[cia-drugs] Fwd: [ctrl] 'Jack Bauer' Bush & Rummy By Robert Parry

Wed, 26 Apr 2006 06:00:49 -0700



Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/

Please let us stay on topic and be civil.

OM


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



--- Begin Message ---




'Jack Bauer' Bush & Rummy
By Robert Parry
 
 
 
Like the plot from this year's TV terrorism drama "24," suspicions over who's at fault for a real-life string of U.S. military and political disasters have swirled around top administration officials before settling on the ultimate culprit: an arrogant, self-centered President who has put in motion dangerous forces that he can't control.
 
 
This season's "24" may not be an intentional case of art imitating life. But there are striking similarities between the fictional President Charles Logan and President George W. Bush - as well as in the dilemma the nation faces containing the damage caused by an in-over-his-head Chief Executive.
 
 
But there are differences, too. In the "24" plot, counter-terrorism agent Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland) turns over evidence to Defense Secretary James Heller in a bid to thwart President Logan. In real America, a half dozen retired generals call for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld when the preponderance of blame should land on Bush.
 
 
The real-life generals fault Rumsfeld for invading Iraq without a coherent strategy for achieving a reasonable result, without sufficient force levels to secure the country, and without enough body armor and protective vehicles for U.S. troops to withstand the favorite insurgent tactic of using improvised explosive devices along roadways.
 
 
 
Some of the retired generals also say the stalemate in Iraq - and the anger it has stirred throughout the Middle East - have undermined the global war on terrorism.
"I do not believe Secretary Rumsfeld is the right person to fight that war based on his absolute failures in managing the war against Saddam (Hussein) in Iraq," retired Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr. told the New York Times. [NYT, April 14, 2006]
In seeking Rumsfeld's ouster, Swannack joined five other retired generals who all served in the Bush administration: Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, Maj. Gen. John Batiste, Maj. Gen. John Riggs, and Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni. So far, Bush has refused to consider replacing Rumsfeld.
 
 
 
The revolt of the generals also reveals broader fears about Bush's proclivity to use the military to resolve tricky diplomatic problems. Bush, who like many of his top advisers avoided military service in Vietnam, tends to see the world in cinematic black-and-white - "good versus evil" - rather than in the subtler grays of real life.
 
 
In an essay in Time magazine, Gen. Newbold said the decision to invade Iraq, a country peripheral to the War on Terror, "was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions - or bury the results."
 
Time, dated April 15, 2006.
 
 
 
 
Iran Subtext
 
But beyond the retired generals' disgust over how the Iraq War was waged, their extraordinary complaints have another unstated subtext - the Pentagon's growing alarm over Bush's rapidly advancing plans for attacking Iran. Those plans reportedly include an option for using tactical nuclear weapons.
 
 
As investigative reporter Seymour Hersh reported in The New Yorker, a number of senior U.S. officers are troubled by administration war planners who believe "bunker-busting" tactical nuclear weapons, known as B61-11s, are the only way to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities buried deep underground.
 
 
"Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap," a former senior intelligence official told Hersh. "'Decisive' is the key word of the Air Force's planning. It's a tough decision. But we made it in Japan."
 
 
 
This former official said the White House has refused to remove the nuclear option from the plans despite objections from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "Whenever anybody tries to get it out, they're shouted down," the ex-official told Hersh. New Yorker, dated April 17, 2006.
 
 
Indeed, the six retired generals may have demonstrated as much frankness as can be expected in seeking Rumfeld's resignation. In Washington, political scapegoating is a time-honored tradition because demanding that the President take responsibility for national catastrophes is often viewed as too extreme or too disruptive.
 
 
So, instead of fingering Bush and other policy architects like Vice President Dick Cheney, the retired generals have pointed toward Rumsfeld for removal. Some pundits, such as the Washington Post's David Ignatius, have urged Bush to demonstrate bipartisanship by replacing Rumsfeld with a pro-war Democrat like Sen. Joe Lieberman or a centrist Republican like Sen. Chuck Hagel.
 
 
But that likelihood appears slim. Some longtime Washington observers believe Bush wouldn't dare put an outsider at the Pentagon now because the newcomer would have to be briefed on too many secrets: about the Iraq War, the torture guidelines, the warrantless spying on Americans, and more.
 
 
 
An independent-minded person might blow the whistle. So, Bush may see little choice but to tough it out with his veteran team, hoping to withstand any challenges to his power and the secrecy that surrounds it.

How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.
--- End Message ---

Reply via email to