Ellsberg: Obama Fears Military Revolt (Bet you thought the CIC ran the military)

[sinkingfeeling]

http://www.truthout.org/1102096

Like Vietnam, Ellsberg said "no victory lies ahead in Afghanistan" and President Barack Obama knows it.

Still, Ellsberg believes Obama will "go against his own instincts as to what's best for the country and do what's best for him and his administration and his party in the short run facing elections, which is to avoid a military revolt."

That means the president will likely authorize a sizable increase of US forces in the region, Ellsberg said, because Obama fears that top US military commanders will stage a revolt if he rejects their requests for additional soldiers.

The Pentagon Papers, which Ellberg leaked to The New York Times in 1971, made public the decision-making details behind the Vietnam War. Ellsberg chose to leak the highly-sensitive papers because they revealed that the government was continuing the Vietnam War despite knowing it would not likely be won.

As revealed in the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg said that President Lyndon B. Johnson chose to go along with increasing US troops in Vietnam: "To keep the military from resigning and going public with complaints that he had abandoned a winnable war."

President Obama's decision to shield himself from a military revolt, as Johnson chose to do in 1965, will take place at the expense of US troops and Afghani civilians, said Ellsberg.

"Many Americans, many Afghans will die in order to protect the president from that kind of blame," Ellsberg said.

[Windy]

1. That is a mighty big piece of conjecture and speculation...

He is making a lot of assumptions without evidence.... again, the media going for controversy. Not helpful

And yes, I DO know who Ellsberg is.

[Crabby Appleton]

9. +1

[leveymg]

2. Nobody seriously thinks there's Victory In Afghanistan ahead. This isn't 1965.

Like and admire Dr. Ellsberg, but he's wrong on this one.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. How is he wrong? He says there's no chance for victory and that Obama will more than likely

increase troops because of the same military pressures that caused Johnson to stay in Nam.

[leveymg]

6. Gen. McChrystal aside, there are few enthusiasts for the war in Afghanistan in the Pentagon

McChrystal is the commanding officer, so he has to show some enthusiasm. But, the others only have a range of preferred outcomes in mind, none of them involve "Victory." That was a concept that once thought to apply to Cold War counter-insurgencies, not to this quagmire.

[Craftsman]

3. Revolt of the Admirals

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

[kstewart33]

5. Oh, poppycock. A military revolt? 7 Days in May? Please. nt

[sinkingfeeling]

11. Read the article. He uses the term 'revolt' to mean the military would be on all the airwaves

telling us how Obama had endangered us and how he would be why we don't win in the ME.

[azul]

7. Why didn't they revolt when Bush Jr tried to wreck it

with extensive out-sourcing and purging?

Because the CIC had declared war and congress had not?

[leveymg]

8. They did. The discovery of no Iraq WMD was an extreme embarassment. Realization of the deception

that justified the invasion led to the decision to call in the FBI after the Plame leak. If the Bush-Cheney policy had panned out, it all would have been made to just go away with no public fuss, whatsoever.

[Captain Hilts]

15. They did. nt

[Zen Democrat]

10. If you doubt what Ellsberg is saying, please read "JFK and the Unspeakable."

Best book I've read in 20 years.

[IrateCitizen]

12. I disagree on this one

Gen. McChrystal's request for more troops in Afghanistan, as well as the failure of General Officers to object to the invasion of Iraq -- demonstrates one of the major shifts in the top brass since the Vietnam era, namely that they focus solely on operational matters and remain completely detached from political ones.

A good reading of Andrew Bacevich -- especially his criticisms of Tommy Franks -- will provide a more detailed overview of this phenomenon. I very much like and respect Ellsberg, but I think he's dead wrong on this one.

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. WTF?

[Captain Hilts]

14. No, he doesn't. There is no "the military." A HUGE number of senior officers don't want their

troops in Afghanistan or Iraq.

The Pentagon is a big, surprisingly, diverse place. Really.

Notice that Gates has put Admirals in all the important slots - the folks with the least to gain from these wars?

[flyarm]

16. why would they revolt now, we heard this supposed threat for years with Bush..

that the military was going to revolt..and did they?? hell no..

It is time for them to stfu and do what the American people employ them to do..follow orders or retire and get out of the way and out of the military if nesseary! A few did under Bush..but the hawks saw it as a opening to elevate themselves at the cost of human lives and suffering.
Obama needs to stand up to these hawks and thugs and let them know who is the the commander.
As other CIC have had to do.

Does he have the will..that is the vital question.

I hope he does.

[bertman]

17. The military and intelligence communities have HUGE contingents in Afghanistan and Iraq.

They WANT them to stay there and, in the case of Afghanistan, to increase in size. If they didn't and if the majority of the brass were against that, there would be a huge undercurrent of opposition that would turn the tide of the corporate media to getting OUT of Afghanistan and Iraq instead of buildup in Afghanistan and 100,000-plus troops left in Iraq.

The Military-Industrial-Corporate Complex has ruled since 1963 and it will continue to rule. They make their livings and their fortunes on WAR despite what you'll hear about them keeping the peace.

Ellsberg is right. There's no better illustration of that than the fact that two high-ranking officers (Army General McChrystal and Marine General Conway) have openly expressed their dissatisfaction with President Obama's positions. This is INSUBORDINATION and goes against the military being subservient to the civilian authority of the Commander-in-Chief. If Obama fails to curb this kind of behavior he will be steamrolled by the military.