Never mind for the moment the idiotic dwelling upon Vietnam, something Charles' pals in the neocon movement have accused the Left of doing too often as they defend their neocon wars. No, what is more amazing is the way Charles argues that the recent dissent by retired generals over Rummies conduct of the neocon foreign adventures is bad because:
We've always had discontented officers in every war and in every period of our history. But they rarely coalesce into factions. That happens in places such as Hussein's Iraq, Pinochet's Chile or your run-of-the-mill banana republic. And when it does, outsiders (including the United States) do their best to exploit it, seeking out the dissident factions to either stage a coup or force the government to change policy.I hardly think these generals are going to be seduced by Mata-Hari's in burkhas or induced by Chinese mind-rays to start a coup or "force the government to change policy", Charles. No really. They are hardly Third World dicators-in-waiting. They're simply highly professional members of a highly professional military who are speaking out as professionals are wont to do when those with no experience are placed over them and make a balls-up.
That kind of dissident party within the military is alien to America. Some other retired generals have found it necessary to rise to the defense of the administration. Will the rest of the generals, retired or serving, now have to declare which camp they belong to?
It is precisely this kind of division that our tradition of military deference to democratically elected civilian superiors was meant to prevent. Today it suits the antiwar left to applaud the rupture of that tradition. But it is a disturbing and very dangerous precedent that even the left will one day regret. [Emphasis Mine - C]
Mind you, that last sentence of yours gives me pause for concern, Charles. Do you have some inside track on Bush's plans for 2008?
No comments:
Post a Comment