Yet another report on the much focused-on US Generals.
http://dawn.com/2006/04/22/int13.htm
It seems opposition and question marks over Bush’s policies are becoming more common at the Pentagon lately…
*“Donald Rumsfeld’s closest aide, the undersecretary of defence for intelligence, Stephen Cambone, joked that the army’s problems ‘could be solved by lining up 50 of its generals in the Pentagon and gunning them down’, according to Michael Gordon and General Bernard Trainor in their new book on the Iraq invasion, Cobra II. In September 2001, Rumsfeld held a Pentagon meeting where he declared the ‘bureaucracy’ — the career professionals — to be ‘a serious threat to the security of the United States’.”
*
*"The generals have been wary of engaging in public debate for fear of being misconstrued as political. But they are haunted by Vietnam and deeply influenced by HR McMaster’s 1997 book, Dereliction of Duty, which argues that the joint chiefs of staff of the Vietnam era failed in their constitutional responsibility to object strenuously to misguided strategies. (McMaster is a general serving in Iraq.) As **the generals have stepped forward to demand Rumsfeld’s resignation, they speak in the language of McMaster’s book.
On March 19, retired Major-General Paul Eaton, who was in charge of training the Iraqi army, called Rumsfeld ‘incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically’. On April 2, retired General Anthony Zinni, former chief of US Central Command, said: “Poor military judgment has been used throughout this mission.” On April 9, retired Lieutenant-General Gregory Newbold wrote: “I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat — Al Qaeda.”
On April 13, retired Major-General John Riggs and Major-General Charles Swannack, former commander of the 82nd Airborne, went public. **“They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda,” said Riggs. Swannack emphasised that Rumsfeld bore ‘culpability’ for the abuses at Abu Ghraib."
Not infering where this might lead the US and particularly the Bush admin, it’s quite interseting to see atleast some US generals speaking up.
So while Bush might be looking to demilitarize and democracize the rest of the world and embarking upon more expeditions, what if his own Genarals show the US its very first experience of a martial coup…? 