulf of Tonkin Incident", and then progress to the "government's" conspiracy theory concerning 9-11.

With regard to the original post, the Isreali government has in effect, enabled more of its citizens to be killed - by not going after all of Hezbollah's rockets - in order to play some international PR game!!!!

After all, isn't 9-11...