The Beginnings Of A Revolution? Or Something Worse?

[unhappycamper]

In ole Doug's day, firing generals was rare. Obama is making a habit of it.


Matt Gurney: Obama’s war with the generals
Matt Gurney October 8, 2010 – 2:26 pm

After his disastrous and completely ill-advised comments to Rolling Stone magazine, General Stanley McChrystal had to go. McChrystal was a competent, aggressive commander, close to his men and refreshingly free of the politically correct banalities that even some military men suffer from. But despite his highly regarded personal reputation and many battlefield successes, it was clear he went too far when he spoke ill of many high-ranked U.S. and allied politicians. Sacking him was the right call.

Many commented at the time that this was not unprecedented, but was extremely rare. Generals don’t get fired lightly. Many correctly pointed back through history to president Harry Truman’s legendary sacking of General Douglas MacArthur in 1951. It had been that long since it had happened, at least in the U.S. And, military watchers assumed, it would be perhaps that long again before this extremely rare event came up again. But we were wrong. It’s happening again, already.

~snip~

Okay, so … Two generals, one a four-star theatre commander and the other the highest security official in the administration, have been sacked in a few short months, both for criticizing the President’s leadership to reporters.

We could deem this an aberation. Get enough statsticians together and they can probably quote the odds of such a thing down to the tenth decimal place. But, recall for a moment that in almost 250 years of American history, there has never been a coup or even an attempted coup. The U.S. military absolutely worships the concept of the citizen soldier and the subservience of the armed forces to the will of the people’s elected representatives. In other words, they take their chains of command and constitutional obligations incredibly seriously.

And yet two generals feel the need to criticize the Commander in Chief in public in a short time frame? Yes, it could be coincidence, but the smart betting man has to wonder — what the hell is going on inside the administration? Just how hot are temperatures running? Who’s getting pushed and who’s pushing back?



unhappycamper comment: I have NO idea why the link above does not work. The link in watchingamerica.com points to: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/08/matt-gurney-obamas-war-with-the-generals/

If you want to read the original article, go to http://watchingamerica.com/News/ and select 'Obama's War With The Generals'.



In a second article, we see that all is not well in the O corps:



Military Officers Chafe for Bigger Role in Policy Decisions
David Wood
Chief Military Correspondent
4 days ago

The military officer corps is rumbling with dissatisfaction and dissent, and there are suggestions from some that if officers disagree with policy decisions by Congress and the White House, they should vigorously resist.

Officers have a moral responsibility, some argue, to sway a policy debate by going public with their objections or leaking information to the media, and even to sabotage policy decisions by deliberate foot-dragging.

~snip~


An anonymous post on small Wars Journal puts it this way: "The Constitution does, in fact, delineate who gives the orders, who follows them, and most importantly who interprets the first two. Here's a hint: it ain't Lance Cpl. Coolie, Lt. Smartypants, Col. Imincharge, or even Gen. Iwanttomakepolicy.''

Still, there is no question that many in the officer corps are smoldering. "Reading letters to the editor confirms that Colonel Milburn's essay resonates with more than a few military professionals,'' writes David H. Gurney, the former editor of Joint Forces Quarterly, who selected Milburn's essay for publication last month. "His candid essay,'' says Gurney, is "too important to ignore.''

In fact, Yingling writes, Milburn should be thanked for making his "regrettable'' views public. "Many others who apparently share his views lack his candor,'' Yingling writes. After all, they are "made of the same genetic material as the centurions who followed Caesar across the Rubicon'' to wage war against Rome's civil authorities. "Anonymous military officers' bitter condemnations of civil authorities are now far too common features of public discourse,'' Yingling continues. "These are the officers we should truly fear -- those who skulk sullenly in corners with like-minded victims of alleged civilian malfeasance, drawing their wages while condemning the society that pays them.''



And lastly we see Gen. Petraeus in action:


Petraeus's New Afghan War Ploy
By Ivan Eland
October 5, 2010

Although David Petraeus, the top American commander in Afghanistan, recently peddled the notion that senior Taliban chieftains had made contact with senior Afghan government officials about the possibility of starting reconciliation talks, such talk of peace in our time is likely to be hype.

By publicizing such contacts, Petraeus is cleverly implying, but not saying, that the Taliban are running scared, because the long-delayed U.S. assault on Kandahar, the original hometown of the Taliban, and surrounding areas is putting pressure on the Islamists.

Petraeus also opined that negotiation with insurgents is how these dirty little guerrilla wars usually end, citing the United Kingdom’s experience in Northern Ireland and his own “success” in Iraq.

~snip~

If the Taliban become a movement for national liberation from the foreign invader, the already low chances of U.S. “victory” will plummet even further. Historically, the strongest advantage guerrilla movements can garner is by establishing themselves as fighters for national liberation.

Thus, make no mistake, Petraeus’s implication that the Taliban are on the ropes should be taken for what it is — either unrealistic fantasy or deliberate deception.

[CJCRANE]

1. How many generals resigned during the Bush era?

I seem to remember quite a few or at least there were several ex-generals who were critical of the administration's policies.

[SpiralHawk]

2. xCommander AWOL & Five Deferments Cheney PURGED the Pentagon

The Republicon Chickenhawk Command ELIMINATED most eveyone of high rank who was not a TRUE BELIEVER & who would not go along with the RepubliCorporate Profit & Torture Values.

Those who were not purged by the Chickenhawk Command are the whiney RepubliClowns who are now talking treason against the United States of America.

[w8liftinglady]

3. this is the military continuing to speak out.They have for years..

...to deaf ears.
Iraq Whistleblowers Vilified, Demoted
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/25/national/main3203792.shtml

Oh! What a Lucrative War
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2005/04/shnayerson200504

THE GENERALS’ REVOLT AND
CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA508321

Unceremonious end to Army career
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latest-news/unceremonious-end-to-army-career

[Bitwit1234]

5. But does any body remember the number of "commanders"

Bush fired, just because they wouldn't do the war his way.

[rug]

4. Good. They've been feeding like scavengers off this terror for ten years.

[Motown_Johnny]

6. Oh Noes.. warmongers criticizing the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and being fired for it

whatever shall we do?!?!?