The Military vs. Obama

By: Jennifer Rubin

The Bubbas and the military storming the White House. [Please see our article, "The Coming Bubba Revolution."]

PREFACE

More evidence has recently surfaced in connection with the military's disdain for the Democratic Party in general, and the Obama Administration in particular; it surfaced as a result of a series of interviews given by now-fired General McChrystal to Michael Hastings of Rolling Stone Magazine.

Interview given to CNN by Michael Hastings re. the attitude of General McChrystal regarding Obama's conduct of the war in Afghanistan.

The "SPIN" given to the Rolling Stone article is that McChrystal was "shooting off" his mouth regarding the President's policy; that he was being INTEMPERATE with regard to his comments especially to a Left-Wing magazine like Rolling Stone; but the truth is, McChrystal knew EXACTLY what he was doing, and that he had the support of most in the military in saying what he said AND FOR THAT HE WAS READY TO SACRIFICE HIS CAREER. In giving this set of interviews, McChrystal realized that Rolling Stone would do precisely what it did: Print the story without "watering it down." McChrystal along with most of the other senior commanders believes that Obama is pursuing a policy of disengagement NO MATTER WHAT THE COST even if it means causing the military to suffer through another Vietnam-like debacle. However, McChrystal and the other senior U.S. commanders do not want the military to "march into that good night" without a protest, as it did in Vietnam.

WHAT THIS MEANS IS THAT THE MILITARY HAS DECLARED WAR ON OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY A WAR THAT HAS BEEN SIMMERING FOR A LONG TIME a war that someday could very well lead to a military coup. [Please see our articles, "The General's Revolt against the Obama Presidency" and "An American Coup d'Etat;" please also see our article, "The Men who Gathered Themselves together at Clint Murchisan's Dallas Home Forty-Five Years Ago."]

The Phoenix Program by Douglas Valentine: The definitive book on America's use of death squads during the Vietnam War. Please also see S.R. Shearer's military bio.

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE:

The war between the generals (on the one hand), and Obama and the Democratic Party (on the other hand) is a war that people on both sides are trying to obscure; for example, in allying himself with Karzai, there are some commentators who have jumped to the conclusion that McChrystal is embracing a "soft-war" strategy insofar as the Taliban is concerned. However, nothing could be farther from the truth: the strategy that McChrystal has embraced is called "COUNTER-INSURGENCY." It is a DEATH SQUAD strategy like the one so successfully pursued in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive of 1968; that strategy was called "PHOENIX."

In this regard it should be remembered that McChrystal led America's "Special Operations' Teams" (SOTs) for many years. The point of the "Special Operations' Teams" (SOTs) that McChrystal commanded as head of DELTA FORCE is that they operate in SECRET and under the radar, and they do not distinguish between civilian and military oppositions, between activists and their sympathizers and the armed resistance. The SOTs specialize in establishing death squads and recruiting and training LOCAL paramilitary forces to terrorize communities, neighborhoods and social movements opposing US client regimes. The SOTs' "counter-terrorism" is terrorism in reverse, focusing on socio-political groups between US proxies and the armed resistance.

In this strategy, "regular U.S. forces" stand publicly in reserve, while the death squads privately take control of the war. Nonetheless, there must be sufficient "regulars" to deal with any emergency situations which was the point of the surge. Commenting on this strategy, liberal writer Chris Hedges reports:

"The strategy practiced by McChrystal [in Afghanistan] involves large scale, long term 'special operations' to devastate and kill the local social networks and community leaders, which provide the support system for the armed resistance ... Putting McChrystal in charge of the expanded Afghanistan-Pakistan military operations has meant putting a notorious practitioner of military terrorism - the torture and assassination of opponents to US policy - at the center of US foreign policy."

Needless to say, such a policy is vehemently opposed by "peaceniks" in the Obama Administration who are "in the know" enough to realize what is going on.

FINALLY, THE REPLACEMENT OF McCHRYSTAL BY PETRAEUS SHOULD IN NO WAY BE SEEN THAT EITHER PETRAEUS OR OTHER MILITARY COMMANDERS IN THEATER SUPPORT OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS. ON THE CONTRARY, IT REPRESENTS AN EFFORT BY THE DEMOCRATS AND OBAMA TO OBSCURE THE MILITARY'S ON-GOING WAR WITH THEM; BUT IN REPLACING McCHRYSTAL WITH PETRAEUS, WHAT OBAMA MAY VERY WELL BE DOING IS REPLACEING THE FOX GUARDING THE "HEN HOUSE" WITH A WILEY COYOTE someone far more able in the long run (and far, far more subtly) to destabilize the Obama Administration than McChrystal ever was.

_____________________________________

[Begin Rubin's article.]

The news of the day is certainly Gen. Stanley McChrystal's interview with Rolling Stone magazine and the resulting fallout (i.e., the firing of McChrystal). Fox News reports:

Wimps in the White House: Peace at any cost.

"The article says that although McChrystal voted for Obama, the two failed to connect from the start. Obama called McChrystal on the carpet last fall for speaking too bluntly about his desire for more troops. 'I found that time painful', McChrystal said in the article, on newsstands Friday. 'I was selling an unsellable position'. It quoted an adviser to McChrystal dismissing the early meeting with Obama as a '10-minute photo op'. 'Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. The boss was pretty disappointed', the adviser told the magazine'.

"The article claims McChrystal has seized control of the war 'by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House'.

"Asked by the Rolling Stone reporter about what he now feels of the war strategy advocated by Biden last fall fewer troops, more drone attacks McChrystal and his aides reportedly attempted to come up with a good one-liner to dismiss the question. 'Are you asking about Vice President Biden'? McChrystal reportedly joked. 'Who's that'?

Vice President Biden's war policy during Vietnam.

NOTE FROM ANTIPAS:

Joe Biden never served in the military; instead, he received 5 draft deferments during the Vietnam War. It is precisely in this connection that McChrystal (as well as most other generals including Odierno and Petraeus) find it so difficult to take not just policy advice from Biden regarding the war in Afghanistan, but TACTICAL military advice as well; for example, the efficacy of using drone missile strikes as a cover for the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. THE MILITARY FEELS IT IS HYPOCRITICAL FOR "DRAFT-DODGERS" FROM THE VIETNAM WAR TO BE NOW DICTATING THE USE OF THE MILITARY, ESPECIALLY ON A TACTICAL BASIS.

Biden favored a narrower focus on hunting terrorists; of making al Qaeda the target rather than the Taliban, and seeing if there wasn't someway to reach an accommodation with the Taliban in order to facilitate the American withdrawal - much in the same way that the Americans signed a "cease-fire" with the North Vietnamese almost forty years ago knowing all the while that in the long run, such a "cease-fire" would never work. Insofar as the Americans were concerned, the purpose of the "cease-fire" was simply to give the American military enough time to withdraw before the North Vietnamese initiated their final onslaught. SHADES OF VIETNAM ALL OVER AGAIN.

"Biden?" one aide was quoted as saying. "Did you say: Bite me?"

Another aide reportedly called White House National Security Adviser Jim Jones, a retired four star general, a 'CLOWN who was 'stuck in 1985'. [Please see second note below.]

Some of the strongest criticism, however, was reserved for Richard Holbrooke, Obama's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"The boss says he's like a wounded animal," one of the general's aides was quoted as saying. "Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous."

Hastings continued, focusing now on Karl Eikenberry, the President's ambassador to Afghanistan:

"If [Karl] Eikenberry had doubts about the troop buildup, McChrystal said he never expressed them until a leaked internal document threw a wild card into the debate over whether to add more troops last November. In the document, Eikenberry said Afghan President Hamid Karzai was not a reliable partner for the counterinsurgency strategy McChrystal was hired to execute."

McChrystal said he felt "betrayed" and accused the ambassador of giving himself cover.

"Here's one that covers his flank for the history books", McChrystal told the magazine. "Now, if we fail, he can say 'I told you so'."

NOTE FROM ANTIPAS:

Holbrooke like Biden - has also never served in the military, although he did serve with the diplomatic corps in Vietnam. Holbrooke is most noted for his diplomatic service in the Balkans during the Clinton Administration where he took a strong pro-Muslim position against the Serbs. Holbrooke supports Obama's intention of getting out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible no matter what the cost to the army's reputation. He believes that in the long run there is no way the West can beat the Muslims in the Middle East and Central Asia; as a result, the best strategy is for the United States to learn to get along with the Islamists, even if that means ultimately alienating Israel and disgracing the American military with another Vietnam-like debacle.

Insofar as Eikenberry, is concerned, although he possesses a military background, he has a reputation in the military for being POLITICAL that is to say, of keeping his finger in the air in order to ascertain which way the political winds (as opposed to military realities) are blowing, and going in that direction.

LEFT: Richard Holbrooke; RIGHT: Karl Eikenberry. Both are considered to be political hacks by the military, people who are willing to sacrifice the military on the altar of "political expediency."

Yeah, wow. Concerning the Rolling Stone article, there are two issues here McChrystal's behavior and the president's management of the war ...

NOTE FROM ANTIPAS:

It is reported that General Jones was picked by Obama to be National Security Advisor because he was one of those "rare birds" in the military that was ANTI-ISRAEL.

In a separate report, Jennifer Rubin writes:

"The least controversial and most widely accepted comment in the Rolling Stone piece is that retired general Jim Jones is a 'CLOWN'.

"This is the worst-kept secret in Washington. For some time now, we've been getting hints that Jones is less than effective. More than a year ago, Michael Goldfarb reviewed news reports that Jones was keeping bankers' hours. 'It seems like Jones's primary goal as National Security Adviser is to get home for dinner. He doesn't want to 'sacrifice his life for his career'. Is this really the best and the brightest? In TV interviews, he has not inspired confidence. He was downright incoherent in discussing Iran with Candy Crowley earlier this year.

"Moreover, Jones is often front and center in the anti-Israel onslaughts ... Again, it was Jones who assembled the recent "Why not an imposed peace plan on Israel?" confab, and then leaked it to the media."

"If the Obama's foreign policy team has failed to come up with an effective plan to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions, a good share of the blame is Jones's. If we had a prolonged and agonized decision-making process on Afghanistan war strategy, Jones again bears some of the responsibility. You say that the problem is with Obama? Well, certainly, but only the voters can do something about that. As for Jones, it is no laughing matter to have a national-security adviser who is widely perceived as being so ineffective if not downright counterproductive to the formulation of 'smart' national-security policy."

The substance of what McChrystal is saying is obscured somewhat by the personalized tone ... But the gravamen of what he is saying is serious and deeply troubling. He is giving voice to what many have been fretting about and what critics outside the administration have been harping on for some time: the White House and the civilian leadership are [purposefully] hampering our war effort ...

Very obviously, Obama has complete failed to manage the war and to gain the confidence of the military ...

[End of Rubin's article.]

_____________________________________

Again, we URGE you to see our articles, "The Coming Bubba Revolution," "The General's Revolt against the Obama Presidency" and "An American Coup d'Etat;" please also see our article, "The Men who Gathered Themselves together at Clint Murchisan's Dallas Home Forty-Five Years Ago."]

We need your help to spread the word concerning Antipas Ministries and the eschatological viewpoint it represents; WE NEED YOUR HELP BECAUSE WE DO NOT "LINK" WITH OTHER SO-CALLED "CHRISTIAN" WEBSITES which are, for the most part, "in the tank" insofar as their loyalty to the United States is concerned - a loyalty that has made them partners in the BLOODY trail the American military has left in its TERROR-RIDDEN rampage throughout the world, as well as making them partners in the abject poverty that American corporations have imposed on the peoples and nations the American military machine has ravaged - A BLOODY, TERROR-RIDDEN RAMPAGE THAT HAS TO A LARGE DEGREE BEEN CARRIED OUT IN THE NAME OF THE "PRINCE OF PEACE." [Please see our articles, "The Third World as a Model for the New World Order," Inside the American New World Order System" and "The American Empire: The Corporate / Pentagon / CIA / Missionary Archipelago."]

YOU CAN HELP BY EMAILING THIS ARTICLE TO
YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS

PRESS HERE


HOME | ARTICLES | ABOUT US | SUPPORT US | CONTACT US
© Antipas Ministries