[Peace-discuss] Gravel's lament: Fighting another dumb war

[C. G. Estabrook]

It also ignores the deep divisions in the uniformed military, which has recently 
undergone an internal putsch.  The Petraeus clique launched a faction-fight 
against their superiors with the "leaking" of Petraeus' (partially plagiarized) 
COIN manual in 2007 and essentially displaced the old guard -- but not entirely.

The latter still hold senior positions in the Pentagon, and Gates' job is to 
maintain this particular "team of rivals" in aid of constant US policy. (The 
Lincoln line is probably even less suitable than it was for Lincoln.)

Petraeus has modestly refused to disavow presidential ambitions -- he 
undoubtedly sees himself as Eisenhower, or a successful MacArthur -- and will 
take whatever line in the ME will aid those ambitions, not excluding cutting 
losses (and undercutting Obama).

But that's not to deny some desire in the cadre to practice their art.  Up to 
the mid-1960s or so, US officers would say of Vietnam, "It's a dirty little war, 
but it's the only war we've got."  It took the revolt of their conscript 
soldiers to make them shut up. --CGE


David Green wrote:
> It was disconcerting and disappointing to read this conclusion to Glenn 
> Greenwald's post today. It's a complete non sequitur--nothing in the article
> leads to this conclusion:
> 
> But -- as former Navy Commander Jeff Huber 
> <http://zenhuber.blogspot.com/2009/11/afghanistan-hurry-up-and-screw-up.html>
>  and former Marine Scott Ritter 
> <http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/our_murderers_in_the_sky_20091210/>, 
> among others, have both recently pointed out -- Dwight Eisenhower's warning
> has come true:  the military has become its own branch of government,
> uncontrolled by anyone and almost entirely unaccountable. It virtually always
> gets what it wants.  The stated reasons for fighting in Afghanistan make so
> little sense that Klein is almost certainly right that the real causes are
> undisclosed.  It's extremely difficult to imagine a circumstance that could
> justify that.
> 
> http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/14-0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
> *From:* C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu> *To:* Morton K. Brussel
> <brussel at illinois.edu> *Cc:* peace-discuss Discuss
> <peace-discuss at anti-war.net> *Sent:* Mon, December 14, 2009 3:15:48 PM 
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Gravel's lament: Fighting another dumb war
> 
> Mort--
> 
> I think you're right to hesitate over Hedges' notion of a "dumb war."
> 
> I recently posted the following to Doug Henwood's economists' list:
> 
> "American planners are not idiots.  (We went to school with most of them.)
> They (essentially the same people through the last two administrations, 
> except for a slight neocon detour) would not have poured people and money
> into their 21st-century Middle East wars out of pique or madness.  Their
> plans were not irrational -- just vicious.  Capitalism, imperialism, and
> geopolitics provide an adequate account.  And, as [another member of the
> listserv] pointed out, they're winning."
> 
> 
> Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>> 
>> The war is probably not considered "dumb" by the administration—they
> have their own interests in it different from what they proclaim at West 
> Point or from Oslo—, but it  is interesting to hear from Mike Gravel again in
> this article by Chris Hedges. --mkb
>> 
>> 
>> Gravel's assesment: / //“Obama comes on the scene,” he [Gravel]
> added. “He is
>> endorsed in the course of the campaign by some 19 generals and
> admirals. These people had no confidence in [George W.] Bush. They recognized
> that Bush’s unilateralism and cavalier approach to torture was injurious to
> the American military. They gravitated towards Obama. It turned his head. He
> thought he could be commander in chief and he could, he has the intelligence,
> 
>> but he does not have fortitude. He lacks courage.”/
>> 
>> 
>> Here's the whole article: ...