[PAA-Discuss] Gorbachav of the Pentagon? read this second. Lee

[Ron and Kris Graham]

Ron and I believe Obama would never have been put in the position of
President and Commander in Chief of the U.S. military if he was not part and
parcel of the problem. If on the offbeat chance Obama garners support within
his administration and possibly with some members of the CIA, Pentagon and
FBI to get rid of the rogue forces within those agencies, then an attempted
coup will most likely be in the works. 

 

Kris

 

  _____  

From: Lee Loe [mailto:leeloe at igc.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 3:21 PM
To: 'Ron and Kris Graham'
Subject: Gorbachav of the Pentagon? read this second. Lee

 

 

Gorbachev of the Pentagon?

When he took over the top job in the Soviet Union in 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev
wasn't tasked with - nor did he envision - dismantling the Soviet system.
Yet after six years of economic and political reforms, the unintended
consequence of Gorbachev's restructuring was the 74-year-old empire's
collapse. In his prescient Granta
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=1ZreSajZa%2Bmb%2BxO%
2FfS7r%2FTNtpqNkvV%2BU>  essay on Gorbachev in 1990, the German writer Hans
Magnus Enzensberger described the Soviet leader's chief talent as precisely
this demolition" of "the second to the last remaining monolithic empire of
the twentieth century without the use of force, without panic, in peace." In
assessing the state of Europe, and the world that winter, Enzensberger
concluded that more of these new demolition experts were needed since
"renunciation, reduction and dismantling" would be the new touchstones of a
more modest epoch. 

Enzensberger's words still hold true two decades later. The United States
desperately needs that kind of demolition expert. Consider the Pentagon, an
immense edifice with a near-trillion-dollar budget that's half
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=m9VY5Z4d44P%2B%2Bwxx
mu5U9zNtpqNkvV%2BU>  or more of the entire Soviet GDP circa 1990. Consider
our  Afghanistan misadventure, which requires a Gorbachev-type figure to
strategically frame an orderly withdrawal. Consider the empire of bases we
maintain overseas, and our reluctance to close even one despite massive
local opposition.

Alas, it doesn't appear President Obama will be the Gorbachev this country
needs. For instance, when the president was looking for an  Afghanistan exit
plan last November, the Pentagon gave him only one: an additional surge of
30-40,000 troops, according to 'Bob Woodward's latest
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=bD8%2FEKsXeuOdCNJqWb
nNDTNtpqNkvV%2BU>  book. Given war powers by the constitution, Obama watched
the Pentagon take this authority away from him. "Bluntly put," writes
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=8Jg6HZic%2FXaB5h7tLg
6T0jNtpqNkvV%2BU>  Andrew Bacevich in TomDispatch, "the Pentagon gamed the
process to exclude any possibility of Obama rendering a decision not to its
liking."

What about the gamer-in-chief Robert Gates? The Pentagon chief is, like
Gorbachev, the consummate insider. He has the ear of Democrats and
Republicans alike. '""Unlike his predecessor Donald Rumsfeld, Gates has
already cleaned house at the Pentagon. "Gates has dismissed two service
secretaries, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the air force chief
of staff, the commanding admiral of Central Command, two commanding generals
in Afghanistan, and the surgeon general of the army," writes
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=1MPGRP8It8cw4RTvkUnw
OzNtpqNkvV%2BU>  Matthew Moten in Foreign Affairs. 

"Gates has even bigger plans. He wants
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=YlJN7XjT0dfIC%2B2S1w
YlWTNtpqNkvV%2BU>  to close an entire command, eliminate 50 generals and
admirals, and reduce private contractors. He plans to end some big-ticket
items like the F-22 fighter plane and the C-17 transport plane. In all, he's
proposing $100
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=sedUvyAHX3tcnk2AUb%2
FDhDNtpqNkvV%2BU>  billion in savings over the next five years, explicitly
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=q0zBGLGRstEteGASt%2B
5c0DNtpqNkvV%2BU>  channeling Eisenhower in his frontal assault on the
military-industrial complex.

This take-charge attitude, particularly in contrast with Obama's apparent
deference toward the generals, has generated glowing tributes to the
Pentagon head in Newsweek, Foreign Affairs, The New York Times. "A
self-described protector of institutions," Fred Kaplan writes
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ytiZ1Phn5mNLvTG75tH0
mDNtpqNkvV%2BU>  in Foreign Policy, Gates "has also, in less than four years
on the job, changed the way the Pentagon does business and the military
fights wars more than any defense secretary since Robert McNamara."

Like Gorbachev, Robert Gates has no intention of bringing down the Pentagon.
His reforms are designed to make the institution stronger. His attack on
Pentagon bureaucracy and overhead is meant to free up money that can be
spent on prosecuting America's wars. Gates wants a larger Pentagon budget,
has no intention of dismantling our empire of bases, and pushed hard for the
surge in Afghanistan. 

But the issue here isn't intended but unintended consequences. Are Obama and
Gates unwittingly teaming up to launch a restructuring that will dismantle
what they hold so dear?

The first test of this Gorbachev hypothesis will be the Deficit Commission
that the president set up to look at ways to cut the $1.3 trillion gap
between what the government spends each year and what it receives in
revenue. There are rumors that the commission, which meets in secret, will
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=CUj6w9UDU%2FhxtbtOVh
DOazNtpqNkvV%2BU>  propose a cut in Social Security for everyone except the
very poor. Other rumors suggest that the military budget will be on the
cutting block as well. Senator and commission member Dick Durbin (D-IL) says
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=aUQ4%2FFe2sVXpM%2BEL
sGbdSzNtpqNkvV%2BU>  that "cutting the military is on the table, which would
mean fewer bases, less personnel and less brass." The commission's report
comes out in December. Calling for belt-tightening at the Pentagon would set
an important precedent.

The second test will be Afghanistan. If it's true Obama seeks a viable exit
strategy, then we might witness a battle of wills between the president and
the Pentagon leading up to the much-touted July 2011 deadline. Obama has
argued that U.S. troops will begin to leave Afghanistan on this date;
General Petraeus, on the other hand, argues
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=OTEaw%2Fcd%2BIe2Gl9N
v66ziDNtpqNkvV%2BU>  that July 2011 "is the start of talking about
transition" (which Foreign Policy In Focus contributor Gareth Porter calls a
dangerous bait-and-switch maneuver in his Focal
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=RsAII8TmOudRQC0fxL3A
dDNtpqNkvV%2BU>  Points blog post). If his position holds sway, Obama will
have reasserted his presidential authority and the generals will just have
to start putting away their toys.

The third test will be public opinion. Americans want a more modest military
and foreign policy,. According to the latest
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=IpUgNQafnwMkPbHb5Ztb
0DNtpqNkvV%2BU>  Global Views polling, 91 percent of Americans want
Washington to focus on problems at home rather than address challenges from
abroad. Only 24 percent believe that the United States plays a more
important and powerful role as a world leader today compared to 10 years
ago. And by 2020, most people think China and the United States will wield
comparable global influence. If these numbers continue along the same
trajectory, there will be considerable domestic pressure to reduce U.S.
commitments abroad and adjust to what the pollsters call "constrained
internationalism."

These are perhaps slender threads to hang on to. The Pentagon is huge, and
our efforts to undermine its foundations often seem quixotic.  But deep and
profound crisis made it possible for a Gorbachev to emerge in the Soviet
Union. If nothing else, the United States surely finds itself today in a
crisis of Soviet-style proportions.

We the Pushers

One of the worst side effects of Pentagon growth is our unrelenting push to
export the arms that we make in increasing numbers. "The global arms trade
is a $60 billion yearly business," reports FPIF columnist Conn Hallinan in
The
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=OHSL0y8h12N5GpoFwdVP
bzNtpqNkvV%2BU>  Real "Merchants of Death." "The United States controls
nearly 40 percent of this trade, defending its turf with the ferocity of a
junkyard dog. The 10 biggest arms exporters are - in order - the United
States, Russia, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Spain, China, Israel,
the Netherlands, and Italy. Sweden and Switzerland are close behind. This
order shifts from year to year, but one thing never changes: The United
States is always No. 1."

Meanwhile, we continue to hold on tenaciously to a nuclear weapons complex
that even Cold Warriors like George P. Shultz now realize undermine U.S.
national security. The Senate is considering the New START agreement with
Russia, but already the hawks have extracted concessions from the Obama
administration to pump money into modernizing the very weapons that we
promise eventually to eliminate. 

The Obama administration has even pushed back against European proposals to
remove the 200 tactical nuclear weapons the United States maintains in
Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. But, writes FPIF
contributor Stephen Herzog in The
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=bu%2FITW8ZRZHy9y8pAT
4AvDNtpqNkvV%2BU>  End of Tactical Nukes in Europe?, a new NATO contingency
plans might just prepare for the removal of these Cold War remnants. "U.S.
tactical nuclear weapons in Europe create divisions within NATO, complicate
conventional and strategic arms control efforts, and contribute to the
overall climate of distrust between Moscow and Brussels," Herzog writes.
"While contingency planning for states bordering Russia may also be somewhat
provocative to the Kremlin, these arrangements enhance alliance solidarity
and provide vast opportunities for NATO burden sharing. And most
importantly, Article 5 contingency planning presents nearly unequivocal
proof of an American and Western European commitment to the security of
Central and Eastern Europe."

As for the larger goal of global nuclear disarmament, FPIF contributor
Lawrence Wittner points out in Public
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=silFg47dr7MCH2%2BWTM
ThWwz9RxLYDvCk>  Mobilization for a Nuclear-Free World that while opposition
to nuclear weapons is widespread, but it does not run deep. Support for a
treaty abolishing nuclear weapons attracts only minority support in India,
Pakistan, Israel, and Russia. "Another sign support for a nuclear-free world
is weaker than implied by its favorability ratings is that an April 2010
poll among Americans found that, although a large majority said they favored
nuclear abolition, 87 percent considered this goal unrealistic," Wittner
writes. 

Finally, our FPIF Pick this week is Midnight on the Mavi Marmara, a
collection of essays about the Israeli attack on the flotilla heading to
Gaza in late May. This first book on the flotilla massacre, FPIF contributor
Peter Certo writes
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Pdy2qG5qf9%2FRHVKi0c
WERTNtpqNkvV%2BU> , serves "as the general public's introduction to civil
society and the Gaza crisis - a collection of eyewitness accounts as well as
a useful background reader, and a clarion call to action infused with the
energy and efficacy of the activists themselves."

. . . 

Foreign Policy In Focus is a network for research, analysis and action that
brings together more than 700 scholars, advocates and activists who strive
to make the United States a more responsible global partner. It is a project
of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) in Washington. www.fpif.org
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=wzmzlma8%2BPLD2gvrOg
Wp2jNtpqNkvV%2BU> 

The Institute
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=6EKQRdNEeBXM668VM%2B
sWZjNtpqNkvV%2BU>  for Policy Studies is a community of public scholars and
organizers linking peace, justice and the environment in the U.S. and
globally. It works with social movements to promote democracy and challenge
concentrated wealth, corporate and military power. www.ips-dc.org
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=VL0br6MZVVoe1ehp%2BA
mrwTNtpqNkvV%2BU>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://paa-tx.org/pipermail/discuss_paa-tx.org/attachments/20100929/51a7617d/attachment.htm>