You have obviously not done your homework. The man in question that will occupy the position MR. Dell Dailey. He is retiring from the Army and will fill the position AFTER he retires. Now if you still have a problem with his military background then it shows your utter disdain for military careerists. He forgot more about foreign policy than you will ever know. And he has an excellent educational pedigree as a graduate of the US Military Academy. Obviously you have a hang-up regarding military Senior Officers, so get over it and look at all of the integrity they bring to the table....something that is not in the Washington jargon..especially that of Congress.

I can always tell when someone who has no firsthand knowledge of the military presumes to judge us, in this case, PerversityinAmerica, but I've seen it so often that I can only assume that it's an article of faith among the anti-war set. They invariably make the claim that we are trained to "follow orders" but are unable to think. Our "entrainment" (as PerversityinAmerica so comically put it, or am I just demonstrating a lack of "the critical thinking required by authentic citizenship?") doesn't turn us into automatons. We are fighting an enemy who follows no rules and has no ethical constraints. We are trained to think, clearly, critically, and with great creativity, under tremendous stresses, in order to come up with solutions to problems that arise in the conduct of our mission and disciplined so that we have the strength, both physical and mental, to carry out those solutions. Automatons can't do that. Only thinking, knowledgeable Soldiers can. Passive, silently obedient drones are useless on the battlefield, but lock-step lemmings appear to have a place in the anti-war movement.

As for whether there are no civilian Foreign Service officers who can represent our oldest department in the execution of American foreign policy, I submit that the person to ask would have been George Marshall, but he is long gone, as is the world in which he so ably served.

Soldiers who ably follow orders may make excellent patriots on the battlefield but following orders well on the battlefield does not make for very well-prepared independent thinkers or good citizens. Military entrainment prepares good soldiers for following orders, blind obedience to authority, not the critical thinking required by authentic citizenship.

Particpatory democracy requires questioning authority -- by brave activated citizens with voices, not silence and not the jingoistic rhetoric of bullies and intimidators like Cheney -- and Bushco -- who do not understand or care about the difference. They show us every day how they prefer the passivity of silent obedience to the messiness of proactive democracy in action.

Dimitry writes:"Any of it a result of our hard work? Or is it all "This world has walls, men with guns guard them, etc."?

What about the Americans who don't have all that stuff? How come the military didn't give it to them, too?"

--Hard work ? yes, highest productivity in the world, strongest economy in the world.
What americans dont have it ? you mean opportunity ?, what country does better ?
By any measure, unemployment rate, productivity etc etc, no country even compares. And it is all possible because the US military defends our interests. If US forces did not lead and keep the communist wolf at bay, we'd certainly all be wearing little red stars. Such a fickle world , always asking "what have you done for me lately ?" like spoiled children.
Always talking about legality, justice , peace yet all that gets done is talk.

douche

You must like what you read, since no one has put a gun to your head making you read it. Arkins blog; love it or leave it

It's good to see Mr Arkin's blog is back to the liberal bash America 24/7 like it was before the whole troop controversy. It was really a shame that for a few days i could not read the long tiresome rants of the left. Thanks.

Posted by: jlp

Sean, we know this is you. Only you use that term weasel, but you pronounce it "veasel" with your Nazi accent. Sean, why are you such a coward to not sign your comment.

WELCOME BACK ARKINWEASEL,
You think that laying low and lame non apologies are going to let us forget what you said. You are a soldier hater, you would spit on returning soldiers and you loathe their very existence. Well we are not going to forget and will haunt you until you either apologize or own up to what you said and proudly stand behind it...you FRAUD

Posted by:

You must be referring to GWB

Why haven't you resigned?

Posted by: Rob

==Every thing we have, our nice vehicles, luxurious homes, trendy clothing, more food then we can eat, is the result of a powerful military, and its deterrant qualites==

Any of it a result of our hard work? Or is it all "This world has walls, men with guns guard them, etc."?

What about the Americans who don't have all that stuff? How come the military didn't give it to them, too?

Why haven't you resigned?

SM wrote:

"I dont think you realize how gung-ho the Joint Chiefs, Westmoreland and Adm. Sharp were for escalation and that only the civilians (McNamara and President Johnson) held them back. McNamara mentions how the Tonkin Gulf resoulution should not have been stretched to go from 16,000 advisors to 550,000 combat troops, they should have gone back to Congress. Moreover, McNamara is adamant on the point that it couldnt be a military only solution---there had to be a viable South Vietnamese govt that compelled the loyalty of the people, it was their war. If the Vietnamese government never established support, and they did not, the war was unwinnable. The Joint Chiefs did not see it that way."

I found McNamara's book to be highly self serving and therefore suspect. And I believe the record shows that the Joint Chiefs were telling the Civilian Administration what it would take to win in their view.........AFTER THE ADMINISTRATION COMMITTED ITSELF TO INCREASING THE TROOP LEVELS AND BROADENING THE WAR. As for Westmoreland, no comment.......he wouldn't even believe his own intelligence in the months prior to the 1968 Tet Offensive.

WELCOME BACK ARKINWEASEL,
You think that laying low and lame non apologies are going to let us forget what you said. You are a soldier hater, you would spit on returning soldiers and you loathe their very existence. Well we are not going to forget and will haunt you until you either apologize or own up to what you said and proudly stand behind it...you FRAUD

Guy, i guarantee if you experienced even a small reduction in your quality of life, you would be screaming for the US to use military force or the threat thereof to protect its interests, hell you'd probably pick up a rifle yourself and jine the cavalry.
If there is one thing i cant understand, it is spoiled Americans who have taken everything they have for granted, and fail to realize that these things, and peace, are always won through the use or threat of military conflict.
Every thing we have, our nice vehicles, luxurious homes, trendy clothing, more food then we can eat, is the result of a powerful military, and its deterrant qualites. That is reality, not the hand holding "lets just become friends and live in peace whilst we celebrate our diversity" bs that everyone seems to be clamoring for. Many Americans label this as materialistic and immoral, yet it certainly does not keep them from partaking.
As for the social post, another clear cut indication of people living in some unattainable fantasy. Yeah, it would be nice. Problem is, it isnt reality. Someone IS going to be top dog, no matter what. I would certainly rather that it was us, and you would too, whether you can admit it or not.

Jerry Garrison wrote:"...the gradual escalation chosen allowed the LBJ Administration to initially avoid negative publicity and criticism from Congress as well as avoided direct war against the Chinese, but simultaneously removed the possibility of either victory or withdrawal."

Thanks for the reading suggestions. I read Halberstam's book some 20 years ago, I should go back to it. However, I have read McNamara's In Retrospect (1995) more recently and I would commend that book to you. I dont think you realize how gung-ho the Joint Chiefs, Westmoreland and Adm. Sharp were for escalation and that only the civilians (McNamara and President Johnson) held them back. McNamara mentions how the Tonkin Gulf resoulution should not have been stretched to go from 16,000 advisors to 550,000 combat troops, they should have gone back to Congress. Moreover, McNamara is adamant on the point that it couldnt be a military only solution---there had to be a viable South Vietnamese govt that compelled the loyalty of the people, it was their war. If the Vietnamese government never established support, and they did not, the war was unwinnable. The Joint Chiefs did not see it that way.

Sounds like the 1964 movie "7 Days in May" staring Kirk Douglas, Burt Lancaster and Frederick March.

But then again we have a wonderful example of Military men in Civilian positions starting with Good Ole Boy Ollie North.

The military industrial complex will play by its rules not democracy

GUY FOX said:

It seems that the so called home of the brave and the land of the free is really...

Mr. Fox,

I like to think of America as the land of the free and the home of the slave. America has always had the distinction of being a class-stratified nation, i.e., those who have (black, female or white) and those who do not (black, female or white)!

I agree with the rest of what you said, even though to be a good American you are never supposed to talk about America's flaws. However, the Bible teaches that the love of money is the root of all evil. And let's face it, Americans love, worship and idolize money.

It was the search for commercial trade routes that caused Christopher Columbus to stumble upon the New World in the first place. It was always about money-love, it is about money-love now and it will always be about money-love apparently in America.

Not even religion has been able to alter the majority of Americans thirst and hunger for wealth. In fact one of the most greed-driven institutions in America right now is the church, some of whom are encouraging its members to seek after wealth. That is one of the 2-4000 year old religious paradigms that religious people are willing to forego!

It is not too late for America to live up to all of its noble creeds, and to begin behaving as a responsible nation in the world, however, I am not very optimistic about that happening.

Tony Blankley, Times columnist boasted some time ago, that there is nothing wrong with greed'. However, just look around in America and in the world, if you cannot see what greed has done and is doing in this nation (and the world), you are in serious need of glasses.

There are sufficient resources on this planet for every human to enjoy a prosperous and healthy life; however, some humans want far more than their share while others languish in poverty and despair. Some Americans have lost their moral compass, that is if they ever had one. Ironically, America has many social work schools, but the word 'social', for too many Americans and its government is a bad word! On the other hand, capital, is a good word!

With respect to the future, America wants to exist as the pre-eminent nation in the world, sadly, America can not have it any other way.

With respect to the subject of the blog, America can keep changing commanders, however, what America really needs to change is its attitude along with its venal, sophist and self-serving policies that lay at the heart of America and most Americans!

It's good to see Mr Arkin's blog is back to the liberal bash America 24/7 like it was before the whole troop controversy. It was really a shame that for a few days i could not read the long tiresome rants of the left. Thanks.

It seems that the so called home of the brave and the land of the free is really a land of insecure and arrogant bullies bent on suppressing the human rights of others all around the globe... and always done for the $ake of a corp-rat ruling class, the aristocrazy. Needless to say... the corp-rat owned press certainly plays its role for helping the ruling class maintain the $tatus quo. Indeed! RRRaging unceasing headlines of the bimbo's death in Bermuda is a prime example of keeping the people $tewepid. Frankly... round the clock newes bulletins of her autopsy results were ridiculous overkill.

Rome is burning... as the dry drunk naked emperor ("King George Jr.") rides his little boy bicycle around the ranch. Obviously the United $tates is an empire in decline... because where there is no insight, the people perish. It's an old story.

Not that we're suprised at any of this. The United $tates been at war with others or itself ever since its inception. It's never been a peaceful nation or a true democracy. The U.$. is really an imperialist plutocracy, presently $liding into a corp-rat fascist oligarchy where the gap between the $uper haves and the have $nots is wider than ever. Eventually... this $cenario will provoke civil unrest that will metamoph into $ub-version and domestic civil war, a war where the masses will target the rich for ass-ass-in-nation. This is the karma of $ovietnam and Iraq-nam... and other cruelties weighing heavily on the collective Amerikan conscience.

So... tell me! When is it appropriate to NOT support the troops, the damn troops? Eh? Are not our "glorious" (sic) troops in Iraq-nam really a mercenary force for the $uper rich? Is not the Pentagon and its $acred cow budget not a tool for the $uper rich? Do ewe folks out there actually think that all these foreign wars serve the interests of the average Amerikan?

Money is the name of the game and the crude oil deposits beneath Iraq-nam is the prize for this latest game. But not to worry folks! Old Coyote Knose that it's 1929! The $tock market poker game is at an all time money high. However in-$ane deficit $pending and massive trade deficits are also at $uper highs, too high to be $ustained much longer. So... after the fall (the complete collapse of the dollar and a massive economic depression, especially in the U.$.), the invasion of Iraq-nam will be little more than a bad memory. The troops will come home to quell rioting and arson in the Amerika's streets.

It seems that the so called home of the brave and the land of the free is really a land of insecure and arrogant bullies bent on suppressing the human rights of others all around the globe... and always done for the $ake of a corp-rat ruling class, the aristocrazy. Needless to say... the corp-rat owned press certainly plays its role for helping the ruling class maintain the $tatus quo. Indeed! RRRaging unceasing headlines of the bimbo's death in Bermuda is a prime example of keeping the people $tewepid. Frankly... round the clock newes bulletins of her autopsy results were ridiculous overkill.

Rome is burning... as the dry drunk naked emperor ("King George Jr.") rides his little boy bicycle around the ranch. Obviously the United $tates is an empire in decline... because where there is no insight, the people perish. It's an old story.

Not that we're suprised at any of this. The United $tates been at war with others or itself ever since its inception. It's never been a peaceful nation or a true democracy. The U.$. is really an imperialist plutocracy, presently $liding into a corp-rat fascist oligarchy where the gap between the $uper haves and the have $nots is wider than ever. Eventually... this $cenario will provoke civil unrest that will metamoph into $ub-version and domestic civil war, a war where the masses will target the rich for ass-ass-in-nation. This is the karma of $ovietnam and Iraq-nam... and other cruelties weighing heavily on the collective Amerikan conscience.

So... tell me! When is it appropriate to NOT support the troops, the damn troops? Eh? Are not our "glorious" (sic) troops in Iraq-nam really a mercenary force for the $uper rich? Is not the Pentagon and its $acred cow budget not a tool for the $uper rich? Do ewe folks out there actually think that all these foreign wars serve the interests of the average Amerikan?

Money is the name of the game and the crude oil deposits beneath Iraq-nam is the prize for this latest game. But not to worry folks! Old Coyote Knose that it's 1929! The $tock market poker game is at an all time money high. However in-$ane deficit $pending and massive trade deficits are also at $uper highs, too high to be $ustained much longer. So... after the fall (the complete collapse of the dollar and a massive economic depression, especially in the U.$.), the invasion of Iraq-nam will be little more than a bad memory. The troops will come home to quell rioting and arson in the Amerika's streets.

It seems that the so called home of the brave and the land of the free is really a land of insecure and arrogant bullies bent on suppressing the human rights of others all around the globe... and always done for the $ake of a corp-rat ruling class, the aristocrazy. Needless to say... the corp-rat owned press certainly plays its role for helping the ruling class maintain the $tatus quo. Indeed! RRRaging unceasing headlines of the bimbo's death in Bermuda is a prime example of keeping the people $tewepid. Frankly... round the clock newes bulletins of her autopsy results were ridiculous overkill.

Rome is burning... as the dry drunk naked emperor ("King George Jr.") rides his little boy bicycle around the ranch. Obviously the United $tates is an empire in decline... because where there is no insight, the people perish. It's an old story.

Not that we're suprised at any of this. The United $tates been at war with others or itself ever since its inception. It's never been a peaceful nation or a true democracy. The U.$. is really an imperialist plutocracy, presently $liding into a corp-rat fascist oligarchy where the gap between the $uper haves and the have $nots is wider than ever. Eventually... this $cenario will provoke civil unrest that will metamoph into $ub-version and domestic civil war, a war where the masses will target the rich for ass-ass-in-nation. This is the karma of $ovietnam and Iraq-nam... and other cruelties weighing heavily on the collective Amerikan conscience.

So... tell me! When is it appropriate to NOT support the troops, the damn troops? Eh? Are not our "glorious" (sic) troops in Iraq-nam really a mercenary force for the $uper rich? Is not the Pentagon and its $acred cow budget not a tool for the $uper rich? Do ewe folks out there actually think that all these foreign wars serve the interests of the average Amerikan?

Money is the name of the game and the crude oil deposits beneath Iraq-nam is the prize for this latest game. But not to worry folks! Old Coyote Knose that it's 1929! The $tock market poker game is at an all time money high. However in-$ane deficit $pending and massive trade deficits are also at $uper highs, too high to be $ustained much longer. So... after the fall (the complete collapse of the dollar and a massive economic depression, especially in the U.$.), the invasion of Iraq-nam will be little more than a bad memory. The troops will come home to quell rioting and arson in the Amerika's streets.

It seems that the so called home of the brave and the land of the free is really a land of insecure and arrogant bullies bent on suppressing the human rights of others all around the globe... and always done for the $ake of a corp-rat ruling class, the aristocrazy. Needless to say... the corp-rat owned press certainly plays its role for helping the ruling class maintain the $tatus quo. Indeed! RRRaging unceasing headlines of the bimbo's death in Bermuda is a prime example of keeping the people $tewepid. Frankly... round the clock newes bulletins of her autopsy results were ridiculous overkill.

Rome is burning... as the dry drunk naked emperor ("King George Jr.") rides his little boy bicycle around the ranch. Obviously the United $tates is an empire in decline... because where there is no insight, the people perish. It's an old story.

Not that we're suprised at any of this. The United $tates been at war with others or itself ever since its inception. It's never been a peaceful nation or a true democracy. The U.$. is really an imperialist plutocracy, presently $liding into a corp-rat fascist oligarchy where the gap between the $uper haves and the have $nots is wider than ever. Eventually... this $cenario will provoke civil unrest that will metamoph into $ub-version and domestic civil war, a war where the masses will target the rich for ass-ass-in-nation. This is the karma of $ovietnam and Iraq-nam... and other cruelties weighing heavily on the collective Amerikan conscience.

So... tell me! When is it appropriate to NOT support the troops, the damn troops? Eh? Are not our "glorious" (sic) troops in Iraq-nam really a mercenary force for the $uper rich? Is not the Pentagon and its $acred cow budget not a tool for the $uper rich? Do ewe folks out there actually think that all these foreign wars serve the interests of the average Amerikan?

Money is the name of the game and the crude oil deposits beneath Iraq-nam is the prize for this latest game. But not to worry folks! Old Coyote Knose that it's 1929! The $tock market poker game is at an all time money high. However in-$ane deficit $pending and massive trade deficits are also at $uper highs, too high to be $ustained much longer. So... after the fall (the complete collapse of the dollar and a massive economic depression, especially in the U.$.), the invasion of Iraq-nam will be little more than a bad memory. The troops will come home to quell rioting and arson in the Amerika's streets.

The two books mentioned by Jerry build a strong case against the Iraq War. Below is summary of "The Best and The Brightest", note the similarities to Iraq. What puzzles me is a strong resolve by some to conclude the Vietnam War was a war we could win, when in reality history has taught us it was very poor choice of a war. A good revision of the old saying "choose your battles wisely", would be "choose your wars wisely".

"The Best and The Brightest". by David Halberstam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_and_the_Brightest

[edit] Summary
The book offers a great deal of detail on how the decisions were made in the Kennedy and LBJ adminstrations that led to the war, focusing on a period from 1960 to 1965 but also covering earlier and later years up to the publication year of the book.

Many different influential factors are examined in the book:

• The Democratic party was still haunted by claims that it had 'lost China' to Communists, and did not want to be said to have lost Vietnam also

• The McCarthy era had rid the government of experts in Vietnam and surrounding Far-East countries

• Early studies called for close to a million US troops in order to completely defeat the Viet Cong

• But it would be impossible to convince congress or the US public to deploy that many soldiers

• Declarations of war, and excessive shows of force, including bombing too close to China or too many US troops might have triggered the entry of Chinese ground forces into the war, and greater Soviet involvement (and perhaps repair the growing Sino-Soviet rift)

• Some war games showed that a gradual escalation by the United States could be evenly matched by North Vietnam: every year 200,000 North Vietnamese came of drafting age and potentially could be sent down the Ho Chi Minh Trail to replace any losses against the US: the US would be 'fighting the birthrate'

• Any show of force by the US in the form of bombing or ground forces would signal the US interest in defending South Vietnam and therefore cause the US greater shame if they were to withdraw

• LBJ's belief that too much attention given to the war effort would jeopardize his Great Society domestic programs

• The effects of strategic bombing: most wrongly believed that North Vietnam prized its industrial base so much it would not risk its destruction by US air power and would negotiate peace after experiencing some limited bombing, but others saw that even in WWII strategic bombing united the victim population against the aggressor and did little to hinder industrial output.

• And of course the simplistic Domino Theory rationales are mentioned

• After placing a few thousand Americans in harm's way, it became politically easier to send hundreds of thousands over with the promise that with enough numbers they could protect themselves, and that to abandon Vietnam now would mean the earlier investment in money and blood would be thrown away.
The book shows that the gradual escalation chosen allowed the LBJ Administration to initially avoid negative publicity and criticism from Congress as well as avoided direct war against the Chinese, but simultaneously removed the possibility of either victory or withdrawal.

The book shows that the gradual escalation chosen allowed the LBJ Administration to initially avoid negative publicity and criticism from Congress as well as avoided direct war against the Chinese, but simultaneously removed the possibility of either victory or withdrawal.

SM, I would recommend you read these two books. They are out of print but can be found on Amazon.com:

"Fire in the Lake: The Vietnamese and the Americans in Vietnam". by Frances FitzGerald

and

"The Best and The Brightest". by David Halberstam.

This is a quote on the front cover of the latest edition of Halberstam's book in print (copyright 1992).

Posted by: Jerry Garrison

The End of Appeasement..., and 1 vs. 191?

The real problem that is facing America and causing so much unrest in the world is that the half-century of world wide appeasement, that favored the United States of America, seems to be coming hastily to an end; George Bush has hammered the final nail into that coffin.

If only the United States had played it smart after the break-up of the Soviet Union, the world would still be eating out of America's hands. If only America, under the leadership of GWB had played it smart, following 9/11, America would have retained its lofty position atop the world's food chain.

Instead America is in a precarious position, and is required to use threats, sanctions, isolation, economic or political power in order to force other nations of the world, even its former allies, to accept America's weakening status as head of the current world order. Other nations are stepping up and standing up to the U.S.A.!

It wasn't just America that was in fault given the unraveling that is taking place in the world. It was also the fault of all of those nations who could not foresee the dangers of giving so much power to one nation in deference to all of the other nations in the world.

To favor one nation in the world over all others was a terrible mistake. Now the U.S.A. like any spoiled-child would, is demanding to be held in its former high regard and to have its way, as it attempts to retain its place of pre-eminence.

However, other nations in the world, even America's allies who are no longer under a threat by the Warsaw pact or other alliances are straying. They can even see that the world's number one threat is the nation that they allowed to and helped to become too powerful, the United States of America.

For the next century, if there will be a next century the world should do the following:

• Create a just and fair system of rules for world-wide cooperation that takes into consideration the needs of not just one nation, but all of the nations on the planet. There shouldn't be any favored-nation status any longer.

• The world should immediately step up and reorganize the United Nations, which has been all but controlled by the United States of America for the past couple of decades; create a legitimate non-aligned United Nations.

• The U.N. Security Council should, not be expanded, but eliminated altogether' clearly certain nations, particularly the 5-permament members have wielded an inordinate amount of power. Future veto power should require that a plurality of nations, vote to veto; single nations should not have that much power over the rest.

• Future Secretary Generals' of the U.N. should be put through a rigorous investigatory process in order to determine just how objective they really are or will be. Clearly the newly elected and heavily lobbied Secretary General of the U.N. by the United States from South Korea lacks objectivity and he is a USA lapdog.

• Policies that favor certain nations over others should be done away with. The latter only encourages lawlessness and double-standards e.g. as the ones that the U.S.A., mostly, and a few other nations enjoy.

• The world must consider the issue of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Either all nations can have them that want them, or the other nations should be required to get rid of their own nuclear weapons and technologies.

• If any nation elects to invade and occupy a once sovereign nation as the U.S.A. is currently doing, the entire United Nations organizations and its members must not sit on their hands; they must step into action and confront any aggressor. It is amazing to me that not one resolution has even been attempted, against the good old U.S.A.!

This is just a start; however, the old ways of doing things, when the world customarily acceded to the will of one nation, mostly the United States, must stop.

Surely the world can see that the U.S.A. cannot be trusted to handle that kind of power. Besides, the U.S.A. would never have tolerated its wanton behavior and recklessness that it enjoyed, or for the kind of power that it wields, to come from any other nation now or in the future!

And just for the Rev, in the future if a nation like the USA goes around the world, kidnaps foreign nationals and locks them up in secret prisons or places them in holds like Gitmo, and without due process; will the rest of the world or the United Nations please step in and do something about it, even if they come and get the Rev!

~~~~~~~~~~~

Black ops, is that racist or something? I'm offended; the Post should fire Arkin, eliminate the blogs, and allow all black ops people and their black ops families to write in for a week or two..., just kidding!

SM, I would recommend you read these two books. They are out of print but can be found on Amazon.com:

"Fire in the Lake: The Vietnamese and the Americans in Vietnam". by Frances FitzGerald

and

"The Best and The Brightest". by David Halberstam.

This is a quote on the front cover of the latest edition of Halberstam's book in print (copyright 1992).

"[Robert McnNamara]contends that story of how the 'best and the brightest' got it wrong has never been told. But David Halberstam, who applied that ironic phrase in his rendering of the tale 23 years ago, told it better."

George Satayana wrote: "When experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In the first stage of life the mind is frivolous and easily distracted, it misses progress by failing in consecutiveness and persistence. This is the condition of children and barbarians, in which instinct has learned nothing from experience."

To which I would add; those who selectively "remember" history are lying to themselves and their posterity. Before you assert something as fact you should ensure you have facts to it up.

Sean#1, your trolls are not worth responding to as it is apparent you have never read anything more difficult or earth shattering than "Harry Potter" series.

Mr. Arkin,

Still waiting for your keen analysis of the obscene amenities being provided to our troops overseas.

*chrrp-chrrp*

Still waiting.

Mr. Arkin wrote:

America Needs a Few Good Civilians
The White House announcement...,

Let's rearranage a few of the terms in Mr. Arkin's headline. How it should read is as follows:

'America Needs A Few Good Civilians At The White House.'

Clearly the 'contretemps' who have been operating there for the past six years
(what's left of their decimated numbers), have been substandard, and dismal failures.

And can you believe that Mr. Cheney will not be running for any future political offices? Ahhh! Why not?

There seems to be a trend in DC based on my anecdotal observations. Washington DC's sports franchises tend to imitate the same patterns of the White House; they keep changing 'commanders', however, they still cannot seem to win.

It must be something in the water!

And I think you are correct Mr. Arkin; similar to the human genome, inbreeding, among offocials, cannot be healthy!

I want women to be President, Speaker of the House, ProTiem of the Senatem Secretary of State, Head of the Joint Chiefs and Heads of all cabinet posts in DC.

That should break up the vaunted 'old boys network' in Wahington DC, they won't carry on salacious activities with interns, and frankly, they seem to be a heck of a lot smarter!

Go women! Did I mention, an all female Supreme Court. What do we do with the men? You should group all of the men together and let us go and play army with our tanks and toys!

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaimradio.net

Who Rules America?

by Prof. James Petras
Global Research, January 13, 2007
Information Clearing House

In the broadest and deepest sense, understanding how the US political system functions, the decisions of war and peace are taken, who gets what, how and why, requires that we address the question of 'Who rules America?' In tackling the question of 'ruling' one needs to clarify a great deal of misunderstandings, particularly the confusion between those who make governmental decisions and the socio-economic institutional parameters which define the interests to be served. 'Ruling' is exacting: it defines the 'rules' to be followed by the political and administrative decision-makers in formulating budgetary expenditures, taxes, labor and social legislation, trade policy, military and strategic questions of war and peace. The 'rules' are established, modified and adjusted according to the specific composition of the leading sectors of a ruling class (RC). Rules change with shifts in power within the ruling class. Shifts in power can reflect the internal dynamics of an economy or the changing position of economic sectors in the world economy, particularly the rise and decline of economic competitors.

The 'rules' imposed by one economic sector of the RC at a time of favorable conditions in the world economy, will be altered as new dominant economic sectors emerge and unfavorable external conditions weaken the former dominant economic sectors. As we shall describe below the relative and absolute decline of the US manufacturing sector is directly related to the rise of a multidimensional 'financial sector' and to the greater competitiveness of other manufacturing countries. The result is an accelerating process of liberalization of the economy favored by the ascending financial sectors. Liberalization in pursuit of unregulated flows of investments, buyouts, acquisitions and trade increases the financial sector's profits, commissions, incomes and bonuses. Liberalization facilitates the financial sector's acquisition of assets. The declining competitiveness of the older ruling class manufacturing sector dependent on statist protectionism and subsidies leads to 'rear-guard' policies, attempting to fashion an unwieldy policy of liberalization abroad and protectionism at home.

The answer to the question of who rules depends on specifying the historical moment and place on the world economy. The answer is complicated by the fact that shifts among 'sectors' of the ruling class involves a prolonged 'transitional period'. During this period declining and ascending sectors may intermingle and the class members of declining sectors 'convert' to the rising sector. Hence while power between economic sectors may change, the leading class groupings may not lose out or decline. They merely shift their investments and adapt to the new and more lucrative opportunities created by the ascending sector.

For the rest please go to:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=PET20070113&articleId=4441

Hillary Clinton and her Driver were cruising along a country road
one evening when an ancient cow loomed in front of the car. The
Driver tried to avoid it, but couldn't. The aged bovine was struck
and killed.

Hillary told her Driver to go to the farmhouse and explain to the
owners what had happened. She stayed in the car, making phone calls
to Lobbyists.

About an hour later, the Driver staggered back to the car with his
clothes in disarray. He was holding a half-empty bottle of
expensive wine in one hand, a rare, huge Cuban cigar in the other
and was smiling happily, smeared with lipstick.

"What happened to you?" asked Hillary.

"Well," the Driver replied,"the farmer gave me the cigar, his wife
gave me the wine, and their two beautiful twin daughters made mad,
passionate love to me."

"My God, what did you tell them?" asked Hillary.

The Driver replied, "I just stepped inside the door and said, I am
Hillary Clinton's Driver, and I've just killed the old cow. - The
rest happened so fast I couldn't stop it."

Jerry Garrison wrote: "Virtually all of John Kennedy's appointees were from the "Civilian" Sector from his Secretary of Defense ....were retained by Lyndon Johnson. They all did a damn fine job of keeping the Vietnam debacle contained didn't they? Decisions are made with the facts and evidence at hand, whether your background is Civilian or Military has very little to do with it."

As we all know now, McNamara finally turned against the troop escalation and the bombing in Vietnam because it wasnt getting the US any closer to reaching its objectives. That realization cost him his job. The Joint Chiefs were on the other side arguing, apparently based on the same evidence and facts, to be turned loose and fight. In fact, the Joint Chiefs were hellbent on expanding the war even if it meant risking a nuclear exchange with China or the Soviets. The Kennedy civilians DID keep the American military's aggressive anti-communism in check and the war contained.

Jeerry,

Your partisanship blindness continues to amaze me! I have no problem with the selections, however, it would be very simple to have these individuals resign their commissions to serve as civilians instead of, salute and follow orders with out question, military officers. As FORMER military officers, they would have more b@lls to question incompetent policy without repercussions.

The Bush administration is intentionally selecting military personnel for two reasons;

1) Control over the appointees. With active military status these individuals are still governed by military code to not criticize the Commander and Chief and to his follow orders.

2) These selections are a continuation of a political strategy to have military serve as policy proxies for the Bush Administration, since the civilian proxies at this point in time have almost no credibility remaining. The spin is; if military spokes personnel for the Bush administration are criticized, then a counter attack of not supporting the soldiers can be waged to obscure the reality of a failed Bush policy with Iraq from cradle and probably to grave, as demonstrated by the propaganda war waged on Arkin for using the "M" word.

Sorry to have disturbed you jeery, you can now get back to reading your favorite book, Mien Kampf.

Apparently Mr Arkin thinks American History began in 1970. Virtually all of John Kennedy's appointees were from the "Civilian" Sector from his Secretary of Defense to his Secretary of State. For the most part these appointees were retained by Lyndon Johnson. They all did a damn fine job of keeping the Vietnam debacle contained didn't they? Decisions are made with the facts and evidence at hand, whether your background is Civilian or Military has very little to do with it.
Posted by: Jerry Garrison

Jerry Garrison wrote: "Virtually all of John Kennedy's appointees were from the "Civilian" Sector from his Secretary of Defense ....were retained by Lyndon Johnson. They all did a damn fine job of keeping the Vietnam debacle contained didn't they? Decisions are made with the facts and evidence at hand, whether your background is Civilian or Military has very little to do with it."

As we all know now, McNamara finally turned against the troop escalation and the bombing in Vietnam because it wasnt getting the US any closer to reaching its objectives. That realization cost him his job. The Joint Chiefs were on the other side arguing, apparently based on the same evidence and facts, to be turned loose and fight. In fact, the Joint Chiefs were hellbent on expanding the war even if it meant risking a nuclear exchange with China or the Soviets. The Kennedy civilians DID keep the American military's aggressive anti-communism in check and the war contained.

This fits in with Bush seeing himself as first and foremost the "Commander in Chief."

Apparently Mr Arkin thinks American History began in 1970. Virtually all of John Kennedy's appointees were from the "Civilian" Sector from his Secretary of Defense to his Secretary of State. For the most part these appointees were retained by Lyndon Johnson. They all did a damn fine job of keeping the Vietnam debacle contained didn't they? Decisions are made with the facts and evidence at hand, whether your background is Civilian or Military has very little to do with it.

You have many good points, but I will point out that the civilians in this Administrations have been more of threat to the Constitution than any military people. While it is not necessary for Generals to be in charge of intelligence activities, I do believe a military background can be helpful with the organizational aspects of intelligence. Also, Leadership skills are also transferable.
Many years ago, I read an autobiography of the head of Naval Intelligence in WWII. In the 1920s he was attached to the Embassy as a language officer. He was there to learn Japanese. During an Earthquake, that did serious damage all over Japan, He and other officers went into action doing relief work where they were at the time. He said that the Japanese authorities were astonished how well these officers performed without coordination between them or higher authority. They were naturally being watched by the secret police.
By way of contrast, during Katrina, civilian offficials were waiting for a contract with a private company to recover the dead. These bodies posed a health hazard that needed to be dealt with immediately. I went ballistic in e-mails to my elected representatives, and suggested that the military Leadership, along with organizational skills were needed.
While career military is not necessary, a military background is helpful. They teach you how to work, organize work and not be awed by big projects

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaimradio.net

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6376639.stm

US 'Iran attack plans' revealed

USS John C Stennis is being deployed to the Persian Gulf
US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.

It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.

The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.

The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions.

But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran.

That list includes Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say.

Two triggers

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.

Natanz, Iran
The Natanz plant is buried under concrete, metal and earth
Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.

Long range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called "bunker-busting" bombs in an effort to penetrate the Natanz site, which is buried some 25m (27 yards) underground.

The BBC's Tehran correspondent Frances Harrison says the news that there are now two possible triggers for an attack is a concern to Iranians.

Authorities insist there is no cause for alarm but ordinary people are now becoming a little worried, she says.

Deadline

Earlier this month US officers in Iraq said they had evidence Iran was providing weapons to Iraqi Shia militias. However the most senior US military officer later cast doubt on this, saying that they only had proof that weapons "made in Iran" were being used in Iraq.

Gen Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said he did not know that the Iranian government "clearly knows or is complicit" in this.

At the time, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the accusations were "excuses to prolong the stay" of US forces in Iraq.

Middle East analysts have recently voiced their fears of catastrophic consequences for any such US attack on Iran.

Britain's previous ambassador to Tehran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC it would backfire badly by probably encouraging the Iranian government to develop a nuclear weapon in the long term.

Last year Iran resumed uranium enrichment - a process that can make fuel for power stations or, if greatly enriched, material for a nuclear bomb.

Tehran insists its programme is for civil use only, but Western countries suspect Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons.

The UN Security Council has called on Iran to suspend its enrichment of uranium by 21 February.

If it does not, and if the International Atomic Energy Agency confirms this, the resolution says that further economic sanctions will be considered.

"No doubt all of these men are hyper-competent, no doubt they are all fabulous managers, careful speakers, judicious executives."

Maybe they hired military guys to root out all the "obscene amenities" that are provided to our troops in combat zones. Aren't you still concerned with this vital issue?

Ahh, the return of the blog!

When you throw in that the VP used to be the SECDEF and our Secretary of State used to be our National Security Advisor you see there is a definite tilt toward the military way of thinking in the administration. If you're a bomb everything looks like a target.

It's wartime. And apparently no one but the good folks in the Armed services can be trusted. Waiting for Bush to go the Nixon route and have a general be his Chief of Staff like Haig was.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaimradio.net

Fabricating the case against Iran
By Larry Chin

Online Journal Associate Editor

Feb 20, 2007, 01:05
The Bush administration will attack Iran as early as spring 2007. The administration is on total war footing.

Over the next few months, the administration and its allies and functionaries will create and provoke a pretext that forces a political consensus behind an attack on Iran. Any or all of the following may occur:

* Violent resistance to US occupation within Iraq is blamed on Iran. As previously noted, the idea that Iran is arming Iraqi attacks against US forces is a central theme of new Bush administration propaganda. Paul Pillar, former CIA officer and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is among many critics arguing that Iran is not behind the attacks. This will not stop the Bush-Cheney apparatus from spewing lies to the contrary.

* A major terror attack against US interests is blamed on Iran. In recent testimony before the US Senate, Zbigniew Brzezinski warned that the Bush administration is headed on a "downhill track towards a head-on conflict with Iran and much of the world of Islam" -- and that the conflict may begin with a major terror attack, either domestically or overseas, against Americans by Iran. (See also here, and here.)

In Brzezinski's words, the Bush administration's mismanagement of Iraq is an "historic, strategic and moral calamity," "driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris" that "intensifies regional instability" and (of primary, if not sole concern to Brzezinski) "undermines America's global legitimacy." Brzezinski, a chief architect of the US "Grand Chessboard" geostrategy, which laid the foundation for the 9/11 attacks, has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's "mishandling" of the war. The Bush administration has longed for the right moment to set off "the next 9/11."

* Iraq-Iran diplomacy characterized as terrorist interference by Iran.

* Real and imaginary Iranian responses to Bush administration rhetoric or provocations will be characterized as war provocation by Tehran.

* New evidence of Iranian nuclear "intentions" will be "found," and presented to the "international community," in order to sanction punishment.

For the rest please go to:

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1771.shtml

Ooooooh! You said the "C" word!

Coup...? Isn't that one o them dang furiner words?

Rally... I've been using the word alot lately.

Especially when I see events such as:

Justice Department Prosecutor Fired After Successfully Prosecuting Corrupt Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham http://leighm.net/?p=873

Alberto's making ALL KINDS of personnel changes.

It's gonna take years to root those politically appointed cretins out.

But we will.

"For some people, four walls are three too many"
-- attributed to Josef Stalin.

I'm beginning to understand what he meant, and why that method of governmental change seems to occur quite frequently in world history

lcm

Ahh, the return of the blog!

When you throw in that the VP used to be the SECDEF and our Secretary of State used to be our National Security Advisor you see there is a definite tilt toward the military way of thinking in the administration. If you're a bomb everything looks like a target.

It's wartime. And apparently no one but the good folks in the Armed services can be trusted. Waiting for Bush to go the Nixon route and have a general be his Chief of Staff like Haig was.

Breaking news!!!

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaimradio.net

http://www.democratsunderground.com/

McCain: Roe v. Wade should be overturned

Republican presidential candidate John McCain, looking to improve his standing with the party's conservative voters, said Sunday the court decision that legalized abortion should be overturned.

"I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned," the Arizona senator told about 800 people in South Carolina, one of the early voting states.

McCain also vowed that if elected, he would appoint judges who "strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench."