I am deeply worried about the military intervention in politics...

[originalpckelly]

there are generals and soldiers on either side of the political spectrum, and these people are becoming more involved with politics. This is ABSOLUTELY FRIGHTENING! The military is supposed to be under civilian control to prevent a military dictatorship from forming.

It doesn't matter whether they are for Democrats or against us, it is universally wrong. It is yet another way this nation is slowly becoming more of a fascist/totalitarian country. It should be noted that this is a DIRECT result of Bush being such a bad leader. If he was providing competent and strong control over the military, this shit would not be happening. If he hadn't fucked up and had instead stayed out of Iraq, this would not be happening.

[leftchick]

1. are you talking about the two generals?

they are retired. Active duty soldiers can not be active in politics.

[originalpckelly]

3. I know, that is why I am worried that this group of soldiers...

are coming forward. As much I like the fact that they are supporting our viewpoint, I am smart enough to recognize it is dangerous for America. The thing is, that they aren't the only ones. There are active duty military men who SUPPORT BUSH! This is just not a good thing.

[Shakespeare]

16. It's not about Bush, it's about what's right.

Never forget the saying about the greatest crime being when good men remain silent.

[htuttle]

2. As if military industrial contractors haven't basically been running things...

...since Eisenhower was president?

A soldier's duty is to the Constitution, first and foremost. If they feel they need to say something to uphold that oath, that's fine by me. That's a long, long way from being ruled by a 'junta' or something...

[originalpckelly]

4. If we make exceptions now, it will become the rule in the future...

we are unleashing a great force. These are the people who know how to use WEAPONS! We stand no chance of defeating them if they decide to take over America. That is why they must be kept away from politics at all costs.

It is bad that the contractors have control, but they are civilians. This is a big difference. It is bad enough we have corrupt contractors, we cannot by any means have activist active duty soldiers.

[htuttle]

6. With the revolving door between the Pentagon and the MIC contractors...

...that horse left the barn a long, long time ago -- you just don't recognize it. And of *course* they know how to "use weapons" -- that's what they're paid to do!

:eyes:

[acmavm]

8. They're the ones who understand warfare. They're the ones

who see the carnage first-hand. They're the ones who know the REAL scoop about what's happening in that hell-hole that used to be a sovereign nation. THEY know who's winning and who's losing.

God help us if the truthtellers in the military ever do decide to be silent.

[ripple]

9. I don't think it's cause for great alarm

Plenty of military folks stepped forward to denounce the government's policies over Vietnam and it didn't culminate into a coup. I think it's highly unlikely that something like that would happen today, any more than then.

[Jed Dilligan]

10. What about police officers?

What's the difference? They've been active in politics for a long time. They know how to use weapons and we have no chance of defeating them if... oops, it already happened. So what's your point?

[originalpckelly]

15. Yes, as we all know most police departments have F-16s...

and M1-A1 tanks. You betcha, that is the same exact thing.

[Jed Dilligan]

17. When I get back from the office,

I will find you pictures of some of the weapons fielded by the LAPD.

[originalpckelly]

19. WOW! They have F-16s?

COOL!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. When you move that goal post...

make sure you don't run over the strawman.

[Jed Dilligan]

34. If you're going to quibble like that,

neither does the US Army. The F-16 is a USAF weapon system.

Here are some weapons the LAPD and US Army do have in common:

Kiowa gunship



fully automatic assault rifles





armored fighting vehicle



Back to your original point: it doesn't make any sense until

a. police officers are silenced politically

b. police officers give up these weapons

or

c. it is legal for the public to have equivalent weapons.

Since I doubt you would favor any of the above, your post seems to me to be full of hot air.

[atreides1]

18. What happens

when the civilian government abuses that control, are the soldiers expected to just remain silent and watch their friends die!

I'm a former soldier, and for the longest time I have been an advocate of civilian control, but no where does it ask what do the soldiers do when they are used as cannon fodder so that a political party can fill the pockets of its supporters?

I do not believe that they have any intention of toppling the government, but since we the people have failed them, I can understand why they have taken this direction, and if needed I will stand with them and against this morally corrupt administration and any and all of its supporters.

[originalpckelly]

20. The civilians of our country should honor and protect the military...

No soldier should have to speak out, ever. It should never come to that point. Our nation has failed its soldiers when they have to assume this responsibility.

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. This is America. EVERYONE knows how to use weapons.

It wasn't the protests in the streets that ended the Vietnam war. It was the mutiny in the ranks. Every soldier who said "I won't go", and every soldier who lit out for Canada, and every soldier who refused to obey an order in the field, was an activist soldier. You don't read it in the history books, but there were riots, there were mutinies, there were desertions. When the general staff came to recognise that the troops were refusing to serve in an illegal war, THEN we declared victory and got out. My Lai reminded the troops that "I was just following orders" is NOT a defense in a war crimes trial.

THAT is the reason the military abolished the draft. They wanted to form a mercenary army that would answer to nobody but themselves. The draft let in too many people who were democraticly (small 'd') minded, who refused to stand for injustices simply because they were under orders.

If there is any danger to the nation from the military, it is not from activist troops, but from a RW fascistic officer corp. It is most pronounced in the AF -- IMO that's because they seldom see the real effects of warfare. It takes a certain coldness of spirit to drop bombs on people from 30,000 feet.

Because the govenment (meaning the military/congressional/industrial complex) is so invested in our mercenary army, our only hope for defense against it lies with activism in the ranks. Like it or not, we are already living in a military dictatorship - it is light-handed for most of us (but just try to directly confront it), but they are working to spread their power: witness the erosion of habeas corpus, the talk of overturning the posse comitatus law, the militarization of the mexican border, the creation of Homeland Security. As recently as the beginning of the war the true professionals were the majority in the officer corp, but you might notice one thing about these retired generals speaking out -- THEY ARE ALL RETIRED. How many of them retired at the end of their service, and how many were retired out because they didn't fit the mold of the new army?

You know, I think that is part of the witchhunt against gays in the military - they can't be trusted, not because they might try crawling into your bunk in the middle of the night, but because they are already one step off the fascist mainstream - they are people who, by their very nature, have a slightly different outlook, and THAT cannot be tolerated.

The military doesn't need to have tanks rolling across the WH Rose Garden to effect a coup - they can do it by seeing to the election of a president who will curtail citizens' freedoms, create a 'homeland security' force, close the borders, enrich and empower the military industrialists -- you know, that's starting to sound familiar.

[bobbie]

33. You got it, it's probably too late to worry

Good ol' Truman and Eisenhower let the CIA and armed forces run amok decades ago leading to the coup of 1963. It showed that those with real power will use it against citizens. Hell, they used it against an elected president. They won't hesitate to tiananmen any and all that get in their way.

Wish I could be more comforting.

[Selatius]

5. Well, freedom of speech is freedom of speech

If a general is retired and wants to talk frankly about, say, Bush's incompetence at war planning, there's nothing that's going to stop him. They do not have this freedom when they are currently serving, but they do have it when they leave the military.

[originalpckelly]

13. Are you not listening?

Active duty soldiers have come forward to call for an end to the war. Even though is a political message to support our side, it is a political assessment.

Active duty generals are trying to keep the war going, by offering rosy assessments to congress. (General Abizaid) Those generals military judgment is that the war should not continue. In the process of offering advice to congress they have tainted it with political pressure from the white house.

Do you see the problem? It isn't former generals, hell we had Ike and US Grant as Presidents. That isn't the issue. It is someone in the military with power using that power for political purposes.

[cui bono]

22. Sometimes it has to be done when injustices are seen or when they know

it will cause further harm to the country or the world. What was that incident where the soldier, I think he was Russian, refused to fire a torpedo? I really don't know the facts, I wasn't paying as much attention then. But I believe it would have set off a huge war if he had obeyed his orders. I know many of you know what I'm talking about...

On the flip side of your concern, I wouldn't want a military to simply do what they're told either. As it is * can declare Martial Law, take over the National Guard and public transportation and detain anyone he sees fit without having to prove they're guilty of anything. Wouldn't you want soldiers and officers who think for themselves, see how wrong that is and refuse to do it?

[BreweryYardRat]

30. You thinking of the Russian guy who averted WWIII?

The guy whose computer glitched out and displayed false images of an incoming nuclear strike? That guy didn't buy it and refused to relay the false data, which would have led to a counterstrike and the end of the civilized world.

[cui bono]

32. yep, that sounds right. I thought he had been ordered to strike.

When did that happen?

[Selatius]

24. First off, I would put soldiers in a different category than generals

When you're told to go serve 12 months and then are made to serve 21 months instead, I'm sorry, but you have a right to bitch and complain about your treatment, especially if you have lost friends in a war you don't understand anymore. When you're told to go into battle without body armor or with broken equipment and vehicles, I say you have more than a right to speak out about the shitty war. Your life might depend on it, and we may never have known how bad things in Iraq where if there were no soldiers speaking out.

Secondly, with respect to Gen. Abizaid, the fact of the matter is he serves the commander-in-chief, which is GWB. Do you honestly expect him to do anything but agree with Bush?

[Kagemusha]

25. Congress explicitly protects that right for enlisteds to bitch & complain

and shame to any who try to take that away. Shame!

[porphyrian]

7. The military is composed of American citizens.

Every American citizen has a right to be involved in our government. I don't think you're afraid of the right thing here.

[rodeodance]

11. the Gens have a big stake in the war---they do not want be LOSERS.

[CJCRANE]

12. It is happening as a reaction against dictatorship.

Civilian leadership is based on the consent of the governed.

That no longer applies as Bushco have ignored the wishes of the American people.

On edit: more to the point, Bushco have ignored every single piece of good military or intelligence advice they have been given.
That's got to hurt the military, being pushed into situations they know will fail.

[leftofthedial]

14. a faction within the military and a faction within the "national security"

establishment have basically controlled American politics since at least Ike.

They've certainly become more overt recently.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. I'm more worried about politicians starting wars for politics.

"It doesn't matter whether they are for Democrats or against us, it is universally wrong."

It is universally wrong for them not to.

[Kagemusha]

23. You're the poster boy for the "just following orders" defense.

Feel proud.

Obey civilian leaders no matter how wrong they are because what would the world come to if military people decided something was just wrong. We can't tolerate fascism, so we'll have civilians order the torture and slayings themselves, because that's the correct procedure.

Edit: For the record, rumors to the contrary, enlisted men have always been permitted to make their views known, be they political or whistleblowing about waste, fraud or other criminality within the military. Officers have always been expected to support the executive branch leadership right or wrong.

[applegrove]

27. Oh - I think someone is stirring your pot. Their are already laws on

the books to suspend rights during a crisis. So not much has changed. Canada actually used the "War Measures Act" during the Quebec Terrorist Crisis. And lost of people were locked up until they could catch all the bad guys. People were not happy rights were suspended at the time..but after the fact..well only one kidnap victim died. And one bomb victicm. Everyone is thankfull for such small number of deaths. This is about 1970.

So don't take it too much to heart. The timing of this is likely just to get you going.

[Der Blaue Engel]

29. You shout panic about a lot of things, I've noticed

You start with a seemingly logical premise based on false dichotomies, and then run with it to its most dire conclusion.

Interesting.

[BreweryYardRat]

31. It's very interesting indeed.

Hint, hint.