A LATIN AMERICAN STYLE REVOLT IN WASHINGTON?
I mentioned in my post of yesterday possibility that the generals who are now attacking Rumsfeld were also speaking for a lot of other senior officers still on active duty. It seems that lots of people with connections within the high levels of the army are telling some reporters the same thing. This means a possibility exists for the first army "revolt" in our history. Yeah, there was McClellan vs Lincoln and Truman vs MacArthur and many generals thought Roosevelt responsible for Pearl Harbor but there has never been, til possibly now, a situation where a large number of generals has conspired together against a sitting president (through castigating the Secretary of Defense). If these "stories" are true--and right now they are just stories---this may well be a major Constitutional crises. A conspiracy among army officers against civilian authority is treason. Stay tuned.
5 comments:
Here is an interesting read about Smedly Butler and the Coup d'Etat plot against President Roosevelt:
part 1
part 2
part 3
I think it's way, way to early to speculate that an organized revolt is brewing among our General Officer's Corps.
Here's a more likely scenario: As you correctly mentioned in your previous post our flag and field grade officers have been weened and raised on a diet of military doctrine that is outdated and impractical. The corps has also grown distant from its battlefield roots and is now very much akin to a corporate management ladder where promotions are highly, highly competitive (passed over twice and you're out on your ass) and shamelessly politically charged. Combine these two elements and you have a situation where the bulk of our generals are trying to fight a kind of war that's decades out of date in a professional environment where you cover your buddy's ass only if he's got something to offer you. Which means there's lots of potential to screw up and little incentive to take responsibility for said screw ups.
When was the last time a Senior VP whose business division fell flat on its ass didn't try to blame the board of directors for poor funding/lack of direction/wobbly vision, etc. etc.?
To have a little more fun let's look at what's bugging the generals: They're pissed that they have to explain themselves to the SecDef? So fucking what?!? That's who they're beholden to! The Pres routinely asked the generals very explicitly if they had everything they needed. The answer was a loud and hearty "Yessir!" and "Can do, sir!" But let's remember that back in 2000 Bush realized that his senior officers were being led by a bunch of pusswad political hacks (paging GEN Shinseki) so he cleaned house. A handful of Generals in key positions were ushered out and some old-schoolers were brought out of retirement to clean things up. At which point we had a bunch of O-5s and O-6s (I'm speaking of those for whom a star was a virtual guarantee at this point) who suddenly found the coattails they'd hopped on to 10 or 15 years ago had been pulled out from under them and now their once-bright futures were a lot murkier.
So now we're a few years down the road, long enough for those pissed off O-5s and O-6s to have either received their star or realize that the star they once thought they'd get just isn't gonna happen now. Further, a lot of those guys are retired now and are worried that their buddies are gonna miss out on the joy of living "under the flagpole". So now that they're unburdened by the UCMJ or even tact they get to vent their disaffection without consequence.
My money says Rummy won't kowtow to a bunch of perfumed princes (apologies to COL Hackworth).
This sounds like the movie "Seven Days in May" --- The first one.
... Combine these two elements and you have a situation where the bulk of our generals are trying to fight a kind of war that's decades out of date ...
Blah, blah, blah. Tell us what you would have them do differently in Iraq .
Don't be vague. Be specific and concrete.
-- david.davenport.1@netzero.com
Since the intel was totally bad from the very beginning, I really don't know what I would have done differently. Intel gave us false WMDs, no news at all about the near thousands of arms caches littering the countryside, and didn't even hint at the strength of religion in the area.
NOW we know, but we certainly didn't learn it from the CIA. We can all quarrel with the planning of the occupation and building a democracy from scratch...
Post a Comment