Skip to main content

View Diary: Iraq is NOT Vietnam. Iraq is NOT Vietnam. Iraq is NOT Vietnam. Iraq is NOT Vietnam. Iraq is . . . (295 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I partially disagree... (7+ / 0-)

    The military won't put up with any more of the NeoCon's "projects". Our military is almost broken at this point, and they blame the NeoCons.

    The NeoCons are civillian idealogues who want to use the US military to pave the way for their dreams of US economic domination of the world.
    This is more accurately called "Americanization", not "globalization". Iraq was the first step. Once Saddam was gone, an unfettered, Lassez-Faire, oil-driven economy would jump-start the creation of a world-wide capitalist utopia with American corporations and the GOP as its founders and permanent rulers.
    The NeoCons also believe that this capitalist utopia of theirs would somehow undermine Islamic radicalism ("terrorists") and thus protect Israel.

    Aside from a couple of NeoCon sympathizers in the Pentagon (Myers, for ex) the vast majority of our officers have begun to see through the NeoCon agenda, and firmly oppose any military expansion of the WoT or an attack on Iran - for the moment.
    The lone exception to all this is the right-wing dominated USAF, who still think, despite 60 years of evidence to the contrary, that we can bomb our way to victory everywhere.
    This all could change in 5-10 years if Iran gets the Bomb, but right now, things are going so badly for the discredited NeoCons that they have lost any military support they once might've had.
    Of course, if a terrorist attack was inflicted on the US mainland, and Iran could be found guilty of it, then everything I just said will become moot. That's the scenario I fear the most.

    •  That's my nightmare scenario too (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sean oliver, occams hatchet

      and I agree with you. I don't think the military will do anything without making the civilians go through bureaucratic hell first. And if anybody can use red tape, it's the military.

      Besides, they have the responsibility to refuse any unlawful order. If there's no attack (and I can't believe Iran would be that dumb - I suspect they'd gladly kill any terrorist who would try to tie anything to them) and there's no UN resolution to allow force, there's no reason to attack Iran. Doing so would be a blatantly illegal act, and therefore any order to attack would be unlawful.

      Have you noticed how reluctant the UN is to do ANYTHING other than the most mild of rebukes? And NOTHING that could even remotely be construed to allow military action. They're not stupid. They know what happened with Iraq.

      And frankly, I think the Army and Marines (and to some extent, the Navy) are so fed up with Iraq that if the AF generals even started to say they'd do it, Pace would be likely to punch them out before they got the words out.

    •  Mutiny? (0+ / 0-)

      Absolutely, positively not.  It's not going to happen.  If Bush says go, they will go.  We have a military that has the concept of civilian control entirely internalized.  Even if they complain, they will go as long as Bush is arguably legally able to send them, and given the complacent congress, that means anytime Bush wants.  Simple as that.

      •  No need for mutiny (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright

        Cheney/Rumsfeld needs military cooperation if they want another invasion. If the military doesn't cooperate, there won't be an invasion. Period.
        The military is profoundly angry with BushCo right now, and are mad at themselves for not backing Shinseki back in 2003.
        The military hate Rumsfeld even more. Seriously.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site