Attack on Iran's nuclear facilities 'worries' US admiral

By GottaLaff

I can't think of a worse idea than attacking Iran. Aside from the "unintended consequences", how about our already-stretched-paper-thin military? How about getting into something worse than the current messes were in now? How about how we'd pay for it (in more ways than one)? How about more needless loss of life?

How about no more wars? How about that for a change?

"The outbreak of a conflict will be a big, big, big problem for all of us, and I worry a great deal about the unintended consequences of a strike," Admiral Mullen said. [...]

Mullen, who was speaking to journalists during a visit to Israel, went on to say however that US President Barack Obama had been "very clear that from a policy standpoint, Iran cannot have a nuclear weapons."

"We haven't taken off any option from the table," the admiral said, using diplomatic language for keeping open the possibility of launching military strikes.

Shorter version: Bombing Iran would be a disaster, but we could live with that. Besides, Israel could start the ball rolling, and we could justify it by "having to" supporting our ally.

Shorter shorter version: Bombing Iran would be a disaster, but hey, what the hell.

DADT Watch: Senator Sessions gets an earful from Admiral Mullen

By GottaLaff

Tuh-weet!


And yet, Teh Gay hasn't rubbed off on Mullen. Contrary to Rushpublic belief, it's not nearly as contagious as they feared.

Just for good measure:



H/t: GregOstravich

John McCain, then and now, on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

By GottaLaff



Unfortunately, Flipper McNotPrez flipped in the wrong direction:

"The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, Senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to."

-- Sen. John McCain, in an interview on Hardball in 2006, about the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

"At this moment of immense hardship for our armed services, we should not be seeking to overturn the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy."

-- McCain, quoted by NBC News earlier today, after the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs recommended changing the policy.

Today:

"No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."

-- Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, quoted by the New York Times, on the need to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law.

So much for responding to the leaders in the military.

By the way, does J Sid get that there are gays in the military now who contribute greatly?

And does he realize how many other countries allow gays in their military and somehow their world hasn't come to an end?

And finally, he of all people should understand that "this moment of immense hardship for our armed services" is exactly the time we need even more skilled service members, not fewer.

I am so unbelievably glad this man is not in the White House.

Finally: Don't Ask Don't Tell hearing Tuesday

By GottaLaff

That sound you hear is the right side of the aisle screaming "Obstruct!"

A senior defense official says to expect Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen provide more details about the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" during the Senate Budget hearings next Tuesday and Wednesday. [...]

The Joint Chiefs still have not worked out details on how military policy or infrastructure may change if DADT is repealed. One senior defense official said they will examine the need for actual changes in infrastructure -- separate berthing, showers, etc. -- NOT because they believe there needs to be separate facilities, but only to be prepared for critics who have said this could be an issue for the military. [...]

This new, more humane implementation will likely be the interim policy until the U.S. military figures out what needs to be changed for a smooth transition.

For much more, including which questions we should expect to be asked, go here.

I'd like to see an executive order on this, but that's not going to happen. I keep reminding myself what it would be like if McCain/Palin made it to the White House. After coming down off the ceiling at the very thought of those two taking charge of anything, and popping a few pretend sedatives, I realize I have to accept the baby steps we're taking, take a deep breath, and hope for the best.

I feel very strongly about DADT. It's hard to be patient, but patient I must be.

Obama: U.S. not giving Israel green light to attack Iran

By GottaLaff

Just in case there was any question:

The United States is "absolutely not" giving Israel a green light to attack Iran, U.S. President Barack Obama told CNN Tuesday.

"We have said directly to the Israelis that it is important to try and resolve this in an international setting in a way that does not create major conflict in the Middle East," Obama said, referring to Iran's nuclear ambitions.

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden on Sunday appeared to leave the door open for Israel to attack Iran if it saw fit.

"Israel can determine for itself — it's a sovereign nation — what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else," Biden said on ABC's "This Week."

Obama said Tuesday that Biden had simply been stating a fact, not sending a signal.

"I think Vice President Biden stated a categorical fact, which is we can't dictate to other countries what their security interests are. What is also true is that it is the policy of the United States to resolve the issue of Iran's nuclear capabilities in a peaceful way through diplomatic channels," he said.

The top U.S. military leader, Adm. Mike Mullen, said later on Tuesday that he understands Israel's position. [...]

His counterparts in the Gulf also understand the Israeli stance, whether or not they agree, Mullen said. [...]

He said he hoped diplomacy would resolve the issue.

"I am hopeful that that dialogue is productive. I worry about it a great deal if its not," Mullen said.

The State Department took a similar line on Monday.

"Our goal here is to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. When I say 'our' it is just not the United States — it is the international community," spokesman Ian Kelly said. "Israel is a sovereign country. We are not going to dictate its actions. We also are committed to Israel's security and we share Israel's deep concerns about Iran's nuclear program."

Asked if this could be interpreted as the United States flashing a green light for Israel to attack Iran's nuclear sites, Kelly said, "I certainly would not want to give a green light to any kind of military action."

Joint Chiefs chairman: Army suicides to hit record

By GottaLaff

I don't like posting things like this:

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, on Tuesday predicted that the Army will see a record number of suicides this year. [...]

"The suicide rate is exceptionally high," Mullen said, adding that the rate is up in all the military services, not just the Army. While he said that there is no "analytic data" yet showing that there is an "overwhelming correlation" between the stress of the military forces with multiple deployments to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he "just can't believe that it is not very much related."

Gee, which president pushed that whole practice to the limit? Oh yeah:

Mullen said the military faced a "severe" shortage in mental health professionals and that Pentagon leaders are pressing to fill those gaps.

Heavy sigh.

Generals have plan to put public pressure on Obama on Iraq withdrawal

By GottaLaff

President Obama is no George Bush... thank goodness. And unless I'm mistaken, I seem to remember that Obama won the election. However, it sounds like there are a few in the military who haven't gotten word of that yet:

CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting. [...]

There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, "Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama."

Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise. [...]

The source says the network, which includes senior active duty officers in the Pentagon, will begin making the argument to journalists covering the Pentagon that Obama's withdrawal policy risks an eventual collapse in Iraq. That would raise the political cost to Obama of sticking to his withdrawal policy. [...]

Obama told Petraeus in Baghdad last July that, if elected, he would regard the overall health of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps and the situation in Afghanistan as more important than Petraeus's obvious interest in maximising U.S. troop strength in Iraq, according to Time magazine's Joe Klein.

But judging from Petraeus's shock at Obama's Jan. 21 decision, he had not taken Obama's previous rejection of his arguments seriously. That miscalculation suggests that Petraeus had begun to accept Keane's assertion that a newly-elected Democratic president would not dare to override his policy recommendation on troops in Iraq.

Let's recap: President Obama is the commander-in-chief. He calls the shots. So is it me, or should these military officers defer to their boss rather than try to publicly humiliate and pressure him?

That's what I thought.

Mullen: Afghanistan is no Vietnam

By GottaLaff

Last night I posted about the Newsweek cover above. Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, disagrees with their characterization:

The top U.S. military officer cautioned Monday against comparing the Pentagon's renewed focus on Afghanistan to the Vietnam War, citing terrorism and a non-occupation strategy as "dramatic differences" between the two conflicts.

"Afghanistan is much more complex," said Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

He added: "I certainly recognize - and having been in Vietnam myself - that there are those who make comparisons. I would be pretty careful about that though, for lots of reasons."

If it's anyone's war, it's Bush's. Now President Obama has to deal with the war he he has, to loosely paraphrase some war criminal named, ummm... Dummy? Scummy? Oh yeah: Rummy:

A funny thing happened on the way to the Iraq withdrawal agreement

By GottaLaff

Stop me if you've heard this one before. Okay, see, there was this fraudulent war that turned into an illegal occupation. No, no it gets better. There were this guy named Obama who was against this cosmic roto rooter into our collective psyches, but he got ridiculed by this bunch of thugs we'll call BushCo and Friends. In fact, a lot of us got laughs for the same thing, by a bunch of pseudo-patriots. Are ya with me so far? Good.

Okay, so here's the set-up for the punch line. See, after five years and over 4,000 deaths, finally... finally... there was an agreement. You remember the one: between Iraq and the U.S. The one that gets us out of there by 2011, the one that stops our family members from getting their heads blown off. Yeah, yeah, that's the one.

Well, a crazy thing happened. Oh, this'll knock your socks off. What a freakin' riot. In fact, my stomach hurts already, but not from laughing, because, see, this is no joke:

“Shiite legislators could barely conceal their delight” at the agreement, and noted that “they referred to the pact as the ‘withdrawal agreement.’” As proof of its determination to a firm withdrawal date, the Iraqi government even required that the U.S. “scrap the language that would have allowed the American troops to stay beyond 2011 if Iraq requested.”

Iraqi officials made it perfectly clear that they would take the withdrawal agreement seriously:

– Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh: “The total withdrawal will be completed by December 31, 2011. This is not governed by circumstances on the ground.”

– Deputy parliament speaker Khalid al-Attiya: The “Americans have responded positively on two important amendments. The first one is the Americans should withdraw from cities and suburbs on June 30, 2009, and the second one is that Americans should leave Iraq in 2011.‘”

What a set-up, huh? Abbott couldn't have set up Costello any better. Trouble is, there's no payoff. No punch line. The joke's on us.

The Pentagon, however, seems to view things differently. Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen said today that he still supports “conditions-based” withdrawal only, and indicated that the agreement could always change long before 2011.

You really killed 'em with that one, Mullen.

Literally.