This isn't good news.
THIS IS EXTREMELY OMINOUS
I’ve been writing for over a year now that the Joint Chiefs have been blocking the White House’s efforts to expand the war to Iran. No matter what you might think of Gen. Pete Pace, this really is TERRIFYING news, unless you crave a wider war in the Persian Gulf and South Asia.
Pace has been the most visible symbol of the push-back within the military against the Long War.
Some commentors reflected an unawareness that Pace had made repeated statements directly contradicting the Administration on Iran and its "Long War" approach to the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). The diary has been updated to reflect more details of Pace's independence of thought on these issues.
MORE below . . .
George W. Bush, in effect, just fired the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, USMC. This is unprecedented, as it is the first time the JCS Chair has not been reappointed.
Pace's replacement will be Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michael Mullen, if the Senate approves his nomination.
The Admiral appears to be a much more convinced true-believer than Pace. Mullen was quoted in an address earlier this month to naval personnel: http://starbulletin.com/...
"The enemy now is basically evil and fundamentally hates everything we are -- the democratic principles for which we stand ... This war is going to go on for a long time. It's a generational war."
Read that again. Mullen says he thinks we're in a Long War with Evil. Who does that sound like? Click the link above and take a look at Admiral Mullen. That man, if confirmed by the Senate, will have all of our lives in his hands. Is he the man you want to have that responsibility? You do have a say in that - let your Senator know what you think.
When Pace goes, there may be a further shake-out of the Joint Chiefs to remove the other top brass who have reportedly opposed the Surge into Iran. I am afraid that may leave it all in the laps of Congress.
Either the Senate Democrats get their act together, block this appointment, AND get on with the overdue job of Impeachment, or we should be ready to start losing more American cities.
If you liked the preventable losses of the WTC and NOLA, you're going to love the impact of the next act of malign incompetence of the Bush-Cheney Administration. If you liked the optional war in Iraq, now appearing on Central Stage, global war with Iran and Shi'a Islam.
By the way - a war with Iran still doesn't make any military sense. Least of all for the troops on the ground in Iraq, who will be facing an uprising by at least 60 percent of the Iraqi population, which is Shi'a. Maybe, just maybe, Congress understands that. Our Senators can show their understanding of this issue by denying the Admiral's confirmation.
Blocking Mullen and Impeaching Bush may be the most important things we ever do.
FYI: The term of the next Chair starts October 1.
http://209.85.165.104/...
That doesn't give us much time.
[UPDATE 2] THE PETE PACE THE PUBLIC NEVER HEARD:
On Feb. 17, 2006, Pace was asked at the National Press Club, "Should people in the U.S. military disobey orders that they believe are illegal?" Pace's response: http://www.jcs.mil/...
"It is the absolute responsibility of everybody in uniform to disobey an order that is either illegal or immoral."
That statement, and similar ones that Pace made, were never adequately reported. This was, perhaps, for Pace's protection as it was for the Bush Administration's, at which it was so clearly directed. Here are more comments, which practically nobody heard, by the head of the Joint Chiefs. Pace is clearly a great believer in the constitutional and moral imperatives that limit the violence of the military. Unlike Mullen, we do not hear Pace speaking of the GWOT in terms of a Long War between Good and Evil. Pace's conception of the Global War Against Terrorist is more akin to that of law enforcement, limited and managable by normal methods of western countries:
I am proud of what I do to protect the Constitution of the United States as a uniformed member of the armed forces, but I am very proud of what you all in the press do to protect our country. Your questions, some of which may make me feel uncomfortable today, are exactly what you should be doing, and I should be trying to answer you the best I can and I will. . .
SNIP
The long war refers to the fact that in all the terrorist campaigns that we have known about, the terrorist campaign has lasted 10, 20, 30 years, and therefore there is no reason to believe that these terrorists would have a time span in their minds of anything less.
That does not mean that we will be doing the kinds of things we're doing in Iraq for another 20 or 30 years or in Afghanistan for another 20, 30 years. It does mean that free peoples, free governments, are going to need to continue to be alert and proactive against terrorist cells.
If you would use the analogy of a police department in a city, it's not that the city itself is without crime, but that the police department itself is capable of keeping the crime level down at a level below which the society can function.
And that is what I believe will be the, quote, "end state" of the war on terror; not that all terrorists will no longer exist, but that, collectively, the community of nations will be able to keep the number of terrorist incidents down below the level at which all of our freedom-loving societies can function and provide the kinds of services that we want for our people.
American casualties in Iraq mounted, a high percentage from roadside IEDs, the Bush Administration started blaming the Iranian government for these devices. That charge became a top reason for the sort of threats we've heard today from Senator Leiberman for going to war against Iran. http://www.nytimes.com/... Beginning in early 2006, almost the only voice repeatedly cautioning against that conclusion was Gen. Pace. On that subject, Pace directly contradicted Rumsfeld, Bush Notably, one of the few media that reported this was the Voice of America (hardly a left-wing blog). Here's how VOA reported it:
Top American General Disputes US Military Claim on Iran
By Al Pessin
Canberra, Australia
12 February 2007
The top American military officer, General Peter Pace, declined Monday to endorse the conclusions of U.S. military officers in Baghdad, who told reporters on Sunday that the Iranian government is providing high-powered roadside bombs to insurgents in Iraq. General Pace made his comments during a visit to Australia, and VOA's Al Pessin reports from Canberra.
General Pace said he was not aware of the Baghdad briefing, and that he could not, from his own knowledge, repeat the assertion made there that the elite Quds brigade of Iran's Republican Guard force is providing bomb-making kits to Iraqi Shiite insurgents.
"We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se [specifically], knows about this," he said. "It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it's clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit."
PACE LED A QUIET MUTINY OF THE JOINT CHIEFS
http://www.dailykos.com/...
Reports Show Growing Military Discontent With Bush and Rumsfeld
by leveymg
Sat Mar 25, 2006
The wave of public discontent by U.S. military leaders and rank-and-file troops with Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld continues to grow.
News accounts show an emerging consensus at all levels within the American armed forces opposing the Administration's Iraq and torture policies. This comes at a time that President Bush indicated that US forces will remain in Iraq at least until the end of his own Presidency.
Discontent among American troops in Iraq bodes ill for any plans by the White House to expand the war to Iran.
:: ::
In a report of Bush's press conference Tuesday, The International Herald Tribune stated:
"At a time of mounting public uncertainty about Iraq, President George W. Bush insisted at a news conference Tuesday that the violence there had not evolved into a civil war, but he acknowledged that the war would not end during his tenure and that a decision on complete American troop withdrawal would fall to "future presidents." http://www.iht.com/...
This will surely reinforce already deep and widespread opposition within the American military to a prolonged Iraq occupation. A recent survey done by the Stars&Stripes newspaper shows that 72% of the troops on the ground in Iraq want U.S. forces withdrawn within one year. Other reports coming from sources within the armed services show that the military opposes Administration policies on several key issues, including the right of soldiers to express their opposition on political issues while in uniform:
- The Stars&Stripes on 3/24/06 and 3/17/06 published several highly critical LTTEs, including a letter asserting the right of enlisted personnel to criticize the President in his role as Commander-In-Chief. Given the deep taboo on the subject, this is simply extraordinary. Here's a sampling:
The right to speak up
I took the advice of the writer of "Contempt violates directive" (letter, March 20) and looked up the Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 to which he referred to in his argument that enlisted people could not express their views on politics. Unfortunately for him, he failed to examine his own evidence.
In Paragraph 4.1.3., Enclosure 3 of the directive, Paragraph E3.2.6. expressly states that "a member on active duty may write a letter to the editor of a newspaper expressing the members personal views on public issues or political candidates, if such action is not part of an organized letter-writing campaign or a solicitation of votes for or against a political party or partisan cause or candidate."
The second reference referred to Title 10 U.S. Code Section 888. The section states "any commissioned officer" ... not enlisted members ... "who uses contemptuous words."
Tech. Sgt. Benjamin Kratzer
Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany
###
Many facts exist to bash Bush
Re: Maj. Jeff Thornton's March 17 letter "Where are the facts?"http://www.stripes.com/.... : George W. Bush's own military records and history shows him to be unfit for the title of commander in chief. That Mr. Bush "allowed himself" to be placed in front of many others in line for a slot in a Texas Air National Guard unit should have been enough to keep him out of the White House. Let's not concern ourselves with the fact that he did not complete his own military obligation. By right, he should have been placed on active duty after missing the number of meetings he missed.
But, for something a little more recent: On Jan. 14, 2003, I heard Mr. Bush say on national television that he had not made up his mind about invading Iraq. We all know now that that statement was a lie and many of us knew it then. I'll always remember that date, because the next day my son left home to begin basic training.
Mr. Bush has given many different reasons as to why he invaded Iraq. He will not acknowledge he went into Afghanistan with too few troops, boots on the ground. He is responsible for those of us not supporting the decision to go into Iraq being labeled "unpatriotic." He was directly responsible for the display of the banner reading "Mission Accomplished" on the ship. Mr. Bush was directly responsible for sending too few troops into Iraq and without the equipment needed to fight the war.
More recently Mr. Bush lied about not knowing that the damage from Hurricane Katrina would be as bad as it was. Now what else would Maj. Thornton and those who think like he does about their beloved George W. Bush want to know? I served in the military during five different administrations and never was I ashamed to call any of our presidents during that time my commander in chief. I'm glad I departed the military before George W. Bush took office.
Sgt. 1st Class Bobby McGill (retired)
Valrico, Fla.
See, http://www.democraticunderground.com/... http://www.stripes.com/...
###
TOP BRASS CONTRADICTING BUSH AND RUMSFELD'S PRONOUNCEMENTS
- Reuters reported on 3/14/06 that Congressional testimony of Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, directly contradicted statements made Monday by Bush and Rumsfeld alledging Iranian responsibility for Iraq explosive devices. The President and Defense Secretary had said that the most powerful IEDs were being manufactured in Iran, but Pace stated that information was not verified. http://go.reuters.com/...
- An AP story on 11/30/2005 reported that General Pace contradicted Rumsfeld during a press conference. The two spoke together regarding prisoner abuse by Iraqi troops. In ane xchange before reporters, they differed regarding the duty of US personnel to intervene and stop prisoner abuse. http://www.dailykos.com/... ;
By WILLIAM C. MANN
The Associated Press
Wednesday, November 30, 2005; 3:19 AM
WASHINGTON -- The nation's top military man, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, said American troops in Iraq have a duty to intercede and stop abuse of prisoners by Iraqi security personnel.
When Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld contradicted Pace, the general stood firm.
Rumsfeld told the general he believed Pace meant to say the U.S. soldiers had to report the abuse, not stop it.
Pace stuck to his original statement.
"If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it," Pace told his civilian boss.
###
- Stars&Stripes on 3/1/06 published a poll of troops on the ground in Iraq show 72% favor a U.S. pullout within one year. http://www.estripes.com/...
###
- The Joint Chiefs of Staff awarded a prize to an essay criticizing abuse of prisoners at GITMO and deviations from Geneva Conventions under current policy. Joint Forces Quarterly, Issue 39, Spring, 2006. http://www.ndu.edu/... ; http://www.dailykos.com/...
- Founding member of the Delta Force says Bush may have started WWIII. Raw Story, 3/24/06. See, http://www.rawstory.com/... ;http://www.democraticunderground.com/....
A founding member of the elite counter-terrorist unit, Delta Force, suggested that President Bush's invasion of Iraq may have started World War III, according to an interview set for Saturday's Los Angeles Daily News."
###
The above reports buttress the argument that has been made that the Pentagon brass are ill-disposed to any preemptive military strike against Iran, and have been actively resisting pressure for such moves from civilian Defense officials and neocons in the Administration. See, http://www.dailykos.com/...
The apparent conflict between the Administration and the uniformed military is extraordinary, rising to levels unseen since since the Vietnam War. It may well be unprecedented that the Pentagon is publicly pushing back hard against a conflict desired by the White House. This is a reversal of historical proportions for the Bush Administration.