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.
The community organizer is getting outed 5 years too late. . . .
If the command to go to war is unconstitutional then the military has the obligation and duty to refuse that order.
FReepers saw this train wreck coming in 2007.
That's only partially true. They have to be right, and they have to be willing to have that tried by court martial.
Recall the commander who refused some order or other due to his belief that Obama was an illegal commander.
He was tried, convicted, and put out of the military. I don't recall if he did jail time.
I'm glad he stood up for his principles, but if you're "officially" wrong, then you pay the price.
IS there a link to this so it can be shared on Facebook
IS there a link to this so it can be shared on Facebook
What the liberals and democrats don’t remember about the oath
...”to protect and defend THE CONSTITUTION of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic”.. It doesn’t read “to cover up for the black guy because we don’t want to be called racist”.
Wag the dog
Sometimes I'm glad he lost the election.
He is at Leavenworth and he is hero with more guts and courage than most
-——the United States is the only liberal democracy that has never been ruled by its military-———
Perhaps it is time for that to change. The only method of relieving the country of the incompetent is impeachment and that is not a possibility. Even if it were, there would still be the minions to have hissey fits.
A good old fashioned takeover coupled with a governing board of directors to sort it all out is looking very good.
The JCS should just resign.
Yeah, a millitary diktatorship! Thats the solution we need! sarc/
I find it funny that after all the criticism of Bush and Iraq and the so called “rush to war”...
“The lead up to the Iraq war took a lot longer”
Huh? What? I thought it was rushed?????
Thanks Kaslin.
Obama hints he may abandon Syria strike
The Daily Caller | 6 Sep 13 | Neil Munro
Posted on 09/07/2013 12:34:23 AM PDT by elhombrelibre
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3063699/posts
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.