Sunday, February 25, 2007


The Times Online, a British news source, is reporting that several military commanders are threatening to resign in protest if the Bush regime launches an attack on Iran. From the news link:
A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.

The threat of a wave of resignations coincided with a warning by Vice-President Dick Cheney that all options, including military action, remained on the table. He was responding to a comment by Tony Blair that it would not “be right to take military action against Iran”.

If this is true, what would it mean (should it actually happen)? People often talk tough in the heat of the moment, saying things they don't really mean; usually, when given time to think about their actions, they go back on their earlier words. However, given that the U.S. military has been pushed to the breaking point no thanks to the imperial ambitions and incompetence of the regime occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, anything could occur.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have been using the same lies against Iran that were used against Iraq. They've been ordering another military buildup in the region in anticipation of the planned war. But a number of military commanders have not been playing ball by going along with the regime's rhetoric. In fact, they've contradicted it quite publicly. As the Times Online article reports, "General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff...played down claims by US intelligence that the Iranian government was responsible for supplying insurgents in Iraq, forcing Bush on the defensive." British officials have supported Pace's assertions, saying the extent of Iran's involvement was "far from clear."

This was demonstrated when the Shrub was forced to backtrack on his claims that the U.S. had "proof" Iran's government had supplied weapons to the Iraqi resistance.

If the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is publicly contradicting what the Shrub is saying, it means he is essentially calling Bush a liar (which he is). Even Colin Powell wasn't brave enough to do that during the first Gulf War, when his boss, George H.W. Bush, was lying through his teeth about the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Kuwait was eventually discovered to have been "siphoning oil from the shared Ar Rumaylah oil field straddling the Iraq-Kuwait border," according to one website. Greg Palast reported, too, that Kuwait had been "Kuwait's craven siphoning of borderland oil fields jointly owned with Iraq gave Saddam the excuse to take Kuwait's share." Powell didn't get to be chairman of the joint chiefs by being stupid, and not asking certain people the relevant questions. He surely knew his boss was lying. Yet he went along with Bush Sr.'s war anyway, with no thought of resigning in protest. Eventually, as Secretary of State, Powell passed on the opportunity to resign in protest over what he knew was deliberate deception by his employer, George W. Bush.

But here we have Peter Pace, the current joint chiefs chairman, going against the rhetoric being spewed out by the Shrub and his gargoyle. If the military is in a state of near-revolt, what will result from an attack on Iran? There is no question that commanders already in position, upon orders from the White House, will launch the attack. They have been picked for their ability to follow orders without question. But if the top brass does resign in protest there is no way the rest of the U.S. military won't hear about it.

Whatever this news means, it won't be good for the Bush regime. I'll keep you posted as I learn more information.

No comments: