Although I really don't care to read these right-wing milbogs, I find it very encouraging that they are not just clear-headed about the issue of allowing homosexuals in the military to serve openly, but they're willing to put it in a formal statement.

JOINT STATEMENT FROM MILITARY BLOGGERS 12 MAY 2010

We consider the US military the greatest institution for good that has ever existed. No other organization has freed more people from oppression, done more humanitarian work or rescued more from natural disasters. We want that to continue.

Today, it appears inevitable to us that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and law restricting those displaying open homosexual behavior from serving will be changed. And yet, very little will actually change. Homosexuals have always served in the US Military, and there have been no real problems caused by that.

The service chiefs are currently studying the impact and consequences of changing the DADT policy, and how to implement it without compromising the morale, order and discipline necessary for the military to function. The study is due to be completed on Dec. 1st. We ask Congress to withhold action until this is finished, but no longer. We urge Congress to listen to the service chiefs and act in accordance with the recommendations of that study.

The US Military is professional and ready to adapt to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell without compromising its mission. Echoing Sec. Def. Gates and ADM Mullen, we welcome open and honorable service, regardless of sexual orientation.

Matt Burden - Warrior Legacy Foundation & BLACKFIVE
Jim Hanson - Warrior Legacy Foundation & BLACKFIVE
Blake Powers - BLACKFIVE
Fred Schoenman - BLACKFIVE
David Bellavia - House to House
Bruce McQuain - Q&O
JD Johannes - Outside the Wire
Diane Frances McInnis Miller - Boston Maggie
Mark Seavey - This Ain't Hell
Michael St. Jacques - The Sniper
Mary Ripley - US Naval Institute Blog
John Donovan - Castle Argghhh!
Andrew J. Lubin- The Military Observer
Marc Danziger - Winds of Change
Greta Perry - Hooah Wife

So good on you. Much respect, except, as you guys ought to recognize, if you ask DOD to wait until December, there is the very real chance that a Republican-dominated House could block any action to repeal DADT. Next time, call your left-wing milbloggers into the effort. Or is our position perhaps a little less nebulous?

What is it about Democratic hawks that makes them so indistinguishable from Republican hawks? From the AP:

Undersecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy said a strategy decision on new deployments involving the U.S. and other troop-contributing nations would be made within the next few weeks, according to an official transcript released Saturday.

Flournoy, the Pentagon's policy chief, led a U.S. delegation that briefed NATO ambassadors Thursday on the Obama administration's review of the Afghan war. Officials released a transcript of her remarks from that meeting.

"No one is talking about leaving Afghanistan, or even standing pat. We are increasing our commitment and we're talking about how best to do that with both civilian and military resources," Flournoy was quoted as telling NATO ambassadors.

Tell me, Ms. Flournoy, how many thousands of troops NATO is going to be providing, given their limited participation to date and their nations' people also coming out more and more against further involvement in Afghanistan? How many more years, how many more deaths, how many more billions will it take before Afghanistan is "secure"? Honestly, someone needs to clue in Ms. Flournoy about the failed wisdom of following in the footsteps of the "stupidest guy on the face of the planet."

I have never understood the grasping need of Dem politicians to be viewed as being as tough as - and often, as foolish - Repub politicians when it comes to issues of national security. Afghanistan is not vital to American security interests - going after al Qaeda is, and they're in Pakistan. We need a strategy of containment rather than one of nation-building - we can't afford the current strategy, and it's overdue for a change.

In an op-ed in Sunday's WaPo, CJCS Admiral Mullen advanced the theory that America is a reluctant Empire, a hegemon only because its allies trust it and want it to rescue and protect them...just like ancient Rome. To accomplish this slight-of-hand, he kicks off with a lengthy quote from Thomas F. Madden's book "Empires of Trust: How Rome Built - and America Is Building - a New World" in which vassals of Rome are shown by a Roman account as trusting Rome as a whole even while Rome's appointed overlord is robbing and enslaving them.

It's significant that Mullen chooses as his historian-of-choice a man who appeared in many rightwing venues in the wake of 9/11 explaining how the War on Terror was to be a "defensive war"...like the Crusades, according to Madden. But when it comes to Rome, Madden's revisionist thesis is that Rome, like the United States is so mistakenly believed to be, was an isolationist culture that preferred alliances to the use of force, and was pushed reluctantly into empire building by the desire to defend itself and its friends...because they were just trying to help the poor blue-painted barbarians by crucifying them. (To do this, he has to rely pretty much solely on Roman accounts, almost never hostile ones.) Note he doesn't deny America's empire exists - just the obvious reasons for it. It's simply a retelling of the British Victorian "White Man's Burden" fable for a New American Century. British Imperials compared themselves favorably to Rome too, and often depicted themselves as new, more noble, Romans just like Mullen is now doing.

Neoconservatives loved Madden's version of Empire. David Frum, for instance, noting glowingly how understandingly civilized Rome must have been to have waited 50 whole years before finally burning Carthage, enslaving its populace and ploughing the ground with salt. Others weren't so happy, especially with Madden's conclusion:

If you think the insurgency in Iraq is bad, Madden writes, then you should have lived in Jerusalem in the first two centuries and dealt with Jewish terrorists who believed that their allies the Romans represented an evil that must be destroyed at any cost.

The Romans, after much bloodshed, finally dealt with Jewish factionalism with brute force - legions retook Jerusalem, destroyed the Holy Temple and forced Jews to focus their religion more on synagogues and rabbinic studies than the Temple itself, blunting some of the messianic zealotry responsible for the violence.

Madden believes that the lesson for America from this ancient insurgency is that the war on terror must be fought on the religious front as well. The only way to win both militarily and politically is to modernize Islam as the Romans changed Judaism to fit into their empire.

That is, by sword, flame and exile.

That the senior uniformed officer of America's military is a fan of Madden's feeble excuses for the cruelties of war and empire is worrying. That Mullen is writing neocon-style "Hoo-ah! we're the Roman Empire - and we're proud of it!" op-eds is downright scary.

(Nicole): It's odd to me that these historical analogies seem to stop before their logical conclusion. Doesn't Mullen know that the Roman Empire didn't end so well for the Romans? Is that where he thinks we should go?

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Today, a friend sent me a PDF copy of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen unclassified new "CJCS strategic guidance" for 2008-09. It makes interesting reading.

Some first thoughts:

"We have the most combat-hardened forces in history."

That's hyperbole, right? Even if you just restrict it to American forces.

"Our Navy and Airforce are unmatched, although our advantage could easily slip."

Slip to who and over what period of time? There isn't a nation on Earth spends a fraction of what the U.S. does on the military, and the next three biggest spenders are all ostensibly allies (France, Britain, Japan). The US could cut its military budget by two thirds and still outspend all of its possible threats combined.

Mullen's version of the objective in Iraq and Afghanistan:

"...a representative, stable, independent Iraq that is an ally and regional leader, and a representative, stable Afghanistan and Pakistan that are allies and cooperative members of the international community..."

Is this in fact doable at any price America is willing to pay and over any forseeable timeline? And why don't Afghanistan - and Pakistan! - have to be "independent" too?

"In the near term, Al Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan are the probable source of a terrorist attack on the homeland.

So Mullen agrees with Hayden that Pakistan is the true central front in the so-called "War On Terror" (and one the US isn't actually at war in). Is the reason that Pakistan doesn't need to be independent contained therein, for the warmongers? That'll be why we invaded Iraq and sent Pakistan billions in military aid while helping prop up the people in Pakistan's military and intelligence services enabling those Al Qaeda safe havens. That makes perfect sense.

Continue reading »

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

Monday's edition of Bushed! on Countdown begins with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Chair Admiral Mike Mullen who said he wanted to give combat troops 1-2 years rest time in between deployments, but didn't see that happening in the next year or two. Next up was the eight figure no-bid contract awarded to former Attorney General John Ashcroft by scandal-ridden US Attorney Christopher Christie to monitor a settlement for the DoJ. And finally, one of the many Nexus of Politics & Terror scandals, this one involved Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who blatantly lied by saying they had lost intelligence because the telecom companies stopped cooperating with the government for fear of lawsuits -- only to announce later that day that all of those companies had, in fact, fallen into line and were all continuing to participate in the government's surveillance programs.

So far, I hold Adm. Mike Mullen, the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in much higher regard than his predecessor, Gen. Peter Pace.

A few weeks ago, he banned the use of the phrase “Global War on Terror” in his office, and prohibited using it “in any future correspondence.” In July, he acknowledged “there does not appear to be much political progress” in Iraq. In June, we learned Mullen didn’t approve of the “surge” policy from the outset.

And this week, Mullen apparently has rejected the Cheney worldview that has dominated Bush administration’s thinking for more than six years.

The new chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, expressed deep concerns that the long counterinsurgency missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have so consumed the military that the Army and Marine Corps may be unprepared for a high-intensity war against a major adversary.

He rejected the counsel of those who might urge immediate attacks inside Iran to destroy nuclear installations or to stop the flow of explosives that end up as powerful roadside bombs in Iraq or Afghanistan, killing American troops.

With America at war in two Muslim countries, he said, attacking a third Islamic nation in the region “has extraordinary challenges and risks associated with it.” The military option, he said, should be a last resort.

I guess it’s only a matter of time before Limbaugh smears the Admiral as a “phony” soldier, but in the meantime, it’s refreshing to hear the Chairman of the JCS saying so many sensible things.

Hello, all. It's Michael Stickings from The Reaction here, and I'll be subbing for Mike through next Saturday. It's a great pleasure to have this opportunity.

Come on over and visit us at my place -- me and a fantastic group of co-bloggers: diverse, eclectic, stridently and unapologetically liberal, in an unabashedly progressive way -- but, without further ado, here are some links well worth exploring. Click away.

-- Reaction co-blogger J. Kingston Pierce at Limbo offers one of the very best commentaries on Al Gore's Nobel victory I've seen.

-- Sir Oolius of She Flies With Her Own Wings rounds up the frothing-mouth, Gore-hating lunacy of the right. Prairie Weather says "we don't deserve Gore," so immature is America, and he may be right. Tom Watson says "these are the early days of The Liberal Century," and I hope that's true.

-- Shaun Mullen of Kiko's House examines Giuliani's "really big skeleton," Bernie Kerik. Lance Mannion points out that Giuliani seems to be going after "the racist jerk vote," not just Philly cheese steaks. (See Attytood, too.)

-- Mark Gisleson of Norwegianity addresses Sanchez, Gore, and much else besides. For more on General Sanchez, wingnuttery, and the horrors of Abu Ghraib, see Taylor Marsh.

For tips, recommendations, and comments, or to discuss the political philosophy of Leo Strauss and/or the meaning of human existence, if there is one, contact me at mjwstickings [at] yahoo [dot] ca.