There have been dozens of diaries about Seymour Hersh's recent article in which Hersh provides frightening details of the Bush maniacs' preparations for using nuclear weapons against Iran. Unfortunately, in all the diaries I have looked at - and I can't claim that I've looked at all of the diaries, but I have read about a dozen so far - far too many diarists and commentators are simply assuming that the push for use of nuclear weapons is coming from the uniformed military. These diarists and commentators have either not actually read Hersh's article, or they have missed the part where Hersh explicitly identifies exactly WHO is pushing for a nuclear attack (quote after the jump):
a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it "a juggernaut that has to be stopped." He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. "There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries," the adviser told me. "This goes to high levels."
....the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons in such situations has gained support from the Defense Science Board, an advisory panel whose members are selected by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. "They're telling the Pentagon that we can build the B61 with more blast and less radiation," he said.
The chairman of the Defense Science Board is William Schneider, Jr., an Under-Secretary of State in the Reagan Administration. In January, 2001, as President Bush prepared to take office, Schneider served on an ad-hoc panel on nuclear forces sponsored by the National Institute for Public Policy, a conservative think tank. The panel's report recommended treating tactical nuclear weapons as an essential part of the U.S. arsenal and noted their suitability "for those occasions when the certain and prompt destruction of high priority targets is essential and beyond the promise of conventional weapons." Several signers of the report are now prominent members of the Bush Administration, including Stephen Hadley, the national-security adviser; Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; and Robert Joseph, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.
OK, let's get this straight: The uniformed military reportedly are opposing the use of nuclear weapons. This explains why so many anti-Bush statements are being made by retired military officers the past few weeks, who said little or nothing in the period before the 2004 election, when they might have tipped the election against Bush. My guess is that the high-level military people are scrambling to find a way to stop Bush's thumb from pressing the nuclear button. See, for example Valtin's diary "Pentagon Palace Coup Against Bush/Cheney" http://www.dailykos.com/... .
In fact, Hersh reports, "some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue," including, perhaps, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who originally proposed the nuclear option in contingency plans presented to Bush last year. My reading of how the Pentagon's top brass operate, which I take from Richard Clarke in his book Against All Enemies is that the uniformed military included the nuclear option as a gambit to force the Bush maniacs to back off from even thinking about military action against Iran. The problem now is that the Bush maniacs called the bluff. So now we get Hersh reporting that
The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran--without success, the former intelligence official said. "The White House said, `Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.' "
We must leave aside the question of how wise it was for the uniformed military to attempt to scare off the Bush maniacs by including the nuclear option in the first contingency plans presented. It is water under the bridge, the damage is done now that their bluff has been called, and there's nothing anyone can do to change what has already transpired. The real problem now are the CIVILIANS in control at the Pentagon -- according to Hersh "Pentagon civilians and in policy circles" -- the nutcase extremist conservatives who are itching to use nuclear weapons. Let us look at Hersh's list again:
- The Defense Science Board
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
- National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley
- William Schneider, Jr.
- National Institute for Public Policy
- Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone
- Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph
- Patrick Clawson
This is probably not a complete list, but it gives us the names of some of the people that need to be called to account, IMMEDIATELY, for what they are proposing to do.
We DO NOT HAVE TIME to waste arguing whether or not the uniformed military is always in support of war simply because they like making things go boom. That view is as pathetically ideological as the extremist conservatism of Bush and Cheney and the rest of these madmen. We need an accurate assessment of the situation, and a simplistic dismissal of the mounting opposition of the professional military to the Bush cabal is NOT going to provide it. The military may have, and probably did, support Bush in 2000, but it certainly did not in 2004 -- anyone who was at the Democratic Convention or watched it closely will recall the rather surprising presence of so many retired military officers, including 3- and 4-stars. The Rethugs and most of the MSM dismissed this as window dressing by Democrats desperate to convince the voters that Dems were strong on defense also, but again, this is an overly simplistic dismissal of the mounting opposition of the professional military to the Bush cabal.
What should make it clear is the increasingly strident statements in opposition to Bush made by retired military officers since the 2004 election. Retired U.S. Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, former Commander in Chief of CENTCOM appeared two Sundays ago on Meet The Press and said flat out "We just heard the secretary of state say these were tactical mistakes. These were not tactical mistakes. These were strategic mistakes, mistakes of policy made back here," in Washington DC. Today, Sharon Jumper's diary "General calling on other officers to speak out" http://www.dailykos.com/... quotes retired Lt Gen Gregory Newbold former JCS Director of Operations saying
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent statement that "we" made the "right strategic decisions" but made thousands of "tactical errors" is an outrage. It reflects an effort to obscure gross errors in strategy by shifting the blame for failure to those who have been resolute in fighting. The truth is, our forces are successful in spite of the strategic guidance they receive, not because of it...
This is very serious stuff, when 3- and 4- stars begin accusing a sitting President of making strategic policy mistakes. These comments are merely the public face of a massive brawl going on behind the scenes. Take a look at leveymg's diary of March 17, "The U.S. Military Will Not Go to War With Iran for Bush" http://www.dailykos.com/... to get a sense of how this plays out AWAY from public view.
What we as progressives MUST accept and ponder is that a large group of people, including professional military, who previously supported Bush and Cheney, have by now TURNED AGAINST Bush and Cheney. That does NOT mean that these people are going to accept the full slate of progressive policies and priorities. It DOES mean that we have to begin thinking of what compromises we are willing to make in order to create a strong enough alliance with these previous Bush supporters that we gain the position from which we can completely destroy the political power of the extremist conservative wing of politics.
The immediate period ahead, as the decision to use nuclear weapons against Iran is either made or is blocked, is going to involve political combat at its rawest and most savage. We as progressives cannot afford to make silly ideological judgments because way too much is at stake. If the evidence indicates that the uniformed military are the ones opposing the use of nuclear weapons, then we have to be willing to ally with the uniformed military on this issue. Adagirl in her diary "Washington Post supports Hersh's nuclear strike claim" http://www.dailykos.com/... asks
Why are these people leaking this [info on Bush's Iran bombing plans]?? This is pretty serious stuff to leak. I am fearful that some in our government see this as the only way to stop this insanity from occuring...
We simply cannot afford ideological biases that blind us to the possibility that the uniformed military might not, in fact, be wanting to use nuclear weapons on Iran.
What can we do? First of all, it's clear that we cannot simply turn to Congress. As Hersh reports:
The House member said that no one in the meetings "is really objecting" to the talk of war. "The people they're briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq. At most, questions are raised: How are you going to hit all the sites at once? How are you going to get deep enough?" (Iran is building facilities underground.) "There's no pressure from Congress" not to take military action, the House member added. "The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it." Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, "The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision."
So, the Bush cabal is simply excluding the Democrats, and is talking only to their cheerleaders in the Congress. This does not mean that we should not make our concerns known to Congress. It simply means that we must be aware that making our concerns known to Congress is not the only tactic we must pursue.
Last month, in a few articles in which he discussed his new book, American Theocracy, Kevin Phillips wrote that one thing that must be done is force a full public discussion of the extent to which Bush and Cheney's thinking is driven and influenced by a radical religious desire to hasten the onset of Armageddon. As Kossack Mash notes in his diary "Saving Iran" http://www.dailykos.com/...
Seymour Hersh's writes about Mr. Bush's determination and motivation in attacking Iran:
A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was "absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb" if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy."
It has been widely reported and speculated that Mr. Bush sees his mission in remaking the Middle East very much in biblical terms. If Mr. Hersh's source is accurate in his assessment then we are confronted with a President with messianic and evangelical zeal that will not be tempered by reason or the facts. In this case, war with Iran is inevitable. This is a frightening development, and the dangers may actually increase as Mr. Bush's popularity slips further. He may feel that the urgency to accomplish his mission becomes greater as his position in office become more tenuous.
But this does not go far enough in doing what Phillips proposes. I suggest we start applying pressure to get questions along these lines asked at the daily White House Press Briefing.
Secondly, McClellan should be pressed, and pressed hard and repeatedly, to state whether or not Bush is going to use nuclear weapons against Iran. For that matter, all other Bush administration officials who have anything to do with national security and foreign affairs should be pressed with the same type of question whenever and where ever they make a public appearance.
Third, I believe it is time to start considering direct protests and civic actions against the proponents of a nuclear attack on Iran. These protests and civic actions should be targeted precisely at the people and institutions identified in Hersh's article.
A list of "Possible Current Members, Consultants, and Experts" of the Defense Science Board, including many links for more information on the members is at http://www.sourcewatch.org/...
William Schneider, Jr. is Chairman of the Defense Science Board was one of the signers of the infamous January 26, 1998, Project for the New American Century letter to President Clinton regarding regime change in the Middle East. Someone needs to find and post more information on who he is, where he can be found, and how he can be pressured.
Contact information for National Institute for Public Policy, with a list of NIPP's Board of Advsors, is at http://www.nipp.org/... :
National Institute for Public Policy, 9302 Lee Highway, Suite 750, Fairfax, Virginia 22031, ATTN: John Kohout. Facsimile applications can be sent to (703) 293-9198: E-mail applications should go to john.kohout@nipp.org. For information contact John Kohout directly at (703) 293-9181.