Hat tip to Think Progress for picking this story up:
Appearing on NBC's Chris Matthews Show this morning, Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Cynthia Tucker revealed that sources within the military are warning of "a revolt from active-duty generals if September rolls around and the president is sticking with the surge into `08."
In addition, Tucker says that there are "lots of sources among currently serving military officers who don't want to fall by the wayside like the generals in Vietnam did, kept pushing a war that they knew was lost."
Combined with a quote yesterday by Sen. Chuck Hagel, a conservative Republican from Nebraska, that "[w]e're destroying our military, our Marines and our Army," what we have here is an increasingly tense situation between the Bush Administration and the active duty military it puports to care about.
Of course, this is America so don't expect to see tanks rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue (they're all bogged down in Iraq or not ready for commbat, regardless). But, if September rolls around, we're still stuck in a complete morass in Iraq, and the generals really do "revolt" against the Bush Administration, can the "deadenders" in the Republican Party be far behind? Or will these tough guys be willing to stand up not just to the will of the American people but to the U.S. military as well? I don't know for sure, but something tells me the Republicans will crumble faster than you can say "cut and run."
Reuters is reporting an incident between Pakistani and U.S. forces at the Afghan border. Initial reports indicate that a Pakistani officer killed two American soldiers and wounded two others. American troops reportedly returned fire and killed several Pakistani troops. Here is the link:
If this incident is verified (or even if not verified, widely believed), it will add to the combustible political mix in Pakistan, which has been lurching toward instability in recent weeks. That instability flared into lethal violence in Karachi over the weekend. when the Mohajir-based MQM seemed to act as AK-47 wielding brownshirts for President Musharraf to intimidate opposition PPP demonstrators, as well as provoke conflict in Pathan neighborhoods in the northwestern portion of the city. Musharraf may be creating the pretexts and laying the groundwork for outright martial law.
Reflect on the implications of a brittle, disintegrating Pakistan already in possession of nuclear weapons.
A second, less startling item, indicates that the Iraqi Ministry of Interior has barred news organizations from covering insurgent bombings. Here is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation link:
Can it be merely a coincidence that this order was issued shortly after VP Cheney's visit to Baghdad? If only the news organizations can be prevented from reporting on the violence, perhaps the Bush Administration believes that its never-flagging claims of "progress" would then gain traction and credibility.
Finally, in the past few days the U.S. military has cracked down on the writing of blogs by deployed military personnel, as well as on their use of such sites as YouTube and MySpace to communicate with friends and relatives in the U.S. Here is today's CNN link:
This sudden focus on information control and bandwidth preservation could reflect preparations for some new U.S. military operations in the Gulf and the surrounding region.
Even though the Eisenhower Carrier Strike Force appears now to be heading home, the Stennis and Nimitz remain in the Gulf and provide ample firepower to direct against Iran. The hair-trigger may still be cocked and the targetting plans may still be ready to be implemented on 24 hours notice.
The generals and admirals, as well as Defense Secretary Gates, may be faced with a hard decision well before September. Do they accept a Bush/Cheney order to strike Iran? Or do they declare such an order, in the absence of congressional authorization, to be illegal and then proceed to resign in protest?