Posted on 09/07/2013 4:07:29 AM PDT by Kaslin
There's a must-read op/ed in today's Washington Post, authored by a retired Army Major General. He draws on "dozens" of exchanges with active and retired military leaders to mount a case that Pentagon brass want no part of a Syria intervention. He begins by analyzing Gen. Martin Dempsey's body language during Congressional hearings this week -- by far his least compelling argument. Then comes the meat of his case. Brutal:
I feel confident that what follows represents the overwhelming opinion of serving professionals who have been intimate witnesses to the unfolding events that will lead the United States into its next war. They are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administration’s attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense. None of the White House staff has any experience in war or understands it. So far, at least, this path to war violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective. They are repelled by the hypocrisy of a media blitz that warns against the return of Hitlerism but privately acknowledges that the motive for risking American lives is our “responsibility to protect” the world’s innocents. Prospective U.S. action in Syria is not about threats to American security.
The U.S. military’s civilian masters privately are proud that they are motivated by guilt over slaughters in Rwanda, Sudan and Kosovo and not by any systemic threat to our country. They are outraged by the fact that what may happen is an act of war and a willingness to risk American lives to make up for a slip of the tongue about “red lines.” These acts would be for retribution and to restore the reputation of a president. Our serving professionals make the point that killing more Syrians won’t deter Iranian resolve to confront us. The Iranians have already gotten the message. Our people lament our loneliness. Our senior soldiers take pride in their past commitments to fight alongside allies and within coalitions that shared our strategic goals. This war, however, will be ours alone.
They are tired of wannabe soldiers who remain enamored of the lure of bloodless machine warfare. “Look,” one told me, “if you want to end this decisively, send in the troops and let them defeat the Syrian army. If the nation doesn’t think Syria is worth serious commitment, then leave them alone.” But they also warn that Syria is not Libya or Serbia. Perhaps the United States has become too used to fighting third-rate armies. As the Israelis learned in 1973, the Syrians are tough and mean-spirited killers with nothing to lose. Our military members understand and take seriously their oath to defend the constitutional authority of their civilian masters. They understand that the United States is the only liberal democracy that has never been ruled by its military. But today’s soldiers know war and resent civilian policymakers who want the military to fight a war that neither they nor their loved ones will experience firsthand.
Soon the military will salute respectfully and loose the hell of hundreds of cruise missiles in an effort that will, inevitably, kill a few of those we wish to protect. They will do it with all the professionalism and skill we expect from the world’s most proficient military. I wish Kerry would take a moment to look at the images from this week’s hearings before we go to war again.
I'm in no position to determine whether this is a tendentious screed, or a fair approximation of how Pentagon higher-ups feel. If it's more the latter than the former, it sounds as if American military leadership shares the intense skepticism expressed by the American people and many in Congress.
......well, I hear your sarcasm but raise you on your stance to wit: “the civilians (politicians) over the past 50-75 years have, cumulatively, f’d this country up beyond all repair”. The Freeper you responded to was making the point that maybe it is time for our military leaders to “just say no”. When I took that oath it had a phrase in it that included “obey all LAWFUL orders”...............Throwing 200 Tomahawks at Syria is CLEARLY an unlawful order and the military, given how f’d up this country is, should just say no.
And, I question WHO’s order this would be? Is it Axelrods? Is it Jarrett’s? Is it Moochelles? Is it the money men that put this bastard in office (Saudi’s)? I for one don’t think it would be a passionate thought of Obama’s to attack Syria. He doesn’t give a damn about ANYTHING but Golf and flying on Air Force One.
EVEN if we did go in to Syria, like we did in Iraq, we would end up fighting the very rebels we are supporting now. We would have no choice, as they would turn on us the minute they get what they wanted. I HOPE even the idiots in the Administration realize this, but I don’t know what to think about their reasoning skills.
Thanks for the ping.
Uh? I don't recall England ever being ruled by its military.
We are ethical and have nothing to gain from this action. It's a loser.
Remember that Obama has had his Officer purge, removing conservative/constitutional and experienced Generals and Admirals, weakened the Military as well a stock DOD Civilian leaders with his like minded minions. Perhaps this is why he called it "My Military".... perhaps he does have that control now. This all so sucks.
And no matter the circumstances, they would be officially wrong 99.999% of the time.
The most imminent threat to our country right now is coming from that narcissistic retard in the White House. IMO, the Pentagon should concentrate on countering that threat, and not allow itself to be led by the nose into a completely unnecessary and unconstitutional war. It'll require some creative thinking on the Pentagon's part, but options range from outright refusal to arresting the squatter occupying the people's house, etc.
Congress: your approval of the appointments of stupid people into key positions like “National Security Advisor” and “Secretary of State” and “Ambassador to the UN” - has consequences.
BUMP!
Lt. Col. Terry Lakin
He spent 6 months in Leavenworth.
‘The JCS should just resign.’
Huh?
The current JCS has been handpicked by Obama to turn the armed forces into the Gay Brigade. They ain’t going anywhere.
EVEN if we did go in to Syria, like we did in Iraq, we would end up fighting the very rebels we are supporting now. We would have no choice, as they would turn on us the minute they get what they wanted. I HOPE even the idiots in the Administration realize this, but I don’t know what to think about their reasoning skills.
They realize it all right, but they don’t care. This is all about bam-bam trying to save face.
I have a call in to Scott.....
:>)
It's pretty much all the time for me. We would have had WWIII already if he was President.
That’s not what Denise Lind ruled in the court-martial of Lt Col Terry Lakin. She ruled that the lawfulness of orders is unrelated to the Constitutionality of the process by which the commanding officers issue combat orders - NOT Obama; the President issues no orders, she says. As so many fine folks here at FR have told us, an order has to be presumed lawful and obeyed - on pain of court-martial - as long as it doesn’t order outright murder (basically). Unconstitutional war (or “kinetic action”, as Obama would call it) apparently doesn’t count as murder.
Furthermore, we are told that the unit commanders don’t even NEED the President to decide anything. There doesn’t have to be a decision from somebody Constitutionally and statutorily authorized to make combat decisions. Each officer can decide on his/her own whether we will invade a foreign country, and those under their authority are duty-bound to do it when the order comes.
The enlisted person’s oath to obey the orders of the President has been a carefully-crafted lie for all these years, since Denise Lind revealed that the President doesn’t give orders and is irrelevant to the lawfulness of orders.
So I don’t know why there’s such a big stink. Any LTC out there could lawfully give the order for Syria to be blown to bits. That is, if what Denise Lind ruled is actually believed to be true, and not just a way of protecting the foreign enemy combatant in our White House...
He was never allowed to defend himself. He wanted to plead that the orders he received were unlawful because they were not authorized in accordance with the Constitution and the Authorization to Use Force, which required someone acting as CINC to be the sole decision-maker on the use of force against terrorism abroad. The 20th Amendment prohibits someone who had “failed to qualify” from acting as President.
Denise Lind ruled that Lt Col Terry Lakin could not use that defense because the President doesn’t issue orders and the lawfulness of combat orders doesn’t require a President’s authorization, even though Congress’ Authorization to Use Force says it does.
Look at that ruling within this Syrian context and tell me whether you think anybody in Congress or the military really believes what Denise Lind foisted onto Terry Lakin. What do you think would happen if Obama wouldn’t authorize a strike on Syria but some military LTC ordered his men to do it anyway.
If what Lind says is true, no problem. It’s a lawful order and anybody who refused to obey it would be court-martialed, refused an opportunity to defend him/herself, and spend 6 months in jail and lose all their retirement benefits - as well as have the civilian authorities seek to refuse them a license to practice whatever skill they had been using in the military - just like was done to Lt Col Terry Lakin.
And lots of folks here on FR would be cheering it along saying it was right.
To truly mimic the Lakin situation, the LTC’s in the field would have to order their men to go to Syria AGAINST the decision of the Constitutionally-authorized CINC. Since Obama failed to qualify by Jan 20, 2009, the one authorized by the Constitution to “act as President” is Joe Biden, and Biden was expressly AGAINST the surge in Afghanistan.
So if the field commanders can lawfully contradict the orders of the person acting as CINC, then everybody in the military who is in the chain of command giving the orders necessary to carry out a Syria attack could just change the orders - send the planes, troops, etc someplace else - and nobody could do a darn thing about it. Without admitting that the Lakin ruling was doo-doo, that is....
“Sometimes I’m glad he lost the election.”
I’m always glad he lost the election. If McStain was POTUS we would already have 75,000 boots on the ground in Syria and God only knows where else. There would be 20 million new “citizens” and you wouldn’t be able to buy a vitamin supplement off the shelf.
McStain is Bat chit crazy and if his finger was on the button I’d really be worried.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.