The generals aren't rattling the sabres

[Norman Bernstein]

From a full page ad in the Washington Post:

Former senior military officials sign full-page ad opposing "war of choice with Iran."
On the day that President Obama is to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a full-page ad published in the Washington Post features former senior U.S. military and intelligence officials stating that military action against Iran at this stage is "not only unnecessary, it is dangerous."

The ad was sponsored by the National Iranian American Council, and signed by the following former officials:

- Major General Paul Eaton (USA, Ret.)
- Tom Fingar, fmr. Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis
- Lt. General Robert G. Gard (USA, Ret.)
- General Joseph Hoar (USMC, Ret.)
- Brig. General John H. Johns (USA, Ret.)
- Maj. Gen Rudolph Ostovich III (USA, Ret.)
- Paul Pillar, fmr. National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia
- Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (USA, Ret.)

[Paul Pless]

Major General Paul Eaton (USA, Ret.)
- Tom Fingar, fmr. Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis
- Lt. General Robert G. Gard (USA, Ret.)
- General Joseph Hoar (USMC, Ret.)
- Brig. General John H. Johns (USA, Ret.)
- Maj. Gen Rudolph Ostovich III (USA, Ret.)
- Paul Pillar, fmr. National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia
- Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (USA, Ret.)

Don't recognize a single one of them by name. . .

[Norman Bernstein]

Don't recognize a single one of them by name. . .

Neither do I. Do they have to be luminaries to proffer an opinion? Or do their titles and service convey a bit of knowledge, all by themselves? Unlike the celebrity military officers, retired ones can offer honest opinions in public without being disloyal to the military.

[Tylerdurden]

Neither do I. Do they have to be luminaries to proffer an opinion? Or do their titles and service convey a bit of knowledge, all by themselves? Unlike the celebrity military officers, retired ones can offer honest opinions in public without being disloyal to the military.

What was it you used to say about two time Congressional Medal of Honor winner General Smedly Butler?

Oh My.

[Concordia 33]

Neither do I. Do they have to be luminaries to proffer an opinion? Or do their titles and service convey a bit of knowledge, all by themselves? Unlike the celebrity military officers, retired ones can offer honest opinions in public without being disloyal to the military.

More importantly, do a bunch of retired military officers have current intel and diplomatic connections necessary to be in a position to know what is and isn't necessary. I would imagine if there were any hawks in our midst, they could point to some from the military who find it absolutely necessary. I'm not sure what the significance of their views are in this context.

[Tylerdurden]

More importantly, do a bunch of retired military officers have current intel and diplomatic connections necessary to be in a position to know what is and isn't necessary. I would imagine if there were any hawks in our midst, they could point to some from the military who find it absolutely necessary. I'm not sure what the significance of their views are in this context.

It's called Tactics and Doctrine and a knowledge of the landscape involved. None of these things are like TV and movies. They actually move slower, much slower. Experience leads over hype unless one is looking for a TV/movie conclusion. Most of the trouble we have gotten into was because of not listening to the people with knowledge and experience who warn us. Happens every time. Hubris rules the inexperienced.

[Norman Bernstein]

More importantly, do a bunch of retired military officers have current intel and diplomatic connections necessary to be in a position to know what is and isn't necessary.

They probably have more inside info and connections than any of the war hawk senators and political candidates.

I would imagine if there were any hawks in our midst, they could point to some from the military who find it absolutely necessary.

Undoubtedly... but the 'hawks in our midst' probably have even LESS information than even the war hawk senators and political candidates.

I'm not sure what the significance of their views are in this context.

They are a datapoint.

[Paul Pless]

than any of the war hawk senators and political candidates.

What about our current 'hawk' president?

[Norman Bernstein]

What about our current 'hawk' president?

He's walking an exceedingly fine line, assuring Israel that 'no options are off the table', while at the same time agressively pursuing a negotiated deal and holding firm on sanctions.... which sounds to me like exactly the right thing to do. Describing Obama as a 'hawk' would be just as absurd as describing him as 'weak on national defense'.... that's just the extremists talking.

[JimD]

More importantly, do a bunch of retired military officers have current intel ...

I hope whatever current intel they have is better than Bush's current intel was against Saddam. Does intel really matter if a president wants a war? Just making up whatever intel you need has always worked in the past.

[BrianW]

Generals are also pretty good politicians.

I wonder how many of them will be running for public office in the near future?

That's not to say I don't agree with them.

[wardd]

active duty officers often speak through their retired comrades

when you see something like this you can bet there is wide agreement in the active ranks

[ccmanuals]

Lawrence Wilkerson worked for Colin Powell. He has been quite outspoken since he retired from active duty.

[Wavewacker]

And, since you don't see bombs dropping and rockets fired at THIS TIME, I suppose the President agrees as well! The President is still on diplomatic roads without taking anything off the table, which is the way it should be. If it becomes necessary to use force, absolutely necessary, I have no doubt attitudes will change of those in the loop and the President will act accordingly, no doubt at all!

[wardd]

Lawrence Wilkerson worked for Colin Powell. He has been quite outspoken since he retired from active duty.

is he popular on fox noise?

[Norman Bernstein]

Generals are also pretty good politicians.

I wonder how many of them will be running for public office in the near future?

Hmmm... I honestly can't remember a single retired general moving into the ranks of politicians.... we haven't had one, as President, since Ike, although it was a lot more common, a century ago.

That's not to say I don't agree with them.

I quite honestly don't see how any military action against Iran, either by Israel, or by the US, could play out with a positive outcome. If Israel strikes on it's own (and it's questionable whether they could actually take out or even significantly damage Iran's uranium enrichment program), then it puts the US into a positively awful position... would Obama be forced to back them up? With US troops? Yet another war, this time with a nation that actually has some substantial military might?

Let's pray (if praying does any good) that sanctions and negotiations defuse this ticking time bomb. Even if no nuclear weapon is used, the net result would be horrible to conceive.

[Wavewacker]

You don't enter the ranks of Generals without being a good politician, since they are all appointed by Congress.

[Norman Bernstein]

You don't enter the ranks of Generals without being a good politician, since they are all appointed by Congress.

Uhhh, I think they are appointed by the President... but confirmed by the Senate.

[ccmanuals]

is he popular on fox noise?

msnbc

[Wavewacker]

Uhhh, I think they are appointed by the President... but confirmed by the Senate.

I seem to remember a converasation about this at the "O" Club. Selected within the services by a board of senior officers. Congressional review, Presidential appointment and confirmed by the Senate. From 08 to 10 (and 11 if they ever went there again, but have not since Bradley and that was only to out rank the English), at the pleasure of the President and confirmed. Now, the President doesn't spend alot of time going through personnel files or seeing who to promote, I'm pretty sure it comes out of the needs of the military, positions opened or needed and the political posturing by that brings them to the attention of the President by others. So, I misspoke above, any commissioned officer at the 06 level has already begun his political career.

[wardd]

msnbc

tyhen those on the right don't listen to him

[ccmanuals]

I seem to remember a converasation about this at the "O" Club. Selected within the services by a board of senior officers. Congressional review, Presidential appointment and confirmed by the Senate. From 08 to 10 (and 11 if they ever went there again, but have not since Bradley and that was only to out rank the English), at the pleasure of the President and confirmed. Now, the President doesn't spend alot of time going through personnel files or seeing who to promote, I'm pretty sure it comes out of the needs of the military, positions opened or needed and the political posturing by that brings them to the attention of the President by others. So, I misspoke above, any commissioned officer at the 06 level has already begun his political career.

That's correct. To further add, the GO billets (positions) themselves are approved by Congress.

[ccmanuals]

tyhen those on the right don't listen to him

Pretty smart guy. He served Powell as an Army 06 while they where on active duty and when Powell became Secretary of State he was his Chief of Staff at State.

He was speaking out against Iraq before it became fashionable to do so.

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

[CWSmith]

When the war machine does not want to go to war, it has to tell you that they know something.

Can anyone claim that the war in Iraq was a success? Is Afghanistan shaping up to be a success?

If we go to war with Iran we alienate a population that actually likes us just to unseat a government that needs to be overturn by the Iranian people. We will muck it up, alienate the people of the country, spend billions, kill thousands at least, and generally regret that we did it.

Let's be smart for once and stay out.

[skuthorp]

When the war machine does not want to go to war, it has to tell you that they know something.

Can anyone claim that the war in Iraq was a success? Is Afghanistan shaping up to be a success?

If we go to war with Iran we alienate a population that actually likes us just to unseat a government that needs to be overturn by the Iranian people. We will muck it up, alienate the people of the country, spend billions, kill thousands at least, and generally regret that we did it.

Let's be smart for once and stay out.

+1. Actually +all those on both sides who would become casualties of the intransigence of politicians and power hungry clergy. The biggest danger here is that Israel will act to force the US to complete the job. A case of the tail wagging the dog.

[Concordia 33]

They probably have more inside info and connections than any of the war hawk senators and political candidates.



Undoubtedly... but the 'hawks in our midst' probably have even LESS information than even the war hawk senators and political candidates.



They are a datapoint.

This is just unnecessary.

[skuthorp]

One Maj. Gen Hall is on our local radio about this as I type.
He thinks that Israel will act, on it's own, and that the US will get pulled into it. Thinks the Israeli PM is in the U to talk up support amongst the Israel lobby ahead of the action. Also says that the intelligence is not certain by any means and makes the point about the economic impact of the interruption to oil transport to asia. Oil to $200.00+ a barrel. Other point is of course that politicians very seldom become casualties of a war.

[CWSmith]

+1. Actually +all those on both sides who would become casualties of the intransigence of politicians and power hungry clergy. The biggest danger here is that Israel will act to force the US to complete the job. A case of the tail wagging the dog.

Maybe we should just let the war mongering state of Israel lie in it's own filth this time.

[LeeG]

More importantly, do a bunch of retired military officers have current intel and diplomatic connections necessary to be in a position to know what is and isn't necessary. I would imagine if there were any hawks in our midst, they could point to some from the military who find it absolutely necessary. I'm not sure what the significance of their views are in this context.

Consider General Dempsey's comment that Iran is a rational actor. That does not support the chicken hawks narrative.

[wardd]

Consider General Dempsey's comment that Iran is a rational actor. That does not support the chicken hawks narrative.

most arguing with that consider anybody acting differently than they think best as irrational

considering irans goals they probably are acting rationally

no power with a nuclear weapon has been attacked

isreal hasn't got the power to perminantly halt irans nuclear program, it can only delay it

to permanently halt it will require us followup or iran will just redouble it's efforts

but of course letting diplomacy do it's work may not be in the interest of netanyahu

[LeeG]

not making war in the Gulf would be an important pre-requisite for US to have any breathing room adapting to higher oil costs. Oh well, it'll be good for domestic oil producers if we go crashing into depression with $150 oil. Then folks can say, "see, we're producing more oil than we're importing!"

[Gerarddm]

No, but John McCain is. Now he advocates air strikes on Syria. I swear, the guy has turned into a veritable warmonger in his dotage.

[B_B]

Don't recognize a single one of them by name. . .

Wilkerson was a very visible and active TV pundit in Bush II's last term - not by any stretch a supporter of that regime. He seemed to have coherent and well thought out arguments.

[purri]

McCain has always been in his dotage. Pandering to the monomaniacal stupids.