Sunday, February 25, 2007

A General Revolt

posted by Bill Arnett @ 12:46 PM Permalink


I have long felt that everything that has or is being done to America by the bush/cheney maladministration functions to serve one purpose: Solidify and increase presidential power, conquer the Middle East for its oil, expand American hegemony, and the imperial desires of bush and the Republicans to subvert our constitution, eliminate civil rights, and to ultimately declare martial law. The 109th Congress slipped into a defense budget bill provisions making it easier for bush to declare martial law, clearing the way to cancel the '08 elections under the premise of "continuity of command in our existential Global War on Terror", the perfect construct of evil that permits the claim of being "the wartime president." See "Making Martial Law Easier" from the NYT where they write:
A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night. So it was with a provision quietly tucked into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration’s behest that makes it easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law.

I urge every citizen to read this article and contemplate this: bush does nothing by "accident", and that when the Republic party secretly adds provisions like this into law, they intended to give bush the power to do just that, declare martial law. I was in the Philippines when Marcos declared martial law in '72; it is not a pretty sight and makes canceling elections easy.

I do still, however, have faith that not all the military has been corrupted by bush, nor all its leaders cowed by a president that deep-sixes any flag officer who does not agree with him, making it impossible to speak out while on active duty leading to the resignation of many of our finest officers.

My faith in this seems to be ratified by this article in TimesOnline in the United Kingdom. Some excerpts:
SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.

"“All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion.…"

The enormity of what is being said here cuts like a knife: bush has broken our military and reduced it to a tissue-thin, paper tiger of a fighting force and American now lacks the military capacity to rout Iran, the inability to "take Iran on in any meaningful fashion indicates their belief that we could not win such a confrontation, and that such an attack on Iran could prove devastating to American forces and American interests worldwide.

After all, true leaders do not take an army into a fight it cannot win. Four or five flag officers resigning may not seem like much, but that would represent well over 100-150-years of combined experience; men educated, developed, and that worked up through the ranks to the top. Strategic and tactical warfare experts the services can ill-afford to lose.

The article continues:
But General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said recently there was “zero chance” of a war with Iran. He played down claims by US intelligence that the Iranian government was responsible for supplying insurgents in Iraq, forcing Bush on the defensive.

Pace’s view was backed up by British intelligence officials who said the extent of the Iranian government’s involvement in activities inside Iraq by a small number of Revolutionary Guards was “far from clear”.

Hillary Mann, the National Security Council’s main Iran expert until 2004, said Pace’s repudiation of the administration’s claims was a sign of grave discontent at the top.

“He is a very serious and a very loyal soldier,” she said. “It is extraordinary for him to have made these comments publicly, and it suggests there are serious problems between the White House, the National Security Council and the Pentagon.”

The thrust of my argument here is that if our generals and admirals are ignored and shoved aside, as when we attacked Iraq without a sufficiency of troops, adequate body armor, and properly armored vehicles, etc, and would go so far as to resign, what chance is there they they would follow an illegal order for the military to effectuate martial law in America, actually take up arms against their fellow citizens, families, and friends, make wholesale arrests and confinements without habeas corpus, and shoot-to-kill protesters on the extra-judicial orders of a rogue president?

I have to believe this, I refuse to not believe in the fidelity of American military men and women, and I pray that should bush give such an order for martial law that he would not only be disobeyed, but arrested, confined, and brought before Congress for impeachment.

The future well-being and freedom of this great nation is at stake, and the stakes could not be any higher.

4 Comments:

At 5:40 PM, Blogger oscar wilde said...

At the risk of a circle jerk, good post Bill.

Army may be busted, what does that leave!

Says he using! not?

 
At 7:09 PM, Blogger Himself said...

Interesting Bill, the end game thing. I asked that question months ago in a TL comment, but I didn't come across well in making my point, junior had just pulled another one of his many stunts and it was all too apparent, to me anyway, that there was no reason or benefit for it other than long term planning.

But then all his attacks on, and erosion of the constitution have always had me puzzled, all that used to go through my mind was, but why are you doing this when the next prez could well be a Dem, and the one common denominator that was always there was, the exact marshal law scenario you describe above.

And another point I made at the time was, if he lobs a nuke or two at the Iranians or even from the result a conventional attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, if there is sufficient nuclear fallout to halt oil exports to China they are going to be pissed, sorely pissed.

 
At 7:14 PM, Blogger Himself said...

For anybody who may be confused himself and oscar wilde are the same person, all a case of remembering to switch IDs, or in this case forgetting to.

 
At 12:02 PM, Anonymous Bill Arnett said...

If nukes were used in Iran I firmly believe that the Chinese would first cut-off our funding, start a run on the dollar that would wipe out our economy, and during the mass confusion and shock of a dollar being worth a dime, join forces with Russia (Putin has already warned us), and initiate a preemptive attack on America from subs parked off our coast so we would be hit within minutes.

The world is not, IMO, going to sit still and watch America conquer and dominate the world. Especially our bankers, the Communist Chinese, who probably have a date certain circled on a calendar somewhere to mark the day they take over the United States.

You Brits certainly know what genius the Chinese have with long term planning – look at Hong Kong, leased to you for 99-years – they got the lease money and the finest deep water port in the world back after you Brits built it. Smart planning, and America can't budget for more than FIVE years at a time.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home