Reality Of An American Military Coup Against BushCo. No Longer In The Realms Of 'Outrageous Conspiracy Theory'
'Revolt Of The Generals' Reaches The Most Senior Ranks Of US Military
If BushCo. and the NeoCons try to launch nuclear strikes on Iran, would the dissenting retired and serving generals of the US military intervene? Could it really be true that there is a movement within the US military to stop the War On Iran that BushCo. and the NeoCons seem so intent on starting?
The idea that there is a growing mutiny against the Bush administration within the American military has been kicking around the message boards of conspiracy. military and alternate news sites for more than two years. A lot of this speculation has come from the very real 'Revolt Of The Generals' - a grouping of multi-star retired generals who began speaking out against the War On Iraq in late 2004.
But what was once the domain of mostly anonymous gossip and conspiracy sites is now hitting the mainstream media. And it would appear the speculation may have not been all that far from the truth.
Blogger Glenn Greenwald points out that the very credible Dana Priest, of the Washington Post, recently had this to say during an online Q & A :
West Chester, Pa.: History seems to be repeating it self as the drumbeat for war with Iran, based on accusations not backed up by any facts, intensifies. Do you think the Bush administration will launch a war (perhaps sending only the bombers) against Iran and if they do what are the likely consequences for the Middle East?
Dana Priest: Frankly, I think the military would revolt and there would be no pilots to fly those missions. This is a little bit of hyperbole, but not much. Just look at what Gen. Casey, the Army chief, said yesterday. That the tempo of operations in Iraq would make it very hard for the military to respond to a major crisis elsewhere. Beside, it's not the "war" or "bombing" part that's difficult; it's the morning after and all the days after that. Haven't we learned that (again) from Iraq?
Greenwald says there has been a number of "extraordinary reports" on what he calls the "virtual refusal of senior military officials to permit a war on Iran." He's playing it safe. There is nothing virtual about it. The revolt within the US military against BushCo. and the NeoCons going to War On Iran is clearly a very real event, and all but unprecedented in more than a century of American history.
It's a shocking, and extremely sad, fact to soak up that one of the biggest stories of the new age of American war has barely been reported at all.
Greenwald also points out that CENTCOM Commander, Admiral William Fallon, was successful in his attempt to block efforts by Vice President Dick Cheney, and BushCo. NeoCons to move a third aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf. Fallon found few mainstream media headlines for his historical show of dissent when he declared, privately, "there would be now war against Iran" as long as he was chief of CENTCOM :
At a mid-February meeting of top civilian officials over which Secretary of Defence Gates presided, there was an extensive discussion of a strategy of intimidating Tehran's leaders, according to an account by a Pentagon official who attended the meeting given to a source outside the Pentagon.Further, Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey, was recently quoted as saying that despite what BushCo. and the NeoCons desired, no new military conflicts would be possible, as the US Army had been dangerously depleted by six straight years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan :
The plan involved a series of steps that would appear to Tehran to be preparations for war, in a manner similar to the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But Fallon, who was scheduled to become the CENTCOM chief Mar. 16, responded to the proposed plan by sending a strongly-worded message to the Defence Department in mid-February opposing any further U.S. naval buildup in the Persian Gulf as unwarranted.
"He asked why another aircraft carrier was needed in the Gulf and insisted there was no military requirement for it," says the source, who obtained the gist of Fallon's message from a Pentagon official who had read it.
Fallon's refusal to support a further naval buildup in the Gulf reflected his firm opposition to an attack on Iran and an apparent readiness to put his career on the line to prevent it. A source who met privately with Fallon around the time of his confirmation hearing and who insists on anonymity quoted Fallon as saying that an attack on Iran "will not happen on my watch".
The Army's top officer, General George Casey, told Congress yesterday that his branch of the military has been stretched so thin by the war in Iraq that it can not adequately respond to another conflict -- one of the strongest warnings yet from a military leader that repeated deployments to war zones in the Middle East have hamstrung the military's ability to deter future aggression.It's a stunning admission. The top officer in the US Army says America's primary military force was so damaged and worn down that it could not respond to another conflict. No doubt it's true, but it's clear that by demanding the public hearing, Casey was making sure that BushCo. and the NeoCons would not be able to censor, or undermine, his revelations, before they went out on live TV.
In his first appearance as Army chief of staff, Casey told the House Armed Services Committee that the Army is "out of balance" and "the current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply. We are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies."
Officials said Casey, who appeared along with Army Secretary Pete Geren, personally requested the public hearing -- a highly unusual move that military analysts said underscores his growing concern about the health of the Army, America's primary fighting force.
The 'Revolt Of The Generals' is no longer a collection of retired generals, voicing their dissent on cable news shows.It has now become a very real revolt, and growing force of actionable dissent, within the most senior ranks of the American military.
As we said, a truly mind-blowing event in the history of American war, and in the history of the nation itself.
The American military is now fighting, if only by word and declaration for now, to stop itself from going to War On Iran.
There was a fairly popular conspiracy theory kicking around in early 2003 that BushCo. and the NeoCons wanted to go to War On Iraq, with the full knowledge that such an action would all but destroy, or at least, utterly degrade the fighting strength of the US Military. To destroy the American military by sending it into a war that it could not win. That it was never given a chance to win in the first place (by BushCo.'s refusal to follow overwhelming advice that 350,000 to 500,000 troops would be needed to actively, and successfully, secure Iraq).
It's a shocking state of affairs to now see so many wondering, and speculating, whether or not the above conspiracy might actually hold some truth. As horrible as that reality might be.
It's also interesting to speculate that if BushCo. ordered, as commander in chief, his forces to attack Iran and they outright refused to follow his orders - a reality some senior rankers already appear to be preparing for - would the majority of the American people oppose a military coup against the NeoCon-infested Bush administration?
Such strange and troubling times.
Some further reading on all this :
US Military Commanders Insist Striking Iran Would Be A Disaster
December 2006 : Join Chiefs Of Staff Tell Bush They Are "Unanamiously Opposed" To Air Strikes On Iran's Nuclear Faciltiies
Bush Now Has "Inherent Authority" Under Constitution To Attack Iran
"The Most Effective Anti-War Movement In America Is Inside The Walls Of The Pentagon"
