18 June 2005
When Did Honor Leave Active Duty?
The DC spinsters continue their attempts to distract the public from the terrible conditions and actions that seem to have been standing orders since the US attacked Afghanistan to eliminate the Taliban. Today I wrote a letter to the editor of The Washington Times on the political barbed wires now strung around this issue. Why this newspaper? I hope to reach the people who read that conservative paper, not reaffirm the views of those who agree with me.
Here's my letter:
"The White House and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner accuse Durbin of insulting the troops. It's past time Congress attacked the problem, not malign the messengers. Torture is not an American value. No amount of partisan political attacks will change that. As a U.S. military veteran, I believe Senator Durbin is justified in his fervor.
"If anyone should feel personally attacked by Senator Durbin's remarks or by the Amnesty International report, it should be the officers in the chain of command during whose watch these inhuman conditions occurred. I am astonished and bothered that no senior officer or civilian counterpart has resigned because it happened "on their watch." Where is honor among the military officer corps?
"Congress must investigate and act now so that torture or allegations of incarceration illegal under the Geneva Convention do not become America's reputation and face in the world."
As I recall, Rumsfeld dispatched LTG Sanchez to handle things and to clean up the conditions at Abu Ghraib. At the time, LTG Sanchez was in charge of Guantanamo�s processing and incarceration command for captured, suspected terrorists and enemy combatant's. Why did he not resign instead? Why was the animosity between Defense and State Departments lead to exclusionary processes among Cabinet Departments? The Secretary of State was a four-star general with a lot of combat command experience. General Powell�s rise in rank leapt over many others in line for an additional star, so he incurred some ill feelings among these senior generals. Nevertheless, why did President Bush appoint a bureaucrat who never served in the armed forces? How could Bush and Cheney believe that Rumsfeld could lead generals? One of Eisenhower�s assets was his lack of awe when he worked with the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I think General Powell would have made a much better Secretary of Defense, especially after 9/11/2001, for the same reason as Ike. What Bush and Cheney wanted, however, was someone they knew would pursue the then-secret agenda for removing Saddam Hussein from power by military force. I�ll have more to say about the real agenda of this installed Administration later.
So, to bring back to point, I think Powell would have removed commanders who accepted or turned a blind eye to the terribly inhumane treatment of suspected terrorists and enemy combatant's captured in battle. The general who has had the President�s ear for some time is not American: Israeli General Ariel Sharon. Now, isn�t that a lovely thought.
Post a Comment
Here's my letter:
"The White House and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner accuse Durbin of insulting the troops. It's past time Congress attacked the problem, not malign the messengers. Torture is not an American value. No amount of partisan political attacks will change that. As a U.S. military veteran, I believe Senator Durbin is justified in his fervor.
"If anyone should feel personally attacked by Senator Durbin's remarks or by the Amnesty International report, it should be the officers in the chain of command during whose watch these inhuman conditions occurred. I am astonished and bothered that no senior officer or civilian counterpart has resigned because it happened "on their watch." Where is honor among the military officer corps?
"Congress must investigate and act now so that torture or allegations of incarceration illegal under the Geneva Convention do not become America's reputation and face in the world."
As I recall, Rumsfeld dispatched LTG Sanchez to handle things and to clean up the conditions at Abu Ghraib. At the time, LTG Sanchez was in charge of Guantanamo�s processing and incarceration command for captured, suspected terrorists and enemy combatant's. Why did he not resign instead? Why was the animosity between Defense and State Departments lead to exclusionary processes among Cabinet Departments? The Secretary of State was a four-star general with a lot of combat command experience. General Powell�s rise in rank leapt over many others in line for an additional star, so he incurred some ill feelings among these senior generals. Nevertheless, why did President Bush appoint a bureaucrat who never served in the armed forces? How could Bush and Cheney believe that Rumsfeld could lead generals? One of Eisenhower�s assets was his lack of awe when he worked with the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I think General Powell would have made a much better Secretary of Defense, especially after 9/11/2001, for the same reason as Ike. What Bush and Cheney wanted, however, was someone they knew would pursue the then-secret agenda for removing Saddam Hussein from power by military force. I�ll have more to say about the real agenda of this installed Administration later.
So, to bring back to point, I think Powell would have removed commanders who accepted or turned a blind eye to the terribly inhumane treatment of suspected terrorists and enemy combatant's captured in battle. The general who has had the President�s ear for some time is not American: Israeli General Ariel Sharon. Now, isn�t that a lovely thought.
<< Home
