"What if a Democrat wins?"

Admiral Mike Mullen conflates the "general's revolt" against Rumsfeld with the notion that it is anathema to the senior military that a "Democrat" could win the Presidency:

The highest-ranking U.S. military officer has written an unusual open letter to all those in uniform, warning them to stay out of politics as the United States approaches a presidential election in which the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be a central, and certainly divisive, issue.

"The U.S. military must remain apolitical at all times," wrote Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "It is and must always be a neutral instrument of the state, no matter which party holds sway."

"No matter which party" is a ridiculous statement. The Democrats hold power in the House and Senate as a matter of course. The Republicans hold power in the Executive Branch as a technical matter only, since they have proven they cannot govern or adhere to actual Congressional oversight.

The statement to the armed forces is the first essay for the journal Mullen has written as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and veteran officers said they could not remember when a similar "all-hands" letter had been issued to remind military personnel to remain outside, if not above, contentious political debate.

The essay can be seen as a reflection of the deep concern among senior officers that the U.S. military, which is paying the highest price in carrying out national security policy, may be drawn into politicking this year.

The war in Iraq already has exceeded the length of World War II and is the longest conflict the United States has fought with an all-volunteer military since the Revolutionary War.

In particular, members of the Joint Chiefs have expressed worries this election year about the influence of retired officers who advise political campaigns, some of whom have publicly called for a change in policy or others who serve as television commentators.

This is what they are most concerned about--pushback against the policy of staying in Iraq for the next hundred years. The DoD is going to align itself with McCain for purely procurement reasons, even though McCain has forced the DoD to accept some bitter pills in recent years. (The air tanker issue being just one example.)

Among the most outspoken were those who joined the so-called generals' revolt in 2006 demanding the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary, as well as former officers who have written books attacking the Bush administration's planning for and execution of the war in Iraq.

The so-called general's revolt is exactly correct. It was not a revolt. It was a respectful and honest assessment that change was needed because the troops were paying too high of a price. It was a wake-up call to an out-of-touch defense secretary who had a laughing, dismissive "stuff happens" attitude that was entirely out of touch with reality. It is a proven lie--McCain never really did call for the "firing" of Don Rumsfeld. But for the DoD to consider aligning itself with McCain is proof that what they fear the most is a Democratic administration that will enforce ethics rules, turn off the lucrative spigot of procurement for many, and reduce the contractor work force.

While retired officers have full rights to political activism, their colleagues still in uniform fear its effect on those trying to carry out the mission, especially more junior officers and enlisted personnel. Active-duty military personnel are prohibited from taking part in partisan politics.

Is that name "Boylan" ringing any bells?

"As the nation prepares to elect a new president," Mullen wrote, "we would all do well to remember the promises we made: to obey civilian authority, to support and defend the Constitution and to do our duty at all times."

"Keeping our politics private is a good first step," he added. "The only things we should be wearing on our sleeves are our military insignia."

Mullen said he was inspired to write the essay after receiving a constant stream of legitimate, if troubling, questions while visiting U.S. military personnel around the world, including, "What if a Democrat wins?" and, "What will that do to the mission in Iraq?"

There USED to be an Honor Code, but that is, apparently, gone.

For the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to actually have to make that statement to a professional military is a clear indication that there ALREADY EXISTS a politicization of the military and that there ALREADY IS a problem that Mullen would like to distance himself from. Clearly, Mullen is getting some bizaare correspondence from officers who ought to know better but are, for some unknown reason, openly and flagrantly positing a very troubling question--should they retire en masse on January 20, 2009 or bureaucratically "resist" the orders of a Democratic President as many did against Bill Clinton in the early 1990s?

Given that Mullen felt "compelled" to have to make such statements, it is more than likely imperative that whoever wins in November will have a choice to make. Either cashier vast numbers of senior flag officers or be prepared to wage an ongoing struggle with an intransigent Pentagon bureaucracy.

There is one other point to make--this blog regularly carries a "Friday News Dump" of bad news released after regular business hours on Friday afternoons. The Pentagon does that to hide embarrassing details or information about certain events or policies from the public in order to benefit the Bush Administration. This is proof positive that there already exists a politization of the defense establishment. The next President, should that President be a Democrat, would do well to ensure that bad news is released when bad news happens, regardless of what day it is.

When Petulant Children Try Go to War

...it looks like this:

A second American aircraft carrier steamed into the Persian Gulf on Tuesday as the Pentagon ordered military commanders to develop new options for attacking Iran. CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports that the planning is being driven by what one officer called the "increasingly hostile role" Iran is playing in Iraq - smuggling weapons into Iraq for use against American troops.

"What the Iranians are doing is killing American servicemen and -women inside Iraq," said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

These accusations are not new. In fact, our government has been caught overstating them several times. But who exactly is doing the killing? The Badr brigade, trained by Iran, is now integrated into the Iraqi security forces. Does that mean that the government of the country we are trying to prop up is paying Iranian-backed troops to kill us? If so, then the right answer is to stop propping up a government that welcomes Iranian trained militias into their ranks.

U.S. officials are also concerned by Iranian harassment of U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf as well as Iran's still growing nuclear program. New pictures of Iran's uranium enrichment plant show the country's defense minister in the background, as if deliberately mocking a recent finding by U.S. intelligence that Iran had ceased work on a nuclear weapon.

What basis in reality is that? So what if the Iranian defense minister appears in a picture. Is that proof they have an arms program? Or the capability to see one through to fruition? If that is what constitutes proof, then expect our allies to undercut our efforts and mock us behind our backs.

No attacks are imminent and the last thing the Pentagon wants is another war, but Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen has warned Iran not to assume the U.S. military can't strike.

"I have reserve capability, in particular our Navy and our Air Force so it would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability," Mullen said.

Targets would include everything from the plants where weapons are made to the headquarters of the organization known as the Quds Force which directs operations in Iraq. Later this week Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is expected to confront the Iranians with evidence of their meddling and demand a halt.

If that doesn't produce results, the State Department has begun drafting an ultimatum that would tell the Iranians to knock it off - or else.

"Reserve capability?" What in God's name does that add up to? Do we have reserve capability in the Army? Of course we don't--and in any significant attack on Iran, it won't be the Navy and the Air Force that sees the battle up close--it'll be the Army that will have to put boots on the ground the ensure those facilities are destroyed and it'll be the Army in Iraq that has to withstand a wave of Shiite attacks by outraged groups.

And the summation of the childishness and the ridiculousness of this country's foreign policy is contained in the phrase "knock it off or else."

Can you believe that? Can you believe that we would tell another country such a thing? That our position would be a schoolyard taunt between bullies with no maturity?

We're updating the old adage--if you're not embarrassed by your government right now, you're definitely not paying attention.

Dick and the Drums of War

Golly - who ya gonna trust? A five deferment draft-dodger with a war-porn addiction? Or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

The Veep went to The Washington Institute yesterday to beat the drum for war with Iran.

The ideological struggle that's playing out in the Middle East today -- the struggle against radical extremists -- is going to concern America certainly for the remainder of our administration, and well into the future. On September 11th, 2001, we suffered a heavy blow, right here at home, at the hands of extremists who plotted the attacks from an outpost thousands of miles from our shores. Since that terrible morning, Americans have properly called this a war. For their part, the terrorists agree. The difference is they began calling it a war a good many years prior to 9/11. And they've been waging that war with clear objectives, aggressive tactics, and a strategy they want to carry out at any cost. [Iran had even less to do with the attacks of September 11 than Iraq! That was primarily a Saudi operation, and we all bloody well know it!]

They've stated their objectives. The terrorists want to end all American and Western influence in the Middle East. Their goal in that region is to seize control of a country so they have a base from which they can launch attacks and wage war against governments that do not meet their demands. Ultimately they seek to establish a totalitarian empire through the Middle East, and outward from there. They want to arm themselves with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons; they want to destroy Israel; they intimidate all Western countries; and to cause mass death here in the United States. [Okay. I have no doubt that a few thousand dedicated extremists can subdue all 300 million of the most obstreperous and heavily armed people on the face of the earth. No trouble at all. Hell, 160 thousand are subduing 25 million and it's a cakewalk! Yep terrorists will just roll right over us, we'll all don Burkas and grow beards and submit to sharia. And I will need medical attention because monkeys will be flying out of my butt...What the fuck, "leaders"? Terrorists win when people get terrified! So why is the Vice Resident whipping up fear and helping the terrorists win? Myself, I will laugh at them and their silly superstitions even as the scimitar separates my head from my torso. I am not going to let the fuckers terrify me, and I have no regard for anyone so silly.]

The tactics, of course, are familiar to all the world: suicide attacks, car bombs, beheadings, messages of violence and hatred on the Internet, and the hijackings of 9/11. And the strategy is clear, as well: Through acts of stealth and murder and spectacular violence, they intend to frighten us and to break our will; to hit us again and again until we run away. It's not easy for a civilized society to comprehend evil like that of Osama bin Laden or Zawahiri. It shocks us to hear such men exhorting other people's sons to "join a caravan" of so-called martyrs, proclaiming that heaven favors the merciless and murder is the path to paradise. [He is just talkin' like it's one big war and Iran and Iraq are the same thing. Interchangeable really. That's why he was talking about Iran and he kept referencing al Qaeda. Duh.]

The Iranian regime's efforts to destabilize the Middle East and to gain hegemonic power is a matter of record. And now, of course, we have the inescapable reality of Iran's nuclear program; a program they claim is strictly for energy purposes, but which they have worked hard to conceal; a program carried out in complete defiance of the international community and resolutions of the U.N. Security Council. Iran is pursuing technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons. The world knows this. The Security Council has twice imposed sanctions on Iran and called on the regime to cease enriching uranium. Yet the regime continues to do so, and continues to practice delay and deception in an obvious attempt to buy time. [Gain hegemonic power? What the fuck? When did Iran start running around willy-nilly and invading the neighbors? They haven't invaded anyone since the 1800's and they are not an Arab nation. They dominant ethnic group is Persian, and Shia. They are surrounded by Arabs, who are majority Sunni, and non-arab Sunnis on pretty much all sides. the merest utterance of the phrase "hegemonic power" with regard to Iran brands the speaker a blithering fucking dipshit.]

Given the nature of Iran's rulers, the declarations of the Iranian President, and the trouble the regime is causing throughout the region -- including direct involvement in the killing of Americans -- our country and the entire international community cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions. (Applause.) [I have heard assertions that they are directly killing Americans - who should not be in proximity anyway - but the people asserting are not providing evidence and have a track record of lying to the point it's pathological. And declarations from Ahmadineajad are laughable. He is the Mullahs response to that Axis of Evil crap, and when the clowns in charge are gone, so is he. Nobody with any sentience of the region assigns him any relevance, save as comic relief. ]

The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences. The United States joins other nations in sending a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. (Applause.) [Way to ramp up the old rhetoric! That is just about a fucking declaration of war! And the Deserter-in-Chief said last week they should be denied the knowledge to make a nuke. Somehow, I think Vladimir Putin will weigh in before too long...Way to go, you warmongering fuckheads. Way to lose the cold war after the fact. Morons.]

The irresponsible conduct of the ruling elite in Tehran is a tragedy for all Iranians. The regime has passed up numerous opportunities to be a positive force in the Middle East. For more than a generation, it had only isolated a great nation, suppressed a great people, and subjected them to economic hardship that gets worse every year. The citizens of Iran deserve none of this. They are the proud heirs of a culture of learning, humanity and beauty that reaches back many centuries. Iranian civilization has produced shining achievements, from the Persian Book of Kings, to the poetry of Rumi and Khayyam, to celebrated achievements in astronomy and mathematics, to art and music admired on every continent. The Iran of today -- a nation of 70 million, a majority of them under the age of 30 -- is a place of unlimited potential. And the Iranian people have every right to be free from oppression, from economic deprivation, and tyranny in their own country. [Oh for fuck's sake. This is about three degrees from "We'll be greeted as liberators!" Would someone impeach these war criminals already??? Then indict, imprison, prosecute, convict...following the sentencing guidelines to the end...If that is the end of a rope, so be it.]

***************

Admiral Mullen, however, is not playing along with the hattrick-of-wars scenario.

The new chairman, [of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] Adm. Mike Mullen, expressed deep concerns that the long counterinsurgency missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have so consumed the military that the Army and Marine Corps may be unprepared for a high-intensity war against a major adversary.

He rejected the counsel of those who might urge immediate attacks inside Iran to destroy nuclear installations or to stop the flow of explosives that end up as powerful roadside bombs in Iraq or Afghanistan, killing American troops.

With America at war in two Muslim countries, he said, attacking a third Islamic nation in the region “has extraordinary challenges and risks associated with it.” The military option, he said, should be a last resort.

Iran is not a strategic threat to the United States. They have an economy the size of a small European country and the defense spending of a large state's national guard. They are not going to defeat the most powerful Air Force and the largest blue water Navy in the world. We have enough firepower to kill everybody on the planet many times over. Thems the facts.

But here are some more. They could shut down the Straight of Hormuz and they might even manage to sink a tanker or two. What they would be able to do is drive the price of oil to $200 a barrel. That would be a windfall to Putin.

There are voices in Iran who want democracy and openness. But they will not welcome an American attack to bring 'em Democracy! Who the fuck would? I want change here, too, but I don't want this president hanged by a foreign power who invades my country! If that were to come to pass, I would want it to be because Americans got off their fat asses and got pissed off!

Meantime, I know how to facilitate Democracy for the price of a strafing run. Build internet infrastructure and flood the place with cheap laptops. Superstition dies, and Democracy flows from information access, not from the barrel of a gun, and certainly not from bombs dropped from on high.

Real Leadership at the Pentagon, and the *mission* comes under scrutiny

There is a sea change occurring at the Pentagon, as the last of the ideologues skulk away, having created a no-good-options situation through fecklessness, incompetence and blind fealty to ideology that the United States will have a hell of a time disengaging from.

Competent managers who view Iraq as a problem to be solved have replaced the ideologues, and not a moment too soon.

[Secretary of Defense] Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, Undersecretary for Intelligence Gen. James Clapper and other top officials also are concerned that the war may be crippling the military's ability to respond to other crises. They have allies in the congressional Democratic leadership — particularly House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri — who've been speaking out about that for months.

"I'm convinced we are in serious trouble readiness-wise," Skelton said this week in an interview with McClatchy Newspapers. "Am I worried? I'm worried to death." "The parallels are alarming," Skelton said. "We cannot risk breaking the Army again. My real worry is that we have a choice between two losses or one loss. We're not putting enough effort into Afghanistan, and I'm deeply concerned about that."

As frustration has mounted as the Democrats, with a slight majority in the House and a razor-thin majority in the Senate, have been unable to influence American war policy in Iraq, reality has reared it’s ugly head again, and presented a series of developments that demand attention and mean that Bush’s “Stay the Course” bleating is the nothing more than the ranting of a dishonest, delusional and deranged halfwit.

· The choice of the competent Robert Gates to replace the demented, dismissed and criminally inept Donald Rumsfeld – one of the mental midgets who conceived of the glorious fuck-up in Iraq – in an of itself set a new course. Gates resigned a spot on the Iraq Study Group when he was nominated for the Sec Def position. The ISG emphasized the need to reach out to neighboring countries, and "strongly urged" a drawdown of American forces in Iraq.

· The people at the top now are more concerned about the overall health of the U.S. military organization, which is showing signs of severe strain; than with coddling the delusional outlook of Commander Codpiece.

· A whole slew of official reports have been released in recent weeks that paint a grim picture. The Iraqi security forces will not be ready to take over security for the country for at least a year, and the Iraqis have made little progress toward political reconciliation. "Barring that, no amount of troops and no amount of time will make much of a difference," Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

· The release of a United Nations report that finds the Taliban and al Qaeda are resurgent in Afghanistan. More forces are needed in Afghanistan, and they simply aren’t there to we can't send them because we're bogged down" in an "intractable civil war" in Iraq, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said Wednesday

· Bush has historic low approval ratings, and he is a lame duck facing hostile Democratic majorities in both chambers of congress. Those congressional representatives are facing hostile, angry constituents, and the constituents are in no mood for appeasement.

It remains to be seen if Gates and the new uniformed leadership can check the commander guy, and hopefully prevent another ill-advised shooting war with Iran. Here is wishin’ ‘em luck…