Military Officers' Mutiny Continues

by **marykmusic** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 3:59 pm

This is SO important! The fourth recently-retired multiple-star general has just called for Rummy's resignation and an end to the Iraq war. And I've found this: West Point Graduates Against the War Our Purpose: Instilled by the Cadet Honor System with a fundamental, longstanding respect for truth, we graduates of the United States Military Academy believe that honor is a basic attribute of character. That we are no longer cadets is irrelevant. We stand appalled by the deceitful behavior of the government of the United States and, in particular, its widely known malefactors. Lying, cheating, stealing, delivering evasive statements and quibbling not only has demeaned these deceivers and the United States of America, but has placed vast numbers of innocent people in deadly peril. We will not serve the lies. It's here: <a href="http://"></a><a href="http://www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org/" target="top">www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org/</a> --MaryK

by **Sarutama** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 4:25 pm

Taken from that site... <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Douglas MacArthur, Class of 1903 United States Military Academy West Point, New York “The powers in charge kept us in a perpetual state of fear – kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor – with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real.” <hr></blockquote> Funny how history repeats itself.

by **Pirx** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:23 pm

Thanks MKM, The "Wise words from old grads" page is not to be missed. “If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison. They’ll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads. But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government.” Dwight D. Eisenhower, Class of 1915

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:36 pm

This sounds familiar...gulp. 'Saved' from an out of control executive cabal by CIA and Pentagon career people? Weren't they the ones who killed our republic by running it with a National inSecurity State? Are they really only now waking up because of losing a war yet again? (Not that war can be won in the first place.) Will the US-imposed dictatorships being left behind in the Americas include the USA, too? What an idea! The military and the peace movement might find each other yet to cure us once and for all of the schizophrenia in 'bombing for peace.' Consider that the military reads the internet, too. Hmm.

by **robertdreed** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:56 pm

I think the reflexive, pre-emptive disgust and automatic imputation of ulterior motive to anyone associated with American military, intelligence, or law enforcement is unwarranted. I'd be worried about a military coup if there were a charismatic, demagogic general with a history of political involvement somewhere on the horizon. But I don't see one. Wesley Clark? He doesn't even have the influence or following of an Al Haig, much less another Douglas MaArthur. Furthermore, I see scant evidence that there's a huge split at the highest level of the military, the JCS. They all sound- and act- as if they're fully loyal to the Commander-in-chief. What I find interesting is that for the first time ever in history, people across the board in the military are actively standing up for what they swore allegiance to- that would be the US Constitution, not the President- even though it entails challenging the authority of the President, their Commander-in-chief. It sounds to me as if they're standing on principle. And the canned-Left dogmatists are seemingly unable to formulate this as having anything other than a sinister motive, despite the fact that there's no evidence of secret factions within the military on the verge of seizing armories and going renegade. There isn't the slightest indication that there's a nationalist coup coming from the Right. What would you prefer, Hugh? that they simply go on following orders, without raising their vocies to object? Well...maybe you wouldn't. I read your comments as ambiguous, that you're holding out hope that the military people could be sincere. Hey, I'm not convinced one way or the other yet, myself. But there really were military people offering quite articulate dissent against the Bushoid push for war, before it happened. And the fact that this isn't better known or remembered is more the fault of the commercial mass media than of the military folks. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/13/06 5:33 pm

by **slimmouse** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:04 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>What I find interesting is that for the first time ever in history, people across the board in the military are actively standing up for what they swore allegiance to- that would be the US Constitution, not the President- even though it entails challenging the authority of the President, their Commander-in-chief. <hr></blockquote> Whilst this personally reinforces my own beliefs in the essentially good qualities of human nature, and as such might be percieved as a rose tinted spectacles view, I find any kind of mutiny to the likes of Bush Cheney, Kissinger, CFR, and those above who pull these peoples strings encouraging. Of course it could well be yet another onion layer. But I cant imagine it could get much worse than where we are going with the current political regime at the helm. Could it ?

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:34 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>reflexive, pre-emptive disgust and automatic imputation of ulterior motive to anyone associated with American military, intelligence, or law enforcement<hr></blockquote> You can relax with the 'why do you hate soldiers' rap. That wasn't at all what I was inferring. Just some historical perspective on how far from constitutional our government has been due to the institutionalized military intelligence coup started in 1947. I'm very delighted to see some of the brass and ranks recognizing a horror show when they see it and saying something right out loud. I realize many-most in the military believe in the Constitution even though they continue to obey the illegal orders of an illegitimate Commander in Chief. So I'm pointing at the enormous distance between their oaths and reality and hoping the distance will close even more, not impugning their motives.

by **km artlu** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:52 pm

Contrast the values of many in the military with their counterparts in corporate and government cultures. It wouldn't be easy to find among the latter, especially in corporations,those who chose their careers to some degree motivated by honor or any other ideals. In terms of broad personal standards, some in the military have much in common with say, environmental activists. This is often obscured by many factors. Perhaps the internet can be a means for mitigating the presumed oppositions. Woe unto us should we give it up without a fight.

by **robertdreed** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:57 pm

Hugh, let's make a deal. You be tend to be more hopeful on this issue, and I promise to tend to be more wary. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/13/06 6:07 pm

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 8:01 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>In terms of broad personal standards, some in the military have much in common with say, environmental activists.<hr></blockquote> I agree. Some of my own attitudes are more similar to soldiers than to academics and artists. An awareness of life and death matters and that something must be done to improve people's lives. Call it post-awareness stress disorder. Or reality. "There's a hard job to do and someone's gotta do it because it is the right thing to do." "The prime moral directive for humans is the strong must protect the weak"

by **StarmanSkye** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 8:17 pm

RobertReed said: "I think the reflexive, pre-emptive disgust and automatic imputation of ulterior motive to anyone associated with American military, intelligence, or law enforcement is unwarranted." WHO or WHAT in specific are you referring here to, Robert? But then, Eisenhower was only the first of many successive career military officials who pointed out the insidious character of unchecked military-defense complex running foreign policy. His warning was dramatically validated by almost everything that has happened since, from the Asian land-war to the covert destabilization and overthrow of legitimate governments to suit narrow economic and ideological purposes. We ARE talking about an economic Imperialism that is implicated in the deaths of some 20 million people since WW II, on the basis of pretexts that were outright wrong, inaccurate, contrived, invalid, unwarranted, and/or purposeful lies. I'd say we have EVERY GD reason to be downright suspicious of the motives of the military-complex and that of gov. and economic bodies who share their interests and collude with them. The planned destruction of Yugoslavia, Kosova, Haiti, Iraq and Afghanistan are just the latest chapters of a long, dishonorable history in which the legitimate interests of society were sacrificed and even vigorously opposed -- and the ideals of peace, cooperation, negotiation, progress, social justice, economic parity, and enlightened self-rule were subverted in the US and around the world. You act like this is 'news' to you. "I'd be worried about a military coup if there were a charismatic, demagogic general with a history of political involvement somewhere on the horizon. But I don't see one." So, WHO'S worried? I think we have more to be worried about the present messianic wannabe-demagogues around Bush than of a military coup that would begin to defend the Constitution, which is the military's primary oath. "Wesley Clark? He doesn't even have the influence or following of an Al Haig, much less another Douglas MaArthur. "Furthermore, I see scant evidence that there's a huge split at the highest level of the military, the JCS. They all sound- and act- as if they're fully loyal to the Commander-in-chief. "What I find interesting is that for the first time ever in history, people across the board in the military are actively standing up for what they swore allegiance to- that would be the US Constitution, not the President- even though it entails challenging the authority of the President, their Commander-in-chief." Uhm, you ARE aware your last two sentences above are mutually contradictory? To paraphrase -- They're fully loyal to the C-in-C. Across the board, they're standing on principle and challenging the C-on-C. How the hell am I supposed to intreret that? For my part, I'm more than happy to see people in the military throw off the military-elite culture-imposed lockstep-allegiance yoke of protecting and preserving the institutionalized heirarchy of fraud and lies and betrayal. There's an RAF doctor who is facing jail-time for refusing to train and prepare for deployment to Iraq. Standing on principle, he objects on the grounds the war is illegal and contrary to the interests of a civilized society. I'm tentatively inspired to see at least a begininng of such principled resolved in American forces, which IMO constitutes genuine courage and character. I probably have as much contempt for previous and present regimes for what they did to befoul American honor and dignity and integrity as for the suffering and senseless loss of life. Future generations are going to have to rediscover dignity and honor through standing up to the morass of protected secrets and priveleged crimes that has infected our primary institutions -- THAT'S why thinking Americans are only being diligent in suspecting motives of anyone who's part of the infrastructure of power, since they've been totally compromised and no longer exist to primarily serve the public's core values. Like, you KNOW? "It sounds to me as if they're standing on principle. And the canned-Left dogmatists are seemingly unable to formulate this as having anything other than a sinister motive, despite the fact that there's no evidence of secret factions within the military on the verge of seizing armories and going renegade. There isn't the slightest indication that there's a nationalist coup coming from the Right." You're very fond of lumping anyone whose ideological affinity isn't with the right as 'leftists' -- in this case, just WHAT does 'canned-Left dogmatists' stand for here? WHO are you talking about? I haven't seen anything posted on this thread suggesting the 'canned-Left dogmatists' have one opinion or another about the military finding their courage and standing up to Big Brother. Methinks you're reading WAY more here than has been spoken or is intended. I personally have a LOT more faith in military officers defending the constitution and doing the right thing by way of We, The People than I have ANY faith the system can 'fix' itself -- If something doesn't happen, I think things are gonna get REAL bad -- I mean fer C'risakes, look, by best accounts the King idjit wants to take-out Iran with NUKES. He'll be the ruin of the planet if SOMETHING doesn't happen first. "What would you prefer, Hugh? that they simply go on following orders, without raising their vocies to object?" My read, I may be wrong, Hugh seems to be saying it's odd but not necessarily a bad thing. Hugh said: "The military and the peace movement might find each other yet to cure us once and for all of the schizophrenia in 'bombing for peace.'" His meaning here is pretty unambigious to me -- the military and peace movement might finally make common cause by way of upholding the Constitution's affirmation and prescription of peace, rule of law and good government thru We, The People. How did YOU read it? Starman

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 8:29 pm

RR wrote- <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Re: Military Motives Hugh, let's make a deal. You be tend to be more hopeful on this issue, and I promise to tend to be more wary.<hr></blockquote> lol. Deal. I suspect that the military here stateside and the anti-war movement have more in common than they realize. It is the soldiers who are information-isolated overseas on bases and the public watching TV without reading the internet that are most similar in that they don't have an alternative to the indoctrinating lie matrix selling the War on Terra. Many Pentagon brass home reading the internet and talking to each other see something worse than Vietnam, an intentional quagmire with them deceived into it, and are more inclined to speak up than when the Cold War 'domino effect' was the rationale for the big muddy. Military people are pragmatic despite the hoorah culture and I'm optimistic about their 'mutiny.' Hope that makes more sense to you, RR.

by **sunny** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:37 pm

Slightly OT, but Newt Gingrich, that old witches brew of hypocrisy and bombast, has not only come out against the war, but against warrantless spying. <a href="http://tinyurl.com/nrrfw">tinyurl.com/nrrfw</a> hmmm, feeling a little "mortal" are we Newt?

by **robertdreed** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:51 pm

"Uhm, you ARE aware your last two sentences above are mutually contradictory? To paraphrase -- They're fully loyal to the C-in-C. Across the board, they're standing on principle and challenging the C-on-C. How the hell am I supposed to interpret that?" I didn't make that very clear. What I meant was that "across the board" at every level from enlisted on up to the major general (2-star) level, there is a lot of dissension in the ranks. Above that level, military rank becomes a lot more influenced by political considerations. By the time you get to the Joint Chiefs of Staff level, there's been quite a pre-selection process favoring loyalty and amibition over independent thought. And there's often an interesting process of rotation at the JCS- for instance, Richard Myers, an Air Force general, was made head of the JCS before the Gulf War. He wasn't exactly the most relevant candidate to know or care much about the conditions for the ground-pounders. He headed the entire armed forces at the start of the invasion- which took place in sandstrom season, going into blast furnace season- and his branch of the service was the least involved in it, with exception of the Coast Guard. Now that the Iraq war is a fait accomplit, the head of the JCS is Peter Pace, from the Marines. Pace is on board with the mission, because Marines never retreat, etc. In some ways, the biggest psyops of all are targeted at the top leadership of the armed forces...their brains have been mismanaged with great skill, and the higher someone gets promoted, the more pronounced that tendency. There's a reason why Col. John Paul Vann's fiercely candid, iconoclastic reports at the outset of the Vietnam war didn't win him a general's star. There's a reason why David Hackworth retired as a Lieutenant Colonel. "Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service." Major General Smedley Butler Retirement is also the only time that most military men feel comfortable offering pointed criticisms- like this one, for instance <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1181629,00.html">www.time.com/time/magazin...29,00.html</a> If that guy had played ball, he could have continued up the ladder on his way to being head of the JCS. But instead, he quit, four months before the invasion. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/13/06 10:02 pm

by **sunny** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:26 am

rdr: ____________________________________________________ What I meant was that "across the board" at every level from enlisted on up to the major general (2-star) level, there is a lot of dissension in the ranks. ___________________________________________________ You got that right, Robert. Without going into details, suffice it to say that as a daughter of the south, you would not be surprised to know that every single male relative of mine,including my father and step-father, both Korean War vets (except my son, whom I would promptly "knee-cap" should he make such noises at this time) and many friends and neighbors, have served in the military, from, WWI to the present. Young men who are close friends of my son are serving now in Iraq or Afghanistan, or have served there. I only know of one, yes one, of these dozens and dozens of men who are still supporting this war.

Military Officers' Mutiny Continues

Military Officers' Mutiny Continues

Re: Military Officers' Mutiny Continues

Re: Military Officers' Mutiny Continues

Re: Military Officers' Mutiny Continues

Re: Military Officers' Mutiny Continues

Hey Robert, we agree !

Re: RR

Military Motives

Re: Military Motives

Re: Military Motives

Re: Military Officers' Mutiny Continues

Re: Military Motives

Re: Military Motives

Re: Military Motives

Re: Military Motives

Who is online