The Unsung Hero’s in All This

[Daveparts]

To those of us who have opposed the Iraq war from the beginning we find no satisfaction in saying. “I told you so." Congressman on both sides of the asile pontificate and make noises but are otherwise useless. And the media? Don’t make me laugh politicians have a long history of lying and the media have a history of spin but The New York Times this week solidified their rightful place as a grocery store periodical right next to stories about Space alien love children and eighty pound babies are the administrations claims evidence of Iranian influence in Iraq.

After the run up to the Iraq debacle you would think the Times would have had a staff meeting or published an office memo that said, “Don’t take it on blind faith any more!”
In the words of the late John Belushi “But Nooo!” The Times has gone from the newspaper of record to a serious heir apparent to the National Enquirer it’s not like working for Fox news or the Washington Times where you had no credibility to begin with. They should modify their slogan immediately to “All the news the administration deems fit to print” or What the ignorant read to stay that way.

So our politicians in both parties with very few exceptions are craven and our media the vaunted forth estate have shown themselves a best morally bankrupt and at worst no better than street whores working for the pimp of Pennsylvania Ave. But there are hero’s in this fiasco true American hero’s and true patriots who also said this war was a mistake from the beginning and are putting their money where there mouth is by putting their careers on the line. And doing it for the right reason because it’s the right thing to do they aren’t looking for book deals or higher office. They see first hand what is going on and they are men and women of the highest honor they took an oath to preserve protect and defend the Constitution not the President.

Almost from day one the American military has resisted, when the invasion plans were first discussed it was Colin Powell who fought against it he argued from a military standpoint that it was a bad idea. He argued the point until he was eventually excluded from the discussions and like all who object to the boss’s plans he was given the dirty jobs. He was an inexperienced politician but a skilled General he made the mistake of trusting people who were using him politically, a political mistake not a military one. He read intelligence he knew was incorrect at the UN a mistake he’s since said was the biggest in his life. But it’s his statement about Iraq that should ring in our ears “It’s the Pottery Barn rule if you break it you own it.”

Time and time again the administration gives out information or announces new strategies and time and again it is refuted by their own military leaders. When Bush announced his troop surge the Army and Marine Corps chiefs of staff, as well as General John Abizaid, General George Casey and General Colin Powell. All of these highly respected commanders expressed their opposition to increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.

As General Abizaid, the top Commander in the Middle East said, an increase in U.S. troops would be counterproductive because it will perpetuate the dependency of Iraqi forces, create more targets and stretch our military too thin.

Until recently the top ground commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, has said that sending more American troops into Baghdad and Anbar Province would increase the Iraqi dependency on Washington.
As General Colin Powell, one of the most respected military leaders of our generation put it, a surge was already tried in Baghdad last fall, and it failed. The administration has repeatedly claim that they are listening to the Generals on the ground and would not overrule the ground commanders.

The Sunday talk shows debated the administrations talking points about Iranian influence in Iraq the centerpiece being EFP’s But on Monday, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated all that could be proved from the seized evidence was that "things made in Iran are being used in Iraq to kill coalition soldiers.” A direct contradiction to his bosses postion perhaps there is a new Powell doctrine “don’t let politicians paint you into a corner.”
How does a President deal with military leaders who publicly disagree? Step one install revolving door on the Pentagon. Since Bush began his Presidency the Pentagon has lost all most as many senior level officers as GM’s lost autoworkers. The problem with Generals for a President is by the time they reach the level of General they can retire at a moments notice. But the problem isn’t confined to just Generals but colonels as well. Col Karen Katowski has been quite vocal about the intentions of the Vice Presidents office of special planning where she worked before retiring.

So what’s a President to do? You want to keep starting wars and the military won’t play nice! Every time this President makes a claim the military almost immediately refutes it this is almost unprecedented in US history Truman fired Douglas McArthur for making policy statements and trying to broaden the Korean war while Truman was trying to confine it. This situation is almost the exact opposite the President makes exaggerated policy statements trying to broaden a war and the military contradicting him trying to limit it. Could it be he’s feeling paranoid? A little nervous perhaps? After all he likes to work within a tight circle of confidants and doesn’t like outsiders.

In December 2005 while we were all opening our Christmas gifts and New York Times reporters were waiting with baited breath to have reality explained to them by the administration or scanning the heavens for UFO’s President Bush the decider gave himself a Christmas present. By executive order the President changed the order of succession in the Pentagon promoting political appointees in front of the Chairman of the joint chiefs of staff The new succession order bumps the Navy Secretary to near the bottom of the line of succession -- eighth behind the deputy secretary, the three undersecretaries and the Army and Air Force secretaries. But still ahead of the janitor the doorman and the kitchen manager. In effect Bush put another level of bureaucracy between himself and the Generals and Admirals. If you can’t lower the water raise the bridge apparently this President that wants to listen to the commanders on the ground but doesn’t want to hear from their bosses.

We on the outside can see only through a keyhole of what is really going on and if we read the New York Time were looking through a keyhole that still has the key in it. But Congress has failed us the media have turned themselves into the court fools. Only the Pentagon has stood up to the President and he don’t like it very much. Could it be that the military will save us from Bushes madness? The military judge in the Adrian Watada, 28, faced charges both for failing to deploy and for making public statements about the war that the Army considered "conduct unbecoming an officer." In a pretrial stipulation as part of an agreement to lower the number charges against him, Watada had admitted his failure to deploy.

"The judge was concerned that the stipulation amounted to a confession by Watada to an offense to which he intended to plead not guilty," said Fort Lewis spokesman Joseph Piek. It was unclear why it had taken the judge three days to come to this conclusion concerning a document that was a pillar of the prosecution's case, but it was nevertheless devastating to the military prosecutors, who had rested their case the previous day.

Stammering at points in his arguments with the judge and looking extremely frustrated, Army prosecutor Capt Scott Van Sweringen asked for the mistrial after Judge Head, having personally questioned Watada about the stipulation, ruled that he was going to reject the agreement and tell the jurors that is should be disregarded. The judge himself seemed to urge a mistrial request at that point, saying of his direction to the jurors: "How do you un-ring that bell?"
If the administration can’t get a conviction in a military court with a plaintiff that admits guilt, what message is being sent by the judge? This was a slam dunk case and its no mystery to me why the judge took three days to find a way out because he wanted to he to find a way out he could have looked the other way but he didn’t and the message was received loud and clear at the White House.

The Military is growing openly hostile to the President so what affect will this ruling have on the lower ranks or perhaps even the upper ranks? Never in my lifetime did I think a President would have to worry about the Pentagons loyalty and the truly scary part is the Pentagon’s positions are closer to the will of the American people and far more in line with the Constitution than those of the President. Perhaps if the media won’t act and Congress won’t act the Pentagon will?
Could America handle a military Coup d’etat?