When we round up hundreds or thousands of detainees in sweeps, when we arrest tribal enemies, or who is turned in for a reward, then we are bound to have trouble. Then we torture. Then 90% are released because they are innocent. What do you think is going to happen?

If such a terrible, and dangerous in it’s own right, thing were to happen in the U.S. military? The internal bonds of the service, and their loyalty to their country and each other, would be the only thing preventing disaster.

And, this is just a gut feeling, I think we will see more former flag officers telling the bold truth before the election. Possibly active flag offices. It seems like many are approaching the inescapable conclusion that serving this President is against the best interests of our country.

I think thee are many heroes who’s names we will never hear. “Real” warriors who add balance and sanity during their Staff appointments in the Pentagon. These are the guys, maybe more so than field commanders, who would be the main line of resistance to a hypothetical “mad” policy. And they won’t do themselves, or our country, any good by getting themselves canned while we are engaged in two occupations. We need them on the job when we get sane political leadership back. And we need them to minimize any additional damage Bushco can do.

I feel that I must strenuously disagree. If flag officers receive orders that they should begin bombing innocent civilians in Iran, then they have a duty and an obligation as commanded to them in the UCMJ [sections 809, 891, 892] to obey those orders which are lawful which then means, of course, that they are obligated NOT to obey unlawful orders. Louis Font, as seen in the powerful documentary Sir! No Sir!, was the first West Point graduate to refuse to take part in the Vietnam conflict. What this country needs are more people like Louis Font and Ehren Watada and Camilo Mejia and Kevin Benderman who have had the courage to say NO to the illegal orders that they were given by their lying and deceiving governments. The loyalty that those in the military have is not to the army or their fellow comrades but to the U.S. Constitution.

Agreed. To a point. There are few dynamics which must be considered.

We need some flag officers to keep their mouths shut and prevent Lil’ George from nuking someone and keep our troops alive until sane leadership brings them home.

Flag officers who publicly, and sometimes privately, disagree with Bushco are summarily removed.

There is a code of long standing that flag officers don’t air dirty laundry until they retire, or, some particular person leaves office or command. Indeed, it’s all but certain that Mora was forced out. Otherwise it’s unlikely he would have given such testimony. Maddening as it may be, that code should not be disparaged because it’s part of the bond of loyalty we need if, heaven forbid, the military must mutiny to prevent a catastrophe.

And what’s especially maddening is the complete denial of history. Any high school “scholar” could have told them the result if they had been honest about their intentions. Occupations just don’t work.

Yet, a couple times each generation, some tyrant or confederacy of tyrants thinks they can pull off a foreign occupation. I’m sure many of those are encouraged by fixed “war games”. Unfortunately, once they begin with the false premise that they can win, the results are meaningless.

We took a different tact. We opened a newspaper, started a union and gave aid to the poor. The government struck back hard. They did mass arrests, show trial and torture. Unfortunately, the vast majority snatched up were innocents guilty of no more than agreeing with our policies. After a few turns, we finally struck with violence aimed at the power grid and other facilities owned by corporate interests and the wealthy. Guess what, no bad public reaction. Needless to say, the political science, international country experts and military judges ended the game early. It was obvious that our side would win within the next year or two. We were the first and last insurgents to win the game. Rules were changed for future participants requiring them to attack the government within a relatively short time.

Anyone relying on asymmetrical warfare counts on the occupier to over react. We have seen this demonstrated to the nth degree in Iraq. We went from an incredible laxity of ensuring basic civil order to an incredibly repressive and abusive system to handle suspected insurgents. The funny part is that almost none were AQ. It was a very well predicted battle for political power between sectarian groups. One that could have been prevented by proper post war planning and use of existing military and police units to prevent violence. The US practice of treating all these detainees as terrorists and subjecting them to brutal treatment only created the conditions that permitted AQ of Iraq to intervene and wreak havoc.

I

Let’s see, if my math is correct, we would have lost about 4100 +/- less troops of we weren’t there. Is that what you were asking?

– - You must be new around here.

I sure hope he doesn’t get invited on a ‘hunting trip’ by Darth!

More like ‘WAR CRIMES’ of massive proportions.

On the identifiable causes chart, where do bullets and bombs rank? Engrish can be deeficult, eh?

Which side’s? Or do think the number of American deaths would be the same if we weren’t over there.

Critical thought is even more difficult.

http://progressiveworldreview.com

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38775.html