Daily Kos

The Side Door to Iraq

Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 08:14:14 PM PDT

Despite my rabid social democrat liberal ranting, I also have some good contacts around the US Military, most of them by accident and all but two, retired.

One of them, a former SF Brass who spent his latter years in policy development in the Pentagon, said to me in October, about Bush, and from a soldier's perspective, "he has to go".

I had dinner with him and his wife, also a military employee, again today. I think he talks as straight as anyone I know, this is how the discussion went.

After the usual family and New Year pleasantries and some business stuff, the conversation turned, as it usually has these last months, to Military issues and the injustices and stupidities of the back door draft, the Grandparents being hauled off to Iraq and the appalling human damage to the people doing the heavy lifting.

Then he got serious and told me about a discussion he'd had a few weeks ago with a colleague still in uniform.

They had agreed that the neocon strategy was fundamentally at odds with every rational soldier since we invented them. You keep a reserve force so that, when your forward people break the enemy's line you can throw extra resources in to cement the success because the most dangerous moment is just when victory seems to be within your grasp and, if you don't have the wherewithall to grab it you can snatch defeat from its jaws. But you also keep reserves back because if the enemy breaks your line you need to be able to pour extra resources in to stop the gap.

Bushco has placed the reserves in the front line, along with all the rest of the force. These guys are very clear, there is no reserve, it doesn't exist, when things light up in Taiwan or Korea or Khazahkstan or any one of the myriad places the US has a military agenda; there is no-one, no-one, to fight.

Regardless of the ethics, the economics or the geopolitics of Iraq, it is a military blunder of cosmic proportions.

I asked him what will happen when the US military breaks. He didn't argue the validity of the question for a second, his response was, "we don't know, nothing like it has ever happened before. And I'm scared".

This guy is Special Forces, he has been in places, seen and done shit that you and I will never want to imagine in our worst dreams, and he's scared.

Please note, the brass hat with the brass balls is, wait for it, ....... scared.

His wife tried to lighten the moment by pointing to the Pentagons' legendary bureaucratic stupidity and then suggested, "no wonder we're going to lose in Iraq".

Nobody laughed. Nobody argued. These people are frightened because they can see what is coming, and they know that they can't change the outcome now. The US military is going to break. They don't know how it will happen, but they know where; Iraq, and they know when; soon.

And when it does, everything goes on the table. All of it.

Its going to be a New Year rather more interesting than most of us had hoped for.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 118 comments

  •  Great catch, (none / 0)

    I thought a few weeks before before Nov 3rd that a Bush win might not be so bad. Why, because they would then have free rieng in Iraq, and would likely screw up royaly. I don't wish for bad things to happen, in some ways I think of Iraq as a bandaid. It often hurts less if you don't pussyfoot around and just yank it off. A disaster could have that effect, and less will die in the long run.

    Besides, we are bound to get kicked out in the next four years anyway, and whomever the President & party in office happens to be will suffer for it. Might as well be the guys who started it.

    •  Pat Buchannan (4.00 / 6)

      argued a similar thing, he said that in '68 when Nixon won, Johnson's war became Nixon's war and therefore, Nixon bore the blame instead of Johnson and his "neo-liberals" being thoroughly discredited as they should have been...He argues that only with a Bush second term will these guys be forced to clean up the mess they've made, and thus be exposed and discredited...nice idea, but I think Pat's been sniffing Bob Novak's cologne bottle if he thinks the American public will ever discredit some tough-talking pseudo-cowboy who refuses to back down even though he's clearly lost on almost every point but wardrobe....

      PULL THE TROOPS OUT NOW. Anything else is deadly folly for old men's egos.

      --------
      Please don't bite the heads off the chocolate Elvises.

      by PBJ Diddy on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 09:23:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, I remember that... (none / 0)

        wasn't that when Buchanan emerged from Bush's ass for a few weeks back in the summer to warn about a coming GOP schism? Around the time he was whoring his book? Yes, that does seem familiar...I think it was right before he scuttled right back up Bush's ass to resume his comfy dueodenal seat.

        Only Democrats need to "pay for" any of their proposals; it's just understood that Republicans are "fiscal conservatives." - Atrios

        by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 10:36:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Novak's Cologne... (none / 0)

        It has to be one of those collectible Avon colognes from the 70's-you know the ones that came in glass race cars or the tiny replica of the White House.

        No amount of cologne can cover the stench of his gangrenous, evil brain.

      •  I think he lost on wardrobe, as well. (none / 1)

        The only President (even including true military heroes such as Washington and Eisenhower), who has religiously dons military uniform for effect.

        It's disgusting...and a tragic comedy if ever one graced the planet.

      •  Buchanan, Major Spinner, Writer for Agnew (none / 1)

        I believe Pat's the author of "left-leaning marshmallows" and/or "nattering nabobs of negativity."

        In any case, LBJ did get massive blame before Nixon took office. Does anyone remember the little red faux Mao book Quotations From Chairman Lyndon?

        Nixon was re-elected partly for his secret plan to end the war, which turned out to constitute massively expanding it, causing most of the total casualties, and attacking yet another nation which caused by far the worst domestic anti-war rioting.

        Little of which was LBJ's fault!

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 11:05:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ooops--Nixon "elected" not "re- (none / 0)

          -elected in 1968.

          We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

          by Gooserock on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 11:08:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah... (none / 1)

            Pat's point was, I gather that in order to reclaim the republican party from the empire-mad international policemen and give the reins back to the isolationists Bush had to be re-elected and the whole fiasco blow up in Wolfowitz, Rummy, Cheney et al.'s faces...problem is, (two problems) the 'discredit' he seeks will only be applied posthumously to the regime, probably 10 years or more from now, and helping the republican party is serving the wrong master as far as I'm concerned...natter...natter...natter...

            --------
            Please don't bite the heads off the chocolate Elvises.

            by PBJ Diddy on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 12:17:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  You have William Safire to thank (none / 0)

          for "nattering nabobs of negativism".

          I think it's pretty ironic that Safire, by becoming a so-called "journalist" at the NYT, turned himself into what he excoriated through Agnew.

          The degree to which you resist injustice is the degree to which you are free. -- Utah Phillips

          by Mnemosyne on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:42:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  pull out now (none / 0)

        if iraqis got to vote on a USA pullout it would be a landslide.

        support politicians who voted against the war in the first place. support politicians who supported pull out from day one. (oh, thats not dean)!

        occupation is war.

        love life, ride bikes

        by common terry on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 01:24:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  A Kerry win would have been disastrous (none / 1)

      Who do you think would get blamed for the upcoming economic meltdown if there was a Democrat in the White House? Christ, they're still trying to blame Clinton! It's going to be bad enough as it is, but after enough pain, death and privation, we can hope that the American people will identify the correct villains (with a little help), and more important, identify the causative policies.

      "The main enemy of the open society in no longer the communist but the capitalist threat."- George Soros

      by David Mason on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 04:06:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ROFL... (none / 1)

        ...I do remember those colognes....eek!!!

        The sleep of reason produces monsters.

        by Alumbrados on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 04:33:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  On New Years Eve, I told a GOP-er (none / 0)

        I was looking forward to four more years of bashing Bush like a freakin' pinata.

        GOP-er POTUS, SCOTUS and Congress?

        EVERYTHING is theor fault, now.

      •  I thought the same thing (none / 1)

        In fact, I felt a strange calm after the election, much like the calm that one feels in the face of imminent disaster.  I can't stop it; I can only watch it unfold as though I were a completely detached observer.  What seems to be especially fascinating to me is the behavior of even the most fanatical Bush supporters that I know.  At first they gloated over his win, but in a very short time, they have simply changed their focus to innocuous issues - college football scores, the weather, etc.  Strangely, they, too, seem to be very afraid.

        "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt

        by blueinnc on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 09:01:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  More Like the Calm of a Gazelle (none / 1)

          with a lion on its throat about to chomp down.

          We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

          by Gooserock on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 01:14:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I've noticed this, too (none / 0)

          I think it has to do with ju-jitsu; when we were pushing against them they could push against us with all their might.  It was satisfying, and they were victorious!  What a high!  Now that we're not pushing back -- we're not even in the contest anymore -- they are left with themselves, and even Red Staters experience (private, very private) self-doubt.
      •  Wish I could feel that way. (none / 1)

        But unfortunately I truly believe that Kerry would have mitigated the disaster.  Less people would die and suffer.

        NO political gain is worth the deaths and agonies of those who will suffer more under another 4 years of Bush, when at least some of them would have escaped with Kerry in power.

      •  Catch-22: SCOTUS (none / 1)

        If the Court shifts 1 vote towards Strict Constructionist, they'll be able to de-Constitutionalize at least some policies of liberal government. And the seats they fill will be 40 or 50 year olds who with medical or genetic progress could serve up to 3 generations for all we can tell now.

        Please jeebus make me look like an idiot in 10 years for worrying about this, but we've got a terrible track record at trying to overestimate this opposition.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 01:19:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Wrong Scale (none / 0)

        Why do you think it was worthwhile engineering one election and blatantly stealinmg the next?

        Because the Republicans know something that the Dems have been too dim to figure out.

        The people in charge when all this goes down, wont ever face re-election.

        martial law, total repression, feudal society will be the only option left. Whoever is in the WH on that day, get the lot, forever.

        The Number of the Beast 78-22

        by Deep Dark on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:06:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It Always Looks So Easy (4.00 / 9)

    Just before the start.

    And it always looks so fraught with peril in retrospect, the disastrous endgame so obvious.

    The people responsible for this nightmare have been players in every unsuccessful military/foreign policy venture of the last 30-35 years.  Did anyone really think they were finally going to get it right this time?

    BushCo. is a long March of Folly - somewhere, Barbara Tuchman is ruefully smiling.

    "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

    "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

    by JJB on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 08:55:39 PM PDT

    •  Reminds Me of an Ominous Murphy-ism (none / 0)

      "It's always darkest just before it goes pitch-black."

      (Googling attributes it variously to Einstein and Chairman Mao among seemingly others.)

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 10:53:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Deep Dark (4.00 / 8)

    Excellent diary. I talked to a War College professor some months ago, who told me of a similar dinner party with current and former military officers. Some of them had served in Afghanistan in the hunt for bin Laden and they all agreed that the administration had screwed that up royally too.

    Thrice is he armed who hath his quarrel just. Sherlock Holmes.

    by Carnacki on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 09:02:06 PM PDT

    •  my grandfather (4.00 / 2)

      was a lt. in the Navy during WWII and often told the story (now a bit hazy in my mind) of having dinner with a commanding officer who was trying to warn his higher ups about the vulnerability of the Pacific fleet.  A week later came the attack on Pearl Harbor.  Of course hindsight is 20/20 but I don't think you need that in this case.  The entire WORLD tried to stop these guys from going into Iraq but to no avail.  That freaks me out more for some reason.
  •  We're getting closer (none / 1)

    to Stalingrad every day.

    I almost afraid to imagine what Dumbass will do when one of our Forward Operating Bases gets overrun. Personally, I don't think the insurgents will bother taking prisoners. They might leave a few alive for hostage sorts of purposes, but wtf can they do if they overrun a company? They don't have the resources to keep them. They can't let them go. So my guess is that they'll keep a few of the officers and slaughter everybody else.

    And given what happened in Mosul just a few days ago, it's only a matter of time....

    •  i have been saying (4.00 / 3)

      for months that now is the time for cascadia to secede - they simply haven't the troop strength to supress us!

      "Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise." Thomas Paine, Common Sense

      by Cedwyn on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 09:47:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  oops! (none / 0)

        but on a serious note - thaks for this diary.  it is heartening to hear such perspectives from the military.

        "Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise." Thomas Paine, Common Sense

        by Cedwyn on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 09:48:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not sure I would say (none / 0)

          it is "heartening" to hear how srewed up things are...I had hoped even though the Iraq deal was a debacle we could make it somehow work.  Maybe it is heartening to know that there are military officers who can see the truth and are not in thrall to Bush.

          It truly is a mess; and we should declare victory, withdraw and let the Iraqis muddle through on their own.

          •  and what about Saddam? (none / 0)

            Should we bring him along home with us? If he's left behind with the Iraqis who are left to their own devices, isn't he likely to be set free and then lead them in stronger retaliation against us? If so, I'd hope he'd lead them against Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc., and leave us little guys alone, but he'd probably want to retaliate in kind--cities full of civilians.
    •  Probably targeting Mosul (none / 0)

      That may be what they're trying to do in Mosul. Not only did they suicide bomb the mess hall, but they also recently went after one of the commanders in Mosul. Large enough to scare the bejesus out of us, small enough that it is under protected.

      This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

      by emptywheel on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:03:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What Could They Do? (none / 0)

      Torture (I mean abuse) them on TV.  Make 'em stand on boxes with bags over their heads and electrodes attached to their dicks.

      This aggression will not stand, man.

      by kaleidescope on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:23:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What happens is nukes (3.50 / 4)

    The United States starts using neutron bombs and tries to pretend their something else.

    Maybe the rest of the world just sort of pretends we didn't use nukes, because maybe nobody wants to start World War III.

    Maybe also what happens is that Al Qaeda regains whatever strength/support it might have lost, gives up on any scruples it might have actually had, and goes ahead with an WMD attack on one or several American cities.

    Then the United States retaliates with a lot more WMD and we, um, win. Maybe the European Union allies with Russia to make sure that, the next time the United States has elections, the polls are rigged again . . . in favor of a Democrat.

    Or maybe the European Union and Russia organize their own massive attack on the U.S. president and Congress and install a new regime with help from friendly folks in the intelligence agencies and the military.

    •  Nukes (4.00 / 3)

      They talked openly about that in Vietnam. Only because what mattered was that the Communists didn't win. But they can't do that here--the objective is different. What matters is that we win.

      We entered this war because we are incredibly vulnerable, with our addiction to oil, as oil supplies begin to diminish (and, just as importantly, as the reserves outside of the Middle East begin to decline). Our vaunted war machine--truly the most amazing fighting force ever assembled--is completely useless without oil. It'll look like a war museum--downed planes and immobile tanks--if we can't gain control over most available oil resources in the near term.

      Nuking Iraq would only forestall the time when we'll need to be able to defend the oil supplies with bodies on the ground, it won't solve the fundamental problem that no one has yet figured ou--how to defend thousands of miles of pipeline. Until you solve that strategic challenge, all the nukes in the world won't help (and nukes, of course, won't help you defend that pipeline either).

      This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

      by emptywheel on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:09:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you're being too rational (none / 0)

        GWB is not rational. He doesn't seem to care about anything or anybody except being right, winning, whatever he calls it.  To "achieve" that, he is prepared for any sacrifice (of others).

        I do suppose he will chose the nuclear option in order to show the world he is bigger and stronger and more "fearless" than anybody else. And that he means business, of course.

      •  Small Point (none / 0)

        The last machines to stop will be the military.

        Bushco will ensure that whatever oil the military needs it will have. That may make for interesting social consequences in the US when people realise that there is no actual price that you CAN pay that will get you any oil for personal use.

        And when people get pissed, remember, the tanks will be the last machinjes to stop.

        The Number of the Beast 78-22

        by Deep Dark on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:01:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Too bad the Junior has ZERO foresight. (4.00 / 2)

    And he's hellbent on railroading anyone who does.

    Even now, China is openly talking about taking Taiwan.  They know that America's military is stretched as it is.  You can forget another war, much less a war with a nation that can and will shoot back.  Korea and Iran are near-openly working on going nuclear (with Korea likely having several bombs already) knowing that US tied up in Iraq.  Hell, just about every malcontent in the world knows that now's the time to do whatever they want to do.

    Man, the least that Chimpoleon could've was to 'accept' Rummy's resignation and appoint someone with a clue.

    •  unless (4.00 / 2)

      GWB was the one making the decisions all along.

      For years now, people have been giving him a pass by supposing that Cheney, Rummy, Rove were really running things. Why? Based on what? On the assumption that GWB was malleable and had a tendency to defer to others. We supposed that at the very least, given his aversion to reading and his reliance on his fabled alcohol-eroded gut, that others were slanting the slim short briefings he consented to receive, and thereby exerted some control over his decision=making.  Recent events ought to have disabused us of that notion.

      If Rumsfeld has been his faithful deputy, in fact as well as name, then firing him would be an admission of error. (perish the thought)

      It's time, perhaps, to face the real possiblity that George W Bush is actually running the show.

      •  Terrifying thought (none / 0)

        Reminds me of a dream I had on New Year's Day: I dreamed I was reading a magazine article that said that clever political aides like to prepare foolproof cover for politicians by creating a public perception that the politician is actually incapable of something that he is, in fact, doing. It explained that to figure out what a politician is up to, you should ask yourself what you believe he absolutely could not do, and bingo, that'll be the core of what he's doing. Bush was the example in the article: It said that most people imagine Bush is incapable of complex thought or planning, and that therefore we can conclude that he's actually the brains behind the whole operation.

        Pretty freaky dream. Maybe it's true.

  •  "Breaks"? (none / 0)

    What were each of you thinking as the meaning when you used this word?  
    •  I'd like to know too. (none / 0)

      This is a fascinating, horrifying diary, but what does specifically "break" mean here?
      •  Breaking (4.00 / 6)

        Many of these revolts were private affairs by GI's who were strung out on dope, or scared, or angry at being ordered to risk their lives to capture a useless piece of real estate. But as the war dragged on, an increasing number of GI's - like the men at Firebase Pace - felt they shouldn't be in Vietnam in the first place, and turned to organized resistance.

        Resentment was especially high among Black and other minority GI's, who were concentrated in combat units all out of proportion to their numbers in the population and were faced with continual racial harassment.

        The result, for the military, was devastating. By 1969 the morale and discipline of the U.S. ground forces in Indochina had so broken own that it was no longer a reliable fighting force. This fact was one of the major causes for the change in U.S. strategy. The U.S. government had no choice but to withdraw American troops. Nixon may call the Vietnam settlement "peace with honor." But his alternative was war without an army.

        •  the difference (none / 0)

          there's no dope in Iraq.

          Seriously.  

          "..we've got to make it look like an accident."

          by cdelia on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 10:23:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No... (none / 0)


            There's a lot of dope in Iraq.

            I read this about two to three months ago, so my memory of the details is a bit hazy.  But the story told about an increasing number of addicts in Baghdad.  The dope, I seem to recall, is coming across the border from Syria.

            •  great. (4.00 / 2)

              i'm picturing Vietnam on 100.

              oy.

              And my parents are ashamed of me temping for the last 3 years?

              You couldn't pay me enough to join the military these days.

              no.  fucking.  way.

              "..we've got to make it look like an accident."

              by cdelia on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 10:54:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Here's a report from the BBC (4.00 / 2)

            Saturday, 4 October, 2003
            Drug crisis grips Baghdad

            A drugs epidemic and accompanying crime wave is sweeping Baghdad.

            A boom in supply of hallucinogenic tablets has been coupled with the release of tens of thousands of criminals from prison before the US-led invasion to create a huge problem for the fledgling Iraqi police force.

            As well as the tablets, drugs like Valium and sleeping pills - in common use in Iraqi jails - are being used. The euphoria and lack of fear provided by the drugs, the police say, is giving desperate criminals the courage to carry out more crimes. ...

            •  drug crisis: horseshit (none / 1)

              if there is a "drug crisis" in iraq, it is manufactured by the US and britain.

              It's called the american dream because you have to be asleep to believe it. - G. Carlin

              by RabidNation on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 11:57:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Drug crisis (4.00 / 2)

                Well, we ARE giving our troops an incredible amount of drugs to keep them alert, awake, and killing. It's not clear that the side effects of those will be any less violent than dope was in VietNam. Certainly, the initial rash of returned Iraq vets killing their spouses suggests it may not be.

                This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

                by emptywheel on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:12:49 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  tranquilizers (none / 1)

              That's funny that they (the BBC or the source that fed them this) only mention how the drugs help the crime wave. Here's another perspective. Remember that story earlier this year from Oprah (30 year old women talking about their lives in war zones)?

              In Iraq, Valium is sold    without a prescription and costs only 20 cents a bottle. Sabah says    the constant state of fear is driving more and more women to the highly    addictive drug.

              Republicans can't run a country. All they can run is a smear campaign. ~ GMT

              Vice harms the doer ~ Socrates

              by kdub on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:37:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  There's plenty of opium (none / 0)

            grown nearby in Afghanistan.

            McCain: Less jobs, more war.

            by Unstable Isotope on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:52:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Dope was not the only (none / 1)

            catalyst cited in my reference. Also cited were fear and anger.  There is no measure for these factors.  The time period cited in my reference was 1969, five years or more after the US presence in Vietnam began in full force.  But really, this is just an example.  Who knows what will ultimately drive the breaking of the military and I don't think it is neccessarily a foregone conclusion. Avoiding it just doesn't look likely right now.  Our supply lines into areas outside of Baghdad are tenuous and the insurgents are acting more and more boldly.  
          •  Drugs For Industry Drugs for the State (none / 1)

            Doesn't sound to me like many of you know any junkies.  Junkies don't rebel.  They don't frag their commanding officers.  They don't get resentful.  They just take it easy.

            Cheap, extremely pure heroin was easily available in Vietnam and American soldiers did get strung out on it.  Any acts of disobedience, defiance or rebellion came in spite of drugs, not because of them.

            This aggression will not stand, man.

            by kaleidescope on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 09:00:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  PCP? (none / 1)

              (Giving away my age, maybe.)

              Just thinking that you are probably right in regards to 'natural' drugs like opium and hashish. But what about chemicals?  Speed? Some of the newer stuff that's come out that I haven't been paying much attention to?

              Maybe that stuff won't thrive in Iraq because the naturals will be easier to get and the troops will probably prefer mellow to wired. But I wouldn't be so sure.

              •  Tweaker Troops Scarry Thought Indeed (none / 0)

                Good point.  During WWII the German Army developed a cheap, easy way to make methamphetamine in the field.  It's still called the "Nazi Method" and is popular all over red states and in rural areas.  This is a truly frightening drug -- it makes you violent and literally crazy.  Probably quite a few soldiers in Iraq have had stateside experience with Crank.  I know the new Army tests soldiers for drugs.  For everyone's sake I hope they can weed out the tweakers.

                This aggression will not stand, man.

                by kaleidescope on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 10:10:42 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Speed as an official resource? (none / 0)

                Remember the story of the pilot who killed the Canadian troops? As I recall the early news stories, he was -- and apparently a lot/maybe all of the fliers do -- using speed. Because it was given to him as a way to keep the jet people edgy and alert.

                The degree to which you resist injustice is the degree to which you are free. -- Utah Phillips

                by Mnemosyne on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:53:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Broken Military (4.00 / 2)

        lapin does a great job of describing a military bereft of order and discipline and that is one possible outcome.

        A second definition is a military that is no longer capable of carry out the major operations for which it was designed (e.g. fighting off a North Korean invasion). We are very close to this definition now, because we lack any spare ground troops - all are tied up in the Iraq rotation cycle.

        A third and more serious breaking is creating a death spiral where the military begins to lose more and more of its capabilities through loss of personnel and equipment. The high rate of operations pushes more people to get out of the military as soon as they can and so you lose expertise. With that loss of expertise it becomes harder to maintain the quality of the remaining troops and equipment, so losses increase. By the end of the process you get a shell of the former force.

        - "You're Hells Angels, then? What chapter are you from?"
        - REVELATIONS, CHAPTER SIX.

        by Hoya90 on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 01:44:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hard To Say (none / 0)

      the problem is that the US Military is leveraged to hell and back on two things, mechanisation and technology.

      The two are interdependent and form a pretty tight network of practices, protocols, doctrines, tactics and strategies etc.

      But as Iraq grinds them down it does so at different rates for different systems. I saw here last week the the Pentagon wants 100 Bn to repair the infrastructural damage of Iraq which indicates that stuff is not just being blown up but is starting to fail at a systemic level.

      It comes down to engineering and replacement cycles that are now totally out of whack because a shrinking pool of vehicles, for example, have to be pushed ever harder just to survive. That pulls the MTBF down, more things break of their own accord, then the vehicle has to be abandoned because the recovery teams are also short handed. Then you have to destroy the vehicle to keep it out of enemy hands etc etc.

      At some point the whole system will become unstable and every effort to fix one part of it will trigger cascades of failures in other parts of it.

      The net effect however, will be that the rate of US troop attrition will rise ever faster and we will see bases overrun and yes, executed en masse. Platoons will be forced to run a mission without quite enough ammunition and will be wiped out.

      As the military tries to shore up the holes they will leave new gaps that will be exploited. Its what happened as the German machine deacayed but it will take less time and will probably collapse catastrophically as entire systems fail.

      I can't be more specific because almost any scenario could trigger the cascade. It might be nothing more than an aircraft gets shot down over Baghdad and the airport closes for a few days which leaves a firebase short of essential electronics that stops their mortar acquisition systems working so they get pounded to bits which means that convoys from Basra are now too unprotected over too long a stretch and they stop and so it goes.

      Someone asked me a few months ago what the worst outcome could be and I said 100,000 US dead. I think that is now quite likely.

      That's what I mean by broken in that context.

      But I also mean that at the higher level, the whole US military system fails because it will become too top heavy, too many bureacrats issuing orders when there is no possibility for them to be carried out because the people and the machines are too broken to respond.

      Recruitment is down, discontent is up. One stupid order too many might be all that it takes to set off a mutiny.

      The consequences however, will make this pile of shit look like a picnic.

      The Number of the Beast 78-22

      by Deep Dark on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:26:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There's hope. (none / 1)

    If the military does not blindly support Bush and his policies, there is hope for this country.

    We can only end up a fascist state if the military believes in Bush's agenda.  If they see the folly, and they get to the breaking point, I think it means they will revolt.

    It all comes down to the 50-state strategy...

    by Katydid on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 09:46:25 PM PDT

    •  A future generation of Dem leaders? (4.00 / 2)

      Just as Vietnam produced today's generation of Senators, presidential candidates and other leaders, I get the feeling that Iraq is breeding its own generation of future politicians--former soldiers who will never forget being jerked around by Bush.

      Maybe it's a pipe dream, but I really do think we'll be seeing some pissed off Iraq vets running for office in the coming years.

      Only Democrats need to "pay for" any of their proposals; it's just understood that Republicans are "fiscal conservatives." - Atrios

      by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 10:41:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  brings up an interesting point (none / 0)

      if the military rose up against this civilian government, who would you support?

      Anyone who advocates, supports, defends, rationalizes, or excuses torture has pus for brains and a case of scurvy for a conscience. - James Wolcott

      by rasbobbo on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 11:10:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Would that be like the (4.00 / 4)

      speculation from a couple of years ago on how the CIA was going to rescue us and take down Bush?  When push comes to shove the CIA and Military will remain on the GOP side of the aisle regardless of how much abuse, denigration or humiliation that GWB heaps on them.  They are like McCain, spouting off every once in a while and filled with angst and morality, but always toes the Party line when voting.

      What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

      by Marie on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 11:56:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The War in Iraq.... (none / 0)

      ...will be won, or lost, on the ground in Iraq. Just like Vietnam, our homefront complaints will have no measurable effect on policy until the losses became unsustainable. Bushco's ownership and management of the public mind, through the medium of television, is quite comprehensive. However, we're getting the crap beat out of us in the war. A point to remember: the insurgents aren't going anywhere else. They live there. It's their home and their country, after all.

      "The main enemy of the open society in no longer the communist but the capitalist threat."- George Soros

      by David Mason on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 04:22:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Military Support for Bush (none / 0)

      ... is reinforced by a culture that favors Rush Limbaugh type commentators. His was was the only show of its sort offered on Armed Forces Radio during my service (88-94) and I bet it's still true today.

      They probably have both Rush and Fox "News" on the Pentagon Channel. It is scary. I tried to tell people. No one listened. Now I need to try harder.

    •  Remember, the Bush government is not legitimate (4.00 / 2)

      This means that, in objective terms, the military, in following orders from BushCo - especially illegal ones such as those to invade Iraq - committed treason. Every serviceman (officer, anyway) swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, and since BushCo came to power by extraconstitutional means, for a serviceman to accept Bush as president ("Commander in Chief") is to break his oath.

      Given this, I do not expect too much from the US military. Support of an illegitimate government is certainly blind.

      Liberalism is the origin and center of American politics. Thus, to reject liberalism is to reject America.

      by Alexander on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 09:49:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I thought it was all over bar the withdrawl (none / 0)

    Then I read a piece that made me think

    He is Allawi

    "He said his government had contacted the countries and was waiting for their reply. ''According to the answers we will decide what the next step will be,'' he said.

    ''Iraq is not a weak country. Iraq is passing through a difficult period but Iraq can respond in a strong way if needed,'' he said. ''Patience has limits and it is beginning to run out.''"

    Do you think America would do war by proxy, by that I mean let Iraq declare war on Syria or Iran and then go help them fight it.

    •  On the logic (none / 0)

      That if we haven't been able to convince Iraqis to kill other Iraqis, then we need to set up a condition in which we convince them to kill Syrians and Iranians?

      This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

      by emptywheel on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:15:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They would find that more acceptable (none / 0)

        And lets be honest, the Iraqi people would sympathise less with the resistance if Iraqi troops were fighting another Country and the resistance killed them. Then again maybe they are not that gullible, you would really have to spin it as being in Iraqs best interest.
        •  Agree (none / 0)

          But I doubt that Allawi has the charisma and force that Saddam used to march thousands of young Iraqis to their graves in the war with Iran. He doesn't even have the same apocalptic claims about threats to the homeland.

          Don't get me wrong, I think this may be what Allawi has in mind. But I just think he hasn't done the groundwork to make it happen.

          This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

          by emptywheel on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:41:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Just twisted enough to make sense (none / 0)

          The major thing lacking in the neocon effort to rebuild Iraq is a common vision of Iraq for Iraqis to fight for. Ethno-religious divisions make it difficult to for them to support the interim government, because no one knows what they'll get out of the constitution that will be written by the new National Assembly.

          Absent any real mechanism to create internal unity, it would make a sick sort of sense to turn to an exterior threat to unite Iraq. The outsider threat worked great for Bush, why not tell Allawi to try the same trick.

          Let's hope we just have fertile imaginations and that the nutcases in the White House really aren't thinking this way.

          - "You're Hells Angels, then? What chapter are you from?"
          - REVELATIONS, CHAPTER SIX.

          by Hoya90 on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 01:32:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  my friend's son (4.00 / 5)

    joined the military before Bush started the war with Iraq. He just finished up basic training and is being sent to Iraq this week. He's being sent first to Kuwait, and then on to Baghdad, I think as part of the forces in conjunction with the election. Those of you who pray, please keep him in your prayers. His name is Luke. My friend is about out of her mind. It makes me sick to think of a boy this young going out to the killing fields under such an inept and incompetent "commander in chief."
  •  Welcome back, Deep Dark. (none / 1)

    Ovet the past year I've been in close communication with a close family friend ~ retired Colonel, US Army and professional historian/author of a best-selling history of the Army ~

    His son and daughter-in-law are State Dept. diplomatic corps stationed in the Green Zone.  The last comm. I had with him was prior to the election, he STLL refused to back off his loyalty to W even in the face of the rank incompetence of the current administration.

    [aside, racked on philly homebrew, all of a sudden Big Star's "My Life Is Right" is a perfect repudiation of a poisionous relationship, be it romantic or politcal... screeeching harmnonicas suddenly make perfect harmonious sense... ]

    [holy shit, did i just GET  Big Star in the middle of this post.  Damn...  Milo Miles please email me , I need to make confession!!]

    Anyhow.

    Col Bluhm is unwilling to admit to the rank incompenence of the Bush Adm. even in the face of incontravertable evidence.  

    What will it take, Ray?  A body bag?  Will you admit it then?     Me and Todd weren't that close growing up, but it could just have easily been me rather than him.. after all, I was the one ready to sign up with the Nat'l Guard in the aftermath of 9/11.  My degree would have put me in the officers ranks...

    imagine me ordering grunts to walk point in patrols throgh Mosul or Falljah... it was this close to happening.  Difference is, I had an inkling of conscience, of doubt, of critical thinking.  Instead, some other motherfucker is tied up like a fucking karmic knot instead of me.

    "..we've got to make it look like an accident."

    by cdelia on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 10:17:08 PM PDT

    •  that motherfucker (none / 0)

      that motherfucker even tried to recruit me by email 6 mos ago, while his son and daugher in law under daily mortar bombardments.

      I still like Ray, he's one of the smartest motherfuckers I've ever known.

      Just shows you how powerful the cult of the CinC is, though.

      We have got to cut this fucker loose.   Him and his whole family and band of cronies.

      "..we've got to make it look like an accident."

      by cdelia on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 10:21:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What if they can't help it? (none / 1)

        What I find myself wrestling with is the idea that some parents out there obviously hate the war, hate the danger it puts their kids in and wish they'd just come home.

        Many of those kids also just want to go home, don't want to be there, and all the rest.

        But I can't help but think there are kids out there that believe in Bush and the war because they can't cope with the idea that their ritual, what they are doing day in and day out, is futile and worthless or, worse, doing more harm than good.

        And of course, there will be parents of those kids that are forcing themselves to feel the same way, to support Bush and the war, because they might not be able to survive day after day thinking otherwise.

        The human mind is capable of a great deal of self-denial and outright lies to oneself.  This would not be too farfetched, to me.

        I'm still an Edwards supporter, and a Patriots fan. Not having the best year here...

        by Stymnus on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 11:25:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  YEP. (none / 1)

          that's why I can't talk to him anymore.  He's beyond reason, he has too much at stake.

          No doubt, if his son Todd Bluhm is killed in Iraq, he'll blame it on us for not clapping harder.

          like tinkerbell.

          "..we've got to make it look like an accident."

          by cdelia on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 11:53:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The bigger the lie, (3.80 / 5)

          the worse the crime, the bloodier the debacle, the stronger is the human will to denial. In that sense, the catastrophe in Iraq can be better supported than something less horrifying.  The Bush Junta is benefitting from the simple human unwillingness to believe that the slaughter of so many sons and daughters is really just about the political lies of a half-wit punk and the fascist machine that pulls his strings.

          This shock strategy is also evident in the inability of so many otherwise rational americans to believe that something as sacred as an election could be manipulated on a massive scale.

        •  Brilliant insight (none / 0)

          Now the question is what to do about it. I was a cadet at the U.S. Air Force Academy from 1984-1988 and held a regular commission until leaving the USAF as a Captain in 1994. I saw this dynamic constantly and never did figure out how I might have a part in creating a more enlightened military. What I saw disturbed me deeply.
        •  Today's NYT (none / 0)

          has an article about this -- focusing on mothers who've lost their children in Iraq and how they are united by grief but not necessarily united in their views of the war.  It's clear from some of the quotes that some family members MUST believe their sacrifice was not in vain, and therefore fall back on gross generalizations about 9/11 and terrorism, while others can't help questioning the real purposes of this war.  They seem haunted.

          Sorry I don't have a link -- I read it in hard copy and am not registered online.

    •  Why does he still support W? (none / 0)

      Does he have reasons or is it more knee-jerk than anything else?

      McCain: Less jobs, more war.

      by Unstable Isotope on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:56:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Question (none / 0)

    I will admit to some ignorance on these matters as I don't know anyone currently serving in Iraq or the Armed Forces (at least, no one I am close to).

    If it is the case that a large chunk of the rank-and-file military thinks that the Bush Administration is mishandling Afghanistan and Iraq, why did so many military voters back Bush?  There was an October 16 poll conducted by Annenberg where Bush was beating Kerry 3:1 among military families.

    Poll Summary (Registration Required)

    What am I missing here?

    •  The Military Still Supports Bush (4.00 / 2)

      The officer corps according to recent surveys is 60% -70% in favor of completing the job in Iraq, whatever this means.  This is partly because post-Vietnam the officer corps in all branches of the military became very conservative and unrepresentative of American society.  You might say that in an all-volunteer army the people interested in volunteering for a military career were mostly red state people, many with long family traditions in the military.

      For purposes of unit cohesion under stress, the military is run like a cult.  From your first day in basic training you learn about duty, obeying orders, us vs. them ("them" is the enemy - sometimes Americans who don't support the military).  Even the drill chants in basic training enforce a unanimity of opinion, sometimes  homophobic, and more recently anti-Arab because the enemy now includes "ragheads".

      There were some Pentagon doubters who questioned the invasion of Iraq, but Rumsfeld effectively sidelined them so that yes/men and Pentagon careerists who were anxious for this war now rule the military.  These people now may be developing private doubts about how the war is being managed and the Army, Marines and National Guard short-changed, but discipline and career safety requires that these opinions be kept to themselves.  And they are so used to thinking of liberals and Democrats (same thing) as wusses, and Republicans as the only party with any commonality with the military, that it's going to take a much bigger disaster than Iraq to get them to abandon their conservative, Republican ways.

      •  Is there a tipping point? (none / 0)

        It must become clear at sometime that we've lost the war.  How many grandmothers sent to Iraq/backdoor drafts will it take?  It's been obvious for some time that we didn't send enough troops there.  How long before the troops decide they are getting tired of taking the same cities over and over again?

        I don't think we've reached this point yet.  However, the dissenting military voices are beginning to be heard over the white noise of the administration.  

        McCain: Less jobs, more war.

        by Unstable Isotope on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:01:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  How low can it go? (4.00 / 3)

    Is anyone else wondering what happens when our military breaks if the blame doesn't stick to Bush? What if they once again successfully trot out the old "Stab in the back" theory that they've been pounding us with since Vietnam, and the Bush-loving officer corps decides to take matters into its own hands (perhaps encouraged by, or under the direction of, its friends in the Administration)? When I hear talk of the breakdown of the military, I begin to fear for civilian control of the military. It's a fragile compact.

    "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

    by Septic Tank on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 11:16:55 PM PDT

    •  Could a military dictatorship be worse (none / 0)

      that the corporate cleptocracy that is currently looting us to armageddon?
      Shit, our owners in China should just step in and provide some adult supervision in america for a change.
    •  Blame Doesn't Matter (none / 0)

      there will be much more important things to do than assign blame.

      The US is losing its ability to project power. It has used its astonishing military capability against an enemy with nothing more than IED's (don't you love the inherent contempt in that improvised) RPG's and hand weapons and it is not only losing, its entire military apparatus is being deconstructed.

      Its credibility is gone, its ability to demand obedience, compliance, submission is gone because it has failed to realise the most important thing of all about power; it is inversely proportional to the force you need to use.

      Bin Laden had to use massive force to get the world's attention, the President, once upon a time, needed only to raise an eyebrow.

      The US has used all of its force now against a very small, agile, inventive, determined and completely ruthless enemy. And it has failed.

      That lesson is being learned in every cave and capital in the world. The realignments that it entails are already under way.

      Once the invasion collapses, the vultures will come after the corpse. There is nothing surer.

      Blame? You wont have the time to blame.

      The Number of the Beast 78-22

      by Deep Dark on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:45:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Of course we're going to lose... (4.00 / 4)

    ...In fac t we've lost already (I've been saying that before Day 1).  If there's a case of "Dead Man Walking," we're it.

    The dream (nightmare) of American Empire will collapse, it's inevitable. Proportionally, we don't have one tenth of the dedication, resources and savagery that the Brits and the French invested in their colonial empire, and they still lost them.

    It's not a matter of IF, only of WHEN.

    The Fall of the American Empire will likely have two consequences, which we must prepare for.  (And IMHO it's a lot more vital to prepare for that than worry about the 2006 elections and the likes.)  One, there'll be a massive economic depression, and two, there may be (?) massive political turmoil.  As the diarist said, "we don't know, we've never been there before."

    OVER HERE: AN AMERICAN EXPAT IN THE SOUTH OF FRANCE, is now available on Amazon US

    by Lupin on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:45:08 AM PDT

    •  Aaah, a voice of reason (none / 1)

      Ultimately, the war is a symptom of the end of the American dream, NOT a cause of it. The dream has always been based on steady, infinite, endless growth with no limits to resources, either physical or human. Since we've now fried up all our own oil and whored out our manufacturing capacity, the dream is absolutely dependant on exploiting the resources and people of the Third World. Only problem is, they're not playing along anymore. I expect mindblowing turmoil, , privation, anger and violence - "Why didn't my TV warn me about this?"

      "The main enemy of the open society in no longer the communist but the capitalist threat."- George Soros

      by David Mason on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 09:47:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks (none / 0)

    ... for passing this on. I'm curious though what you meant by "brass hat." Did you mean perhaps "top brass?"
  •  Elisted feel the same way (4.00 / 5)

    Young, serious Marine was in my store this summer buying ice and beer for a party. He's on leave from Iraq and on his way back over, one last party with his friends.
    His words, once he's figured I'm safe: "We're the best in the world. You don't fucking send us into war for a lie!"

    The retired officers and enlisted I've met have that grim, ain't talkin', attitude I remember so well from Vietnam. These guys lived the hell of Vietnam. They know exactly what's happening. They just shut up, grit their teeth, and carry on. Proud, pissed, silent, like my lifer marine uncle during the seventies, or the captain of my ship in '70. I know the retired-army guys that run the little ROTC-like program at the local high school, they've got a darkness over them this winter, a sadness. They know exactly what their promoting and sending these kids into. They lived this thirty five years ago.

    If Kerry had acted like a commander, more like McCain--strong, decisive, no-bullshit--and with some idea what to do to get us out while protecting us as a nation--they would have voted overwhelmingly for him (IMO). They want a commander-leader worthy of respect.

    Excellent diary, thank you.

    •  By keeping their heads down and being quiet (4.00 / 3)

      they are endorsing torture and the overturning of the Constitution. So much for their oath to defend it against all enemies domestic and foriegn - they're just being Good Germans.

      And you think McCain - POTUS-butt-kissing McCain! - is a good example of leadership?

      No wonder we're fucked, if this is the best critical thinking in the country, deluded by appearances rather than the reality.

      "Don't be a janitor on the Death Star!" - Grey Lady Bast (change @ for AT to email)

      by bellatrys on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 10:44:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What does break mean? (none / 0)

  •  Military Enthusiasm (none / 0)

    will soon wane.  As you highlighted so clearly in your article.

    My prediction.....after the Jan 30th election, Bush will begin withdrawing troops, spinning  victorious, leaving the country in ruins. The American people will be brainwashed the the war was a huge success, and how touching that women can vote, etc., leaving the middle east in a most precarious position.

    The arrogance is astounding.

    Overthrow the Government ~Vote~

    by missliberties on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 10:33:08 AM PDT

    •  Post-election withdrawl . . . (none / 0)

      yeah, we all know it's coming. But the aftermath is not gonna be pretty.

      Hopefully, 'Murkins will know who to belive: BushCo, or their own lying eyes.

    •  No He Wont (none / 0)

      There is no raod back from Iraq. He can't pull oyut because the moment that begins is the moment that the insurgents start taking over.

      He can't pull out because there was never any intention of pulling out.

      This IS about access to cheap, pletiful oil. Nothjing more, nothing less.

      An America that is not in Iraq has lost its control over thta oil.

      He will stay till the US is defeated. Until it gets mauled and defeated and is driven out. I am NOT kidding above with the suggestion that the end game in Iraq will see 100,000 dead troops.

      But Bush leave? Never going to happen.

      The Number of the Beast 78-22

      by Deep Dark on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:39:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Never Leaving (4.00 / 3)

    Up Thread some folks are suggesting we will leave after the election.  I fear not -few quick points:

    (1) There will be no election that will be condidered valid - if there is any election at all;

    (2) we are not leaving the area  - ever.  It was never intended that we would leave.  Its a resource grab.  Makes you wonder when W and crew think: (a) we will hit (maybe already?) peak oil; and (b) when they think the inevitable collapse of Saudi society will take place (that is an inevetiable event)

    (3) Our economy has no ability to suffer a major enegey shocks of peak oil and / or the collapse of the House of Saud.  Period, zip, none.  We need to have massive force in place to grab resources.  I have felt that Iraq was the canary in the coal mine for Saudi and peak oil.

    (4) Iraq War was and is a despeate attempt at hedging (albeit only somewaht) against a very frightening near term energy future.  When the proverbial &*(% hits the fan W will not have to worry about people supporting the war - they will eagerly do so.  That is what is so frightening - how quickly will our alleged moral code hold up if Americans cannot mantain their current "lifestyle."  I am very frigtened about what is coming downthe pike (and no I do not wear alumnium foil on my head - well not always).

    (5) While I belive the above to be true, it suggest that W et al are operating with a  strategy (note I think an amazingly  wrong one but a strategy none the less)

    (6) Lets look in the collective mirror and I see an incredibly over weight, ill informed, wastful society (the collective us) - and wonder at what this society is willing to do (or turn a blind eye to) to allow us to keep this mad party going for just a little longer.  If push comes to shove - oil or a nuke, I fear a nuke (assuming it does not ultimately prevent reaching the oil) would be entirely acceptbale to our society.

    •  Supporting the War (none / 0)

      wont make any difference thank goodness. Because to be able to fight a war you need an army and the US doesn't have one any more.

      I agree that Peak oil is the key to this, I think that it is the only thing that makes any sense of the whole deal. They had no option and it didn't matter if they failed because the cost of not acting at all was going to be at least as bad a failure.

      Nukes, at least a couple anyway, fired into Fallujah or even Baghdad as a warning to those who don't do the US bidding will probably be the next step.

      But that wont work either. Every US asset anywhere on the planet will be done like a dinner in five minutes. Every American anywhere outside the US will be dead men walking.

      And the Chinese and Japanese and Europeans will pull the plug on the US economy because that will be all they have left.

      The Number of the Beast 78-22

      by Deep Dark on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:53:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Military Coup - In the USA (none / 0)

    I remember seeing some former military brass on Charlie Rose, must have been around November 2003, telling Charlie that he shouldn't worry about the administration stomping all over our civil liberties because - get this - his uniformed buddies, all in the top tiers of military command, had privately agreed that if it got too bad they would step in and forcibly take the Whitehouse back.

    He also went on to define too bad as being "if the constitution of the USA was in danger of being destroyed".

    This was framed within a discussion of the Patriot Act.

    I wish I could remember who the general was... I guess I'd better go search their archives.

    Anyway, remembering his words made me feel a little better on November 3rd last year.

    .
    .
    .
    We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in - some of us just go one god further
    -- Richard Dawkins

    by deafmetal on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 04:11:21 PM PDT

Permalink | 118 comments