Jump to content

Grab the tinfoil hat, bruthas & sistas!


scrambler
 Share

Recommended Posts

American Military Coup of 2012--from IrishEyes

 

excerpt:

 

SALON -- There is a remarkable sentiment coursing through the American military today.¹

 

Support our Troops. Impeach Rumsfeld.

 

In 1992, General Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, awarded the prize for the "best strategy essay" at the National Defense University to Lt Col Charles Dunlap for " The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012 ." His cautionary tale imagined an incapable civilian governent creating a vacuum that drew a competent military into a coup disastrous for democracy.

 

The military, of course, is bound to uphold the constitution. But Dunlap wrote, "The catastrophe that occurred on our watch took place because we failed to speak out against policies we knew were wrong. It's too late for me to do any more. But it's not for you."

 

The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012 is today circulating among top US military strategists.

------------------------------------------------------------

¹The Army Times editorialises about failures at the top of military leadership.

Sidney Blumenthal -- "America's military coup" in The Guardian Commentary & Analysis, May 24, 2004

Charles Dunlap -- "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012"

x_ref264

 

The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012--http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/1992/dunlap.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

And yeah, while we're on this theme...

 

Gen. Anthony Zinni, USMC (Ret.) Remarks at CDI Board of Directors Dinner, May 12, 2004--Center for Defense Information website

 

choice excerpts from source cited above:

 

"And what I thought I would do tonight is go through the ten crucial mistakes to this point that we've made. Because I think it helps frame what, in fact, has happened over time ... and is going to be the first part of that history. And I will conclude with maybe some thoughts on the way ahead, at least from my point of view."

 

"I think the first mistake that was made was misjudging the success of containment. I heard the president say, not too long ago, I believe it was with the interview with Tim Russert that ... I'm not sure ... but at some point I heard him say that "containment did not work." That's not true." --snip--

 

"So to say containment didn't work, I think is not only wrong from the experiences we had then, but the proof is in the pudding, in what kind of military our troops faced when we went in there. It disintegrated in front of us. It didn't have the capabilities, that were pumped up, that were supposedly possessed by this military. And I think that will be the first mistake that will be recorded in history, the belief that containment as a policy doesn't work. It certainly worked against the Soviet Union, has worked with North Korea and others. It's not a pleasant thing to have to administer, it requires troops full-time, there are moments when there ... there are periods of violence, but containment is a lot cheaper than the alternative, as we're finding out now. So I think that will be mistake number one: discounting the effectiveness of the containment." --snip--

 

"The third mistake, I think was one we repeated from Vietnam, we had to create a false rationale for going in to get public support. The books were cooked, in my mind. The intelligence was not there. I testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee one month before the war, and Senator Lugar asked me: "General Zinni, do you feel the threat from Saddam Hussein is imminent?" I said: "No, not at all. It was not an imminent threat. Not even close. Not grave, gathering, imminent, serious, severe, mildly upsetting, none of those."

 

I predicted that the fighting would be over, the organized resistance in three weeks. To Tommy Franks' credit, he did it in 19 days. He beat my prediction. He did a magnificent job, as did our troops. But the rationale that we faced an imminent threat, or a serious threat, was ridiculous. Now, wherever history lays that, whether the intelligence was flawed or it was exaggerated, remains to be seen. I have my own opinions."

 

As if that weren't enough: Army, CIA want torture truths exposed--United Press International website

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, one more... WHY THE TROOPS DON'T TRUST RUMMY --New York Post Online

 

excerpts:

 

"Should Rumsfeld resign over the prisoner abuse by rogue MPs? No. He should resign for the good of our military and our country. Those twisted photos are only one symptom of how badly the Rumsfeld era has derailed our military. "

 

"Rumsfeld has maintained a positive image with much of America because he controls information fanatically and tolerates no deviation from the party line. Differing opinions are punished in today's Pentagon - and every field general who has spoken plainly of the deficiencies of either the non-plan for the occupation of Iraq, the lack of sufficient troops (in Iraq or overall) or any aspect of Rumsfeld's "transformation" plan has seen his career ended."

 

"It isn't treason to tell the truth in wartime. But it verges on treason to lie. And Rumsfeld lies."

 

"Our military needs vigorous, continual internal debate. Contrary to popular myth, our officer corps has a long tradition of dissenting opinions. And the grave new world in which we find ourselves is not susceptible to party-line solutions."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I disagree with those who think Rumsfeld should resign, I found the 'coup of 2012' piece facinating albeit far-fetched.

 

While some find Civil War reading facinating, I find the story of events leading up to that terrible chapter in our nation's history even more riveting....a snowball effect of events that 'just got out of control', yet were probably not avoidable. The piece you posted leaves me with that same feeling of, "if only..."

 

I retain my faith in our military's officer corps and do believe they would act responsibly during a constitutional crisis. Frankly, I would prefer temporary military rule to an "elected" communist/Marxist government (that would likely suspend future elections anyway!). The Red Scare of the 1920's/30's demonstrates that this scenario is not a complete impossibility.

Edited by Fairweather
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'tinhat' title was purely a joke.

 

I just wanted to point out the disconnect between our military leadership and the current administration, despite the assertions of some on this site who characterize this administration as strictly pro-military.

 

I also see (and have seen) a disconnect between the State Department led by Colin Powell and that of the rest of the Bush administration with regard to the Iraqi situation.

 

 

The State Department's War with the White House--Newsmax.com

Powell Distances Himself from President--Newsmax.com

Powell says Bush was 'informed' of Red Cross concerns--Baltimoresun.com

 

key excerpts:

 

With President Bush’s approval rating hitting record lows and worries about the U.S. occupation of Iraq growing, Secretary of State Colin Powell has been carefully distancing himself from the administration.

 

The decision by Powell to make comments that cast the administration in a poor light could not come at a worse time for the president.

 

Lost in the hubbub over the abrupt camera change during his appearance on "Meet the Press" Sunday was Secretary Powell’s striking statement about the WMD controversy in the run-up to the Iraq war.

 

Powell told Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" that he had cited intelligence that was provided to the CIA and which he now believes had been “deliberately” falsified in an effort to win public approval for the war.

 

Referring to his Feb. 5, 2003 appearance before the U.N.’s Security Council, when he argued that Iraq had or was close to developing WMD, including biological weapons, Powell told Russert the information he offered was not only wrong, but that in some cases the intelligence cited by the administration had been purposefully misleading.

 

"It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading," Powell said. "And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it."

 

The statement marks a major turning point for the administration, which has admitted intelligence was inaccurate, but never that it had “deliberately” offered false intelligence or that such intelligence may have been willfully manipulated.

 

On Monday, the New York Times’ lead story on Powell’s comments began, “Secretary of State Colin Powell has said for the first time that he now believes that the Central Intelligence Agency was deliberately misled about evidence that Saddam Hussein was developing unconventional weapons.”

Source behind WMD claims failed lie test--SunHerald.com

Powell Admits False WMD Claim--The Nation.com

CIA Wrong on Iraq 'Mobile Labs,' Powell Says--Reuters.com

 

Also, this just in:

 

Pentagon's Feith Again at Centre of Disaster--Inter Press Service News Agency website

 

Although it will take weeks, if not months, to sort out precisely who was responsible for what increasingly appears to have been the systemic abuse by U.S. soldiers of Iraqi detainees, it should be no surprise if Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith is found to have played an important role.

 

Feith, who, according to Bob Woodward's new book, 'Plan of Attack', was described by the military commander who led last year's invasion, Gen Tommie Franks, as ''the f---ing stupidest guy on the face of the earth'', has been at the centre of virtually everything else that has gone wrong in Iraq, so there is no reason to think he was very far from this one. --snip--

But the announcement Tuesday by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner that he is seeking testimony in the coming weeks from Feith may have unwittingly cast new light on the reasons why Secretary of State Colin Powell is alleged by Woodward to have referred to Feith's operation as the ''Gestapo Office''.

 

Evidence of Feith's involvement in the prisoner abuse scandal rests primarily on reports that have appeared in 'Newsweek', the 'New York Times', and the 'Los Angeles Times'. They have reported that, even before the Iraq War, top officials in the Pentagon, acting on the advice of civilian lawyers, authorised a reinterpretation of the Geneva Conventions to permit tougher methods of interrogation of prisoners of war (POWs).

 

This effort was strongly resisted by Powell, a retired army general, when it came to his attention, and by the Judge Advocates Generals (JAG) Corps, the formal name given to the military's lawyers. They argued, among other things, that the introduction of ''stress and duress'' techniques, sleep deprivation and other methods that violate the Conventions would not only result in dubious intelligence, but could also be cited as a precedent for use against U.S. soldiers who fell into enemy hands.

--snip--

 

Even after the new orders came down, senior JAG officers did not give up. According to a number of accounts, a delegation of officers contacted Scott Horton, a former high-ranking JAG officer and chairman of the Committee on International Human Rights of the New York City Bar Association, to see if he and like-minded attorneys would intervene.

 

''They were extremely upset'', Horton told the 'Los Angeles Times'. ''They said they were being shut out of the process, and that the civilian political lawyers, not the military lawyers, were writing these new rules of engagement.''

 

According to Horton, the JAG officers identified the main forces behind loosening the rules as Feith and the Pentagon's general counsel, William Haynes, another political appointee.

 

''If we -- 'we' being the uniformed lawyers -- had been listened to, and what we said put into practice, then these abuses would not have occurred'', Rear Adm Don Guter, the Navy JAG from 2000 to 2002, told ABCNews.

 

Oh, BTW, I thought I'd throw this in, too:

 

"If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom (the location of the State Department's headquarters), I think that's the answer," former Republican Party presidential hopeful Pat Robertson said last week on his television program, The 700 Club. "We've got to blow that thing up."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...