U.S. Military think Bush and Cheney Out of Control; "Would Revolt" over Iran

Along with the previous article below regarding Defense Secretary Gates opposing Cheney's war-mongering on Iran, you will not read this either in American press or hear it over the airwaves. The Zionist dominated news wires and networks do not want you to know there is a growing crisis of tension between the Military and civilian leadership in the U.S. government regarding the war and also Iran. See the "liberal" media is on board for Democratic Jihad against Iran, precisely because it is liberal, and they are part of the gang pushing for global democracy through revolutions and imperialistic "regime changes".

________________________________________________________________________________

This short clip from Bill Moyer's Journal shows the teamwork and/or coercion between the neoconservatives plan for a new middle east and the "liberal media" which helped sell the war to the public, wars planned well before that "catalyzing event", 9/11. The fact that you are not reading this information about conflict between the military and Bush and Cheney over expansion of the middle east wars demonstrates that the corporate media is doing exactly the same thing again, that it is not objective, or free press, but deliberately editing and censoring to support the agenda! The media is not telling you the truth, and apparently they do not want you to know that there is any disunity worth reporting.

______________________________________________________________

Note in the Spiegel article below in particular the comments by Admiral Fallon, head of CENTCOM, (who took to task and derided his inferior Gen. Petraus, as a spineless sycophant, to put it mildly in his military assessments) who vows their will be no war with Iran as long as he is head of CENTCOM! Get the picture that the military is revolting? Is it not amazing that the U.S. media are not covering this, and only foreign press?

Note also when this historian speaks of Israel on the war issues, he is referring not to the Prime Ministers (past, present, and to be) Sharon, Ehud Olmert, or Netanyahu, but the average Israeli, and their broader Knesset parliament, which is not as hawkish as the extreme war wing, particularly of the radical Likudnik terrorist party (and perhaps why the U.S. is taking the lead). Iran is not threatening Israel militarily, only philosophically as to their right to exist while trampling and oppressing the Palestinians. There is no evidence (per the IACA) that Iran is seeking to make a nuclear weapon, to which also Putin is witness, and taking even now a public stand. Even if they were, as the interview points out, Israel already has nukes, and mutual armament is a deterrant to war on both sides, as it was between the U.S. and the Soviets, and Israel clearly has the upper hand. Iran has no plans to militarily destroy Israel, but only challenges its legal and moral right to exist. It is PROPAGANDA ONLY that asserts Iran wants to militarily "wipe Israel off the map" (an inaccurate translation to imply military attack).

The consequences of war with Iran (for they would retaliate through oil containment) would be economically devastating to America, Israel, and the entire West.

See the links for the full interview and article in the German publication.

SPIEGEL ONLINE - October 15, 2007, 12:22 PM
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,511492,00.html

SPIEGEL ONLINE INTERVIEW WITH MILITARY HISTORIAN GABRIEL KOLKO

'Many in the US Military Think Bush and Cheney Are Out of Control'

In an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE, the Amsterdam-based military historian Gabriel Kolko talks about the prospect of war with Iran and argues that many in the US military now view the White House as being 'out of control.'

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Kolko, editorials in US papers like the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard and the National Review are pushing for military action against Iran. How does the leadership in the US military view such a conflict?

Gabriel Kolko: The American military is stretched to the limit. They are losing both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Everything is being sacrificed for these wars: money, equipment in Asia, American military power globally, etc. Where and how can they fight yet another? The Pentagon is short of money for procurement, and that is what so many people in the military bureaucracy live for. The situation will be far worse in the event of a war with Iran.

Many in the American military have learned the fundamental dilemma of modern warfare: More money and better weapons don't mean that you win. IEDs, which cost so little to make, are defeating a military which spends billions of dollars per month. ...

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Are people in the Pentagon getting nervous about how influential voices in the White House continue to push for conflict with Iran?

Kolko: Many in the US military think Bush and Cheney are out of control. They are rebelling against Bush and Cheney. Washington Post reporter Dana Priest recently said in an interview that she believed the US military would revolt and refuse to fly missions against Iran if the White House issued such orders.....

CENTCOM [US Central Command, the military grouping whose responsibilities include the Middle East] commander Admiral William Fallon reportedly thwarted Cheney's wish to sent a third additional aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf. One paper wrote that he "vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM."...

Kolko: Israel may be a factor. They must cross Syrian and Jordanian airspace, and the Iranians will be prepared if they are not shot down over Syria. Their countermeasures may be effective, but perhaps not ... War with Iran will lead to a rain of rockets and Israel would be left with an inability to deal with local priorities. Iran is likely to get nuclear bombs sooner or later. So will other nations. Israel has hundreds already. Israeli strategists believe deterrence will then exist. Why risk war?

Israel dislikes Iran and the prospect of Iranian nuclear weapons, but they believe they can handle it with a deterrent relationship. Israel needs its army, which is not large enough for potential nearby problems -- for Palestinians and its Arab neighbors, who it rightfully fears and hates. That means Israel can be belligerent, but it is not capable of playing the US role, except of course with nuclear weapons.

So I regard the Israelis as opponents of a war with Iran which would involve them. They certainly noticed how during the war with Lebanon the Palestinians in Gaza used the opportunity to increase pressure on Israel from the south. Israelis opposed the Iraq war because it would lead to Iranian domination of the region, which it has.

Hence, the report that Cheney is trying to use Israel, if it is true, shows that he's confused and quite mad -- but also unusually isolated.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But what about the Democratic Party? Isn't it in the interest of the Democratic Party to do everything they can to end the war?

Kolko: All three leading Democratic Party presidential hopefuls -- Clinton, Obama and Edwards -- refused at a debate recently in New Hampshire to promise to pull the US military out of Iraq by the beginning of 2013. The American public is a small factor, as elections have repeatedly shown, but may play some role also. As the last election proved, anyone who thinks Democrats will stop wars is fooling him- or herself. But war with Iran would require new authorizations. Then the Congress would, potentially, be very important.