General Paul Eaton is one of those retired officers who spoke out publicly
against Rumsfeld. Here is what the Nation Magazine said:
>>The fact that so many retired generals are speaking out against the war
and against Rumsfeld, and are doing so at such forums as New York's
prestigious Council on Foreign Relations, reflects the depth and intensity
of the military's dissent. Traditional discipline and career-protecting
reticence prompt many disillusioned field-grade officers (majors and above)
to keep silent. These are "the Carlisle elite," who attend the US Army War
College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and from whose ranks are selected the
generals and top leaders of tomorrow.
The military's senior active-duty leadership will not openly revolt. "We're
not the French generals in Algeria," says Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, now
retired. "But we damned well know that the Iraq War we've won militarily is
being lost politically." The well-read retired Marine Lieut. Gen. Gregory
Newbold wrote in a Time magazine essay: "I retired from the military four
months before the March 2003 invasion, in part because of my opposition to
those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy." Newbold
calls the Iraq War "unnecessary" and says the civilians who launched the
war acted with "a casualness and swagger" that are "the special province"
of those who have never smelled death on a battlefield.<<
full: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061016/whalen/2
With politics shifting to the center and decisive weight being given to the
bipartisan approach put forward by a committee headed by Republican James
Baker and Democrat Lee Hamilton, one might expect a new plan for Iraq that
looks similar to the one proposed on the NY Times op-ed page today by Eaton:
>>First, on Iraq, the Democratic leadership needs to push the
administration to move immediately on whatever recommendations come from
the Iraq Study Group led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton. The decision to
hold the commissions report until after the election was political idiocy
every day we wait risks the lives of our soldiers and our Iraqi allies.
At the same time, we need a Manhattan Project-level effort to build the
Iraqi security forces. A good blueprint can be found in an article in the
July-August Military Review by Lt. Col. Douglas Ollivant, a former
operations officer with the Armys Fifth Cavalry Regiment in Iraq, and Lt.
Eric D. Chewning. The plan is to create new multifaceted battalions
blending infantry, armor, engineers and other specialists that would live
and work beside Iraqi security forces and civilians. Some of our troops,
working largely at the platoon level, have had great success along these
lines; but as the authors note, such small units lack the robust staff and
sufficient mass to fully exploit local relationships. Its time to
replicate that success on a larger scale.<<
Full: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/10/opinion/10eaton.html
Somehow I am not reassured by the proposal for a Manhattan Project-level
effort to build the Iraqi security forces but maybe that's because I am an
unrepentant Trotskyite dinosaur.
Meanwhile, Chris Matthews had on Mary McCaskill, the new Democratic Senator
from Missouri, on Hardball 2 nights ago. When he asked her if she would
vote for John Bolton being the UN representative, she answered:
"Yeah, probably. You know, I havent had a chance it review all of Mr.
Boltons record. But, you know, I am a believer that the president has
certain picks that he is entitled to. As long as Im convinced that they
are serious about beginning work on diplomacy."
While Matthews is a horse's ass who had no problem backing Bush when the
war first started, I did enjoy his response to McCaskill:
"What do you think the neoconservatives, the people who come into the power
and believe it is the job of the United States government, not to protect
this country but their job, their mission, their messianic dream is to go
around the world, looking for governments they do not like
and trying to democratize them by force and killing and blood and treasure,
go into those countries, overturn the leadership an try to urn them into
us. Do you think thats the kind person you want representing us to the
world?"
After the McCaskill interview was over, he had on a panel of liberal
commentators discussing various things, including Lisa Caputo who was
Hillary Clinton's press secretary. Matthews posed this question: "Are we
going to get out of Iraq at some point in the next couple of years with a
minimum of casualties or are we just going to stick around another six
months or a year to make it look good? Taking more casualties
accomplishing nothing we couldnt accomplish if we left tomorrow morning."
Caputo answered as follows: "I dont think its a question, Chris, of slow
or quick, I think its a question of being pragmatic and being methodical
about it. Right now our allies are feeling very exposed due to a weakened
White House. Bush to his credit has moved quickly by nominating Gates, the
number two to Scowcroft, lets not forget this, under Bush One. They are
bringing a pragmatic approach back in with a signal to the Hill that they
are going to be more middle of the road. So I dont think its fast versus
slow. Chris. I think its a methodical, logical, thoughtful approach to
get out."
Of course, this is not what people bargained for when they voted Democrat.
They are sick and tired of this war and it is absolutely imperative for the
left in this country to light a fire under Congress and the White House to
get out NOW.
--
www.marxmail.org
