View Story | 135 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
In my gut I agree with you though, if they stood up together, they might be powerful enough to make the White House deal with reality. Just wanted to point out that the moral choice they are making is probably a little more nuanced than choosing to serve their egos and money over the good of the country.
"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime." -- Adlai E. Stevenson
by eebee on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:51:50 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
"Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist." - Kenneth Boulding, economist
by randym77 on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 08:43:42 PM PDT
Powell is an old fashioned synchophant. He could have turned on Bush before the election, but didn't so kiss those "Powell is secretly one of us" theories out the window. He's openly one of them.
I'm sure he doesnt like some things, but obviously he has no issue with starting a war over lies to make sure the US has the energy it needs in the future in the form of crude oil.
dont visit my blog!
by skallas on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 02:27:54 AM PDT
But I still think Powell stayed at State when Rummy and the neocons had effectively cut him out of the administration because he hoped to be a voice of moderation. Be interesting to see if he stays on. People are saying that it's a bad time for him to resign, because Yasser Arafat's death has created an opening for a Mideast peace deal.
by randym77 on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 04:06:24 AM PDT
People believed him in a way they never believed President Bush, and he abused that believe to mislead us into a war.
He must have no more political future in the United States.
by Aguas de Marco on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 06:18:55 AM PDT
"Irritable Powell Syndrome"
by gattogrosso on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 09:51:45 AM PDT
Lets not be this naive.
Its time to face facts that the elitist foreign policy planners along with the military were chomping at the bit to take out Saddam and secure oil reserves for the US. Everyone's hands are soaked in blood. If believing in these "quiet angels" of the military helps you sleep better at night then so be it, but I'd like to see a truckload of proof first.
by skallas on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 02:30:39 AM PDT
I was just trying to point out a different way of looking at it to consider. My only "proof" that this is happening is comes from Sy Hersh's book, Chain of Command. He describes, through Pentagon and other sources, an absolute zeal and determination on the part of Rumsfeld and his office to do things their way, fully supported by the President. The military leaders seemed basically to be completely taken aback and caught off guard by the Administration's attitude, which source after source in the book describe as one that has never existed in the White House before... a complete disrespect for the existing military community and their methods. The response of the military commanders that he presents includes some of what I am talking about, and also includes downright failure. He specifically describes the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff office as objecting to the plans, but not forcefully enough. And he describes how in the Joint Staff office, over the first years of the administration, Rumsfeld replaced critics with yes-men and zealots in the cause.
He also describes various people around the edges of the invasion planning and implementation as trying, in different ways, to mitigate the damage. I'm not saying they have been effective, and I'm not arguing that obstruction is the right or only way for the military to deal with what is happening. All I'm saying is that these people are just that, people, and most of them are trying to do as best they can within the framework that they know. It's not an excuse, it's an explanation....
I don't know any of the high-level military people currently at the Pentagon or in command positions. But I do know high-level military people who used to be at the Pentagon, and I know something about the culture and the kinds of things that tend to concern the these folks.
They are, by and large, not hawks eager to rush into full-scale wars. They believe the military should be lavishly funded, equipped and prepared to go to war, and they are by no stretch of the imagination pacifists. They believe in the use of force where warranted, but they absolutely hate the idea of a half-assed military operation, which is what Iraq, and Afghanistan, for that matter, have been. My guess is the question of going to Iraq at all was not their biggest beef with the administration, their beef is with the operation and with Rumsfeld, who has micromanaged the operations according to pie-in-the-sky military and political theories that have not (surprise, surprise) worked.
The thing is, I basically agree with you. The military commanders have failed, and continue to fail today. I just think these are human failings, not demonic ones.
by eebee on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 07:26:43 AM PDT
I know plenty of senior leaders in the Army who are pissed about Iraq. But, if you speak out, you get canned and replaced by a true believer.
by LiberalRakkasan on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 07:48:53 AM PDT
So why aren't they standing up together? That tells me they're nothing but a bunch of weak, indefensible, moral cowards.
How can silence be excusable when every day dozens of American service people...
I'm so disgusted I can't finish the sentence.
God bless our tinfoil hearts.
by aitchdee on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 06:42:49 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 135 comments