Very Disturbing But Also Interesting Read

William Odom, a retired general and former member of the National Security Council who is now at the Hudson Institute, a conservative thinktank, reflects a wide swath of opinion in the upper ranks of the military. "It was never in our interest to go into Iraq," he told me. It is a "diversion" from the war on terrorism; the rationale for the Iraq war (finding WMD) is "phoney"; the US army is overstretched and being driven "into the ground"; and the prospect of building a democracy is "zero". In Iraqi politics, he says, "legitimacy is going to be tied to expelling us. Wisdom in military affairs dictates withdrawal in this situation. We can't afford to fail, that's mindless. The issue is how we stop failing more. I am arguing a strategic decision."

One high-level military strategist told me that Rumsfeld is "detested", and that "if there's a sentiment in the army it is: Support Our Troops, Impeach Rumsfeld".

While the article was interesting reading,I saw nothing in it that suggested a mlitary coup was going on.
The US military is not interested in a coup.That would mean an armed uprising against the govt by the military.
So,to use the term coup is misleading and wrong,not to mention inflammatory.
Is there growing dissatisfaction? Maybe.
Threats of a military coup? NO.
The author of that story needs to rethink his conclusions.

mysteryman wrote:

While the article was interesting reading,I saw nothing in it that suggested a mlitary coup was going on.
The US military is not interested in a coup.That would mean an armed uprising against the govt by the military.
So,to use the term coup is misleading and wrong,not to mention inflammatory.
Is there growing dissatisfaction? Maybe.
Threats of a military coup? NO.
The author of that story needs to rethink his conclusions.

I don't think a coup is the conclusion the author draws.....I think he's talking about a the loss of support and trust of the WH among the military......and reminding people that todays fiction has the capability of turning into tomorrows fact....a food for thought kind of thing....that's what I took from it......

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

While the article was interesting reading,I saw nothing in it that suggested a mlitary coup was going on.
The US military is not interested in a coup.That would mean an armed uprising against the govt by the military.
So,to use the term coup is misleading and wrong,not to mention inflammatory.
Is there growing dissatisfaction? Maybe.
Threats of a military coup? NO.
The author of that story needs to rethink his conclusions.

I don't think a coup is the conclusion the author draws.....I think he's talking about a the loss of support and trust of the WH among the military......and reminding people that todays fiction has the capability of turning into tomorrows fact....a food for thought kind of thing....that's what I took from it......

If the author didnt mean "coup",then the author shouldnt use the word.
That is a very specific word,and it means a certain thing.
If the author didnt draw that conclusion,but used that word anyway,then that means that the aothor was trying to be inflammatory and extremely biased.
I was in the military till I got wounded in Iraq,and nobody I know in the service mistrusts the WH.
It is true that some of the military dont like what we are doing,but that doesnt mean we dont trust the WH.
I think the author is trying to paint a picture of something that doesnt exist.