So called wars against criminals or criminal activity or anything else Bush chooses to call evil will keep our armed forces in a state of “war” until we run out of men or credit, a no-win situation for the People notwithstanding the propaganda of the neocons and corporate America to the contrary.

Comment by Robert Castle — August 24, 2007 @ 4:35 pm

So if no nation claims the terrorists, we can’t go after them? Ya think that’s what the founding fathers intended? Or perhaps they didn’t know what the world would be like in few hundred years and they assumed we would adapt to changes and act accordingly. There weren’t any terrorists flying planes into buildings in George Washinton’s day, now were there? ;)

General Batiste said, “I am not anti-war and am committed to winning the struggle against world-wide Islamic extremism.”

It seems to me I have heard that song and dance before war – war against drugs, war against terrorism, and now war against Islamic extremism. Only Congress has the power to declare war but those who are framing the debate are willing to declare war against anything and everything.

Wars are between nations. A nation cannot declare war on a religion or a division thereof. Our military forces exist to defend this country from an imminent attack by a foreign nation. Ideologies, religions, and other belief systems are not nations. The military-industrial complex and the media that publishes their propaganda generally ignore the Constitutional definition of war, particularly the restrictions on the use of our armed forces.

Our military is not to be used other than as permitted by the Constitution. Our armed forces are not to be used to enhance the wealth or power of special interest groups or private enterprises. The refusal of a nation to accept our dictates is not an act or war. The use of armed forces does not make a police action a war.

Acts of terrorism do not make terrorists a nation. If terrorists or extremists are sponsored by a foreign nation are committing acts of war posing and imminent threat to the security of our country, ask Congress for a declaration of war and accept their decision.

So called wars against criminals or criminal activity or anything else Bush chooses to call evil will keep our armed forces in a state of “war” until we run out of men or credit, a no-win situation for the People notwithstanding the propaganda of the neocons and corporate America to the contrary.

I have read that officers like General Batiste take this oath or one like it when originally commissioned and when advanced in rank.

“Officer Oath: I, A.B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Officers do not swear or affirm to obey the orders of the president nor do they swear allegiance to the president. According to the supreme law of the land, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a violation of the Constitution. Those in command had the duty to resist the order and its execution. Since the enlisted personnel’s oath includes in major part the duty to obey the commands of the president and their superior officers in addition to defending the Constitution, they had no recourse other than to rely on the loyalty of their officers to their sworn commitment. The officers did not and are not complying with their oath to protect and defend the Constitution by continuing the war, win, lose, or draw. Additionally they have the continuing duty to protect the troops from needless death or injury due to orders that violate our Constitution

I hope that you are bringing your perspective to those who can make a difference. The people who are enabling the neocons to stay “veto-proof” are the guilty parties, and they are supported mostly by people who have lost track of what is going on.

You may come to the same conclusion that most of us have. Impeachment is our last remaining option.

Former Military Leaders Urge Caution on War With Iraq
By David Stout
New York Times

Monday, 23 September, 2002

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — Former high-level military commanders told Congress today that the United States should go to war in Iraq only as a last resort, should continue to press for United Nations support in dealing with Iraq and “not be too quick to take no for an answer,” as one of them, Gen. John Shalikashvili, put it.

“We must be very, very careful about going to war, and to do so only when all other attempts to resolve the threat to us have failed,” General Shalikashvili said, “and to do so only with the support of the United States Congress and the American people.”

Shalikashvili later left the Republican party and spoke at the 2004 Democrat Convention.

“In 1996, McPeak served as Oregon state chairman for the Bob Dole for President campaign. During the presidential election of 2000 McPeak endorsed George W. Bush and served as co-chairman of Oregon Veterans for Bush.”

“As the military and foreign policy of the Bush administration coalesced, however, McPeak expressed strong objections, especially with regard to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

McPeak later openly campaigned for Howard Dean’s nomination, and when Dean withdrew, acted as an adviser for the John Kerry campaign.

He was also one of twenty-seven signatories to the statement of the “Committee of Diplomats & Commanders for Change” calling the Bush Administration a failure at “preserving national security” and calling for Bush not to be re-elected.”

Retired Army General Norman Schwarzkopf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52450-2003Jan27?language=printer

Retired Air Force Lt. General Brent Scowcroft

“Scowcroft was a leading Republican critic of U.S. policy towards Iraq before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which war critics in particular have seen as significant given Scowcroft’s close ties to former President George H.W. Bush. [1] [2] [3] [4].

Scowcroft supported the invasion of Afghanistan as a “direct response” to terrorism.”

(1)

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0805-02.htm

(2)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/scowcroft.html

(3)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36644-2004Oct15.html

(4)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54680-2005Jan6.html

In many ways, this is not a new view from the military conservatives. The key difference is that the military conservatives presenting their doubts prior to the invasion were already retired and Gen. Batiste left active duty to speak out.

As a “liberal,” I would hasten to point out that many of the values ascribed to “conservatives” are, in fact, common to every person of conscience, crossing all political boundaries.

Perhaps if we could set aside the rhetoric and emphasize our commonalities as humans, we could get back to worrying about and working toward the American Dream, rather than the Iraqi Dream.

Comment by curmudgeon — August 23, 2007 @ 2:03 am

Yeah, who did the U.S. and the coalition think we were liberating Kuwait and using sanctions to try to get Saddam to treat his people humanely and stop terrorizing folks. No one wants them to hand over their oil. Oil companies do expect compensation for helping them get their industry up and running. Imagine that! ;)