Re: HST and MacArthur--I know that the general defied the president. What I meant to say, in too much haste, was, "What if MacArthur had attempted to persist in his defiance?"
MacArthur had imperial, or caesarist, delusions. MCM >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Re: [MCM] Revolt of the generals Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 >16:45:10 -0500 From: Ernesto Seman ><mailto:[email protected]><[email protected]> To: ><mailto:[email protected]><[email protected]> > > >Re: [MCM] Revolt of the generals well... MacArthur DID defy Truman >and insisted with going up thr 38, bombing China and the like. One >lesson there for the present, is that Truman removed him from his >post, only after having accepted all his disastrous judgements. >Wrong and late. >e > >On 2/3/09 3:51 PM, "Mark Crispin Miller" ><mailto:[email protected]><[email protected]> wrote: > >We're all being quite low-key about this situation, but it's a dire >one. Either ours is a >civilian government, with the military ultimately taking orders from >civilians, or it's not. > >What if Gen. MacArthur had defied Pres. Truman? What if the Joint >Chiefs had defied >JFK, and gone ahead with Operation Northwoods on their own? > >We can't have this. > >MCM > > >February 3, 2009 > >Generals' Revolt Threatens Obama Presidency > >By Dave Lindorff > ><http://www.opednews.com/articles/Generals-Revolt-Threatens-by-Dave-Lindorff-090203-405.html>http://www.opednews.com/articles/Generals-Revolt-Threatens-by-Dave-Lindorff-090203-405.html > ><http://www.opednews.com/articles/Generals-Revolt-Threatens-by-Dave-Lindorff-090203-405.html><http://www.opednews.com/articles/Generals-Revolt-Threatens-by-Dave-Lindorff-090203-405.html> > >If an article by Gareth Porter in run by InterPress is correct that >CentCom Commander Gen. David Petraeus and Iraq Commander Gen. Ray >Odierno, backed by a group of lower-ranking generals, are planning >to mount a public campaign to try and undermine President Obama's >plan for a withdrawal from Iraq in 16 months, Obama needs to act >fast and nip this dangerous act of insubordination in the bud. > >It was a similar act of insubordination on the part of the Joint >Chiefs of Staff that effectively destroyed the Clinton >administration almost from day one. Recall that one of President >Clinton's first acts following his inauguration was to make good on >a campaign promise to end discrimination against gays and lesbians >in the military. His initial order was to simply end the ban on >homosexuality in the military. But the Joint Chiefs publicly >rebelled, and Clinton caved, coming up with the ridiculous and >unworkable "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, under which gays and >lesbians could serve in the military, but had to hide their sexual >orientation or face ouster. > >When Clinton, as commander in chief of the armed forces, allowed his >generals to defy his orders, and, instead of sacking them all for >insubordination and stripping off their stars, left them in their >offices and surrendered to their objections, he didn't just cave in >to the military. He also alerted the Republican opposition that he >was a political pushover. > >Obama, on a much more serious issue-the conduct of and termination >of a war-is now apparently being more or less openly defied by his >top generals, who after all get their glory and power by having >troops in battle, and who are also worried that a collapse of the >puppet regime in Iraq could leave them looking like losers. They are >thus opposing a pullout from Iraq (and a hardly precipitous one at >that!) out of self-interest and self-preservation. > >If Commander in Chief Obama allows this insubordination and >political opposition to exist among his senior generals, his >presidency is toast. He will be a prisoner to a militarist policy in >Iraq and Afghanistan that will drag down his presidency in the same >way that Lyndon Johnson's presidency was destroyed by the generals >running the Vietnam War. Furthermore, just as Republicans in >Congress saw Clinton's weakness in his dealings with the Joint >Chiefs and began dogging his every move, they, and Obama's opponents >among the Blue Dog Democrats in Congress, will see weakness and move >against him. > >There is only one answer to this challenge to presidential >authority: President Obama must sack both Petraeus and Odierno, and >any other general who tries-openly or behind the scenes--to move >politically against his military strategy and orders. The model for >this action is President Harry Truman-widely viewed, whatever his >faults, as a forceful leader-who fired the popular Gen. Douglas >McArthur when McArthur went behind his back to Republicans in >Congress to push for a wider war in Korea. > >This is not just a matter of salvaging an Obama presidency. It is >also a profound constitutional issue. There is no greater threat to >democratic freedom than a military that refuses to accept, or that >actively works to undermine civilian authority. Generals and >admirals certainly have a right to object to the decisions made by >their commander in chief, but they cannot act in defiance or those >decisions while in uniform. Admiral William Fallon took the right >course of action. Opposed to Bush/Cheney administration plans to >attack Iran, he chose to resign his post as CentCom Commander and to >resign from the military. If Gen. Petraeus and Gen. Odierno oppose >Obama's plan for a pullout from Iraq, they should do the same and >then speak out if they wish. > >For the past eight years, the biggest threat to American democracy >was that a president and vice president attempted to convert the >office of president into a military dictatorship, with the position >of commander in chief subsuming and replacing the position of >president. Now the danger is that the nation's top generals are >trying to eliminate or emasculate the president's role as commander >in chief, making the generals the leaders of the nation's military. >Both dangers are equally threatening to constitutional government. >___________________ >DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest book is >"The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and now >available in paperback edition). His work is available at ><http://www.thiscantbehappening.net>www.thiscantbehappening.net ><http://www.thiscantbehappening.net><http://www.thiscantbehappening.net> > > > > >Authors Website: ><http://www.thiscantbehappening.net>http://www.thiscantbehappening.net > >Authors Bio: Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author >of several recent books ("This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the >Disintegration of American Democracy" and "Killing Time: An >Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"). His >latest book, coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is "The Case for >Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. >Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). His writing is >available at ><http://www.thiscantbehappening.net>http://www.thiscantbehappening.net > >Back > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to Mark Crispin Miller's "News From Underground" newsgroup. To unsubscribe, send a blank email to [email protected] OR go to http://groups.google.com/group/newsfromunderground and click on the "Unsubscribe or change membership" link in the yellow bar at the top of the page, then click the "Unsubscribe" button on the next page. For more News From Underground, visit http://markcrispinmiller.com -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
