Complete and Total Meltdown (DoD and Military)

[ProSense]

Jon Soltz

Complete and Total Meltdown

Posted August 30, 2007 | 03:03 PM (EST)

<...>

So it hurts me to see three stories come out today, in quick succession, that weave together a picture of my military and Defense Department in a complete meltdown because of this president's failed policy in Iraq.

<...>

Facts matter. They especially matter to those with some sense of responsibility at the Pentagon and in the military. That became abundantly clear when McClatchy News reported that the military won't make a single recommendation to the president on what course to pursue in Iraq. The story, detailed by my friend and VoteVets.org Vice Chairman Brandon Friedman here, has two very key quotes:

Military analysts called the move unusual for an institution that ordinarily does not air its differences in public, especially while its troops are deployed in combat.
Jeffrey White, a military analyst for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy...said it suggests that the military commanders want to be able to distance themselves from Iraq strategy by making it clear that whatever course is followed is the president's decision, not what commanders agreed on.

In short, those on the ground aren't seeing progress, and don't want to suggest a policy that would be based on the premise that progress is being made. They're not seeing progress with their eyes, and they don't see it in the statistics or facts.

The result is a Department of Defense and military that is going to speak with multiple voices. If you're a soldier on the ground, that's not what you want to hear.

And finally, yesterday the Washington Post reported that the president was going to request another $50 billion for efforts in Iraq. Today, his own Defense Secretary Robert Gates said to FOX News, via his spokesman, "That's news to me."

The president, in losing control of the war in Iraq and clinging to what he wants to see, and not the reality, now has nearly a full-scale revolt in his own military that just isn't willing to go along for the ride anymore. The GAO surely interviewed a number of people on the ground for their report and got messages that didn't support the administration. The military can't come to an agreement on what to tell the president other than that this is his problem now. And the Secretary of Defense, who has strayed from the White House message a number of times, learns of administration war funding proposals from the Washington Post.

more

[tabasco]

1. The military, especially the Army, is distancing itself from Bush.

This is the best news I've heard for years. It was only as matter of time before the military revolted on the criminal cabal that has been using them like toys.

[Fovea]

3. Remember what happened the last time

a fascist's military revolted against his insane policies?

It didn't quite work, but it was really loud.

[KansDem]

15. Seems only fair...Bush distanced himself from the military back in '72-'73

AWOL Bush

[chill_wind]

17. Right on!! But the Bush Boot-licking media wouldn't examine the truth. Imagine history if they had

They had the power to expose and destroy that weasel and change the course of world history. They played dead.

[stillcool]

2. K & R..

and hope for more. Is the tide changing?

[Captain Hilts]

4. The military never supported this war and the Sept doc is too political to comment on. nt

[TomInTib]

5. Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Feith.

Appointees for the ages.

I would bet that some hardcore Top Brass are secretly talking coup.

Things must be absolutely awful for this laundry to be airing.

KnR

[The Blue Flower]

6. Military revolt

Let's hope it happens before we attack Iran.

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

8. Right on... n/t

[frogcycle]

9. that would be no coincidence

"we" cannot attack without orders going through the chain of command. Refusing those orders is probably what will trigger the revolt. As much as they'd like to stand up now, a distinct, overt event to trigger it will give them cover.

Personally, I bet they have backchannel communications with congress, and know that they have support.

Senator Warner comes to mind.

[AnneD]

18. Don't forget....

Congresman Murtha in the house.

[frogcycle]

19. and Jim Webb

[cui bono]

22. Yep. But they would need Republican support lest it gets spinned into the Dems

staging a military coup.

[frogcycle]

23. which is why I only mentioned Warner n/t

[pocoloco]

7. Well Hell, lets regroup and go get Iran!!

Gotta forget Iraq!!

[frogcycle]

10. our ADD pres

don't finish anything; go start something else...

[formercia]

11. Welcome to Baghdadograd

Our fearless and illustrious leader is in his doomsday bunker communing with his astrologer and giving the generals on the Eastern Front their latest change of orders.

[Canuckistanian]

12. Gates says the $50b is news to him??

OK, now we know exactly what that money is to be used for - and it ain't the troops.

[w8liftinglady]

13. what are the implications of Gates being out of the loop?

[Canuckistanian]

14. Astounding

Can you imagine Rumsfeld 'not knowing about $50 billion'?

I think a few questions should be asked BEFORE that check gets signed.

[w8liftinglady]

16. I agree-I'm curious about what has gone on behind closed doors

Gates seems a little different than Bush's other cronies.

[frogcycle]

21. Gates is not in the in crowd

I think cheney is the only one who is now. He is running his criminal enterprise and telling bush what to say. bush is cheney's tony snow.

[frogcycle]

20. damned right

cheney inc is not satisfied yet. they are turning the thumbscrews