Is Peace Dawning?

After several very dark years, I'm finally motivated to hope for peace in the world after reading this BBC story. Funny, but I haven't seen this announced in the states. I even watched Countdown with Keith Olbermann last night and it wasn't mentioned.

The story suggests that the Neo-Con neo-fascist movement is dying and as good as dead. In fact, they are going to shut down their website, the Project for the New American Century. It is a multi-page site with separate pages for various regions of the world, and 'policy documents' posted in each. LOTS of them. All just what you would expect from the likes of Cheney, Kristol and Wolfowitz. There is also a list of members or staffers. But if these guys are so disgraced now that they are shutting down the website, there may be hope for a future in which we only go to war to actually defend ourselves, not for profits, and in which citizens can feel free from being spied upon and from being 'dissappeared' by their own governement. It's like a smell of fresh air in a sewer right now.

Further hope comes from this Wednesday Yahoo story, in which Jeb Bush reputedly has thrown in the towel on any possible political future. Seems the name "Bush" is guaranteed bad news for any political candidate these days. I'll bet the Bush family Christmas will be full of fireworks this year....

So I have hope - just not too much. I'm old enough to remember Nixon coming back from the political grave several times, once to be president, and even after resigning in disgrace to beat a guaranteed impeachment, the bastard was given an ambassador's position. Seems the puppetmasters (whomever they really are) can resurrect the dead if the dead can still be useful to them.

So I'd say we're not really done with the Bushes when George is kicked out. Look for Jeb to be back like a zombie movie at some point in the future. And as for the PNAC, I'm busy copying everything on their site so that I'll recognize these living dead when they return. They may be dead as a recoginizable organization, but like Nixon, until they are "not only really dead, but really most sincerely dead", they will be back, dressed up as political ingenues like a bunch of ancient whores still trying to turn a trick.

Why Now?

This morning's news carries a story about the retirement announcement of Army Gen. John Abizaid, our top military man in Iraq. Now, having recently predicted retirements of military brass over the disagreement with Bush about his 'surge' brain-fart, I'm not even going to claim this particular retirement to be part of that prediction. Why? Because he filed the paperwork a month ago, according to Reuters, the agency carrying the story.

But, it was about a month ago that we started hearing the 'military surge' theory - right after the elections as I recall. It was also about that time the DC gossip writers said that Cheney would have us in Iran before the year was out - and we still have 11 days to go on that one though it looks as if that may have been a bad guess.

And it was only a day ago that we were told the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff was opposed to the military surge. Not only that, but a few minutes ago Bush told the nation that he wants to expand the military for a 'long term' war on terror. (I guess the option of just not taking the bait has not occurred to him....) So I'm curious about the timing of this announcement. I think it means more than just 'a month to process the paperwork'.

Folks say that "Timing is everything", Sun Tzu says timing is a very important strategic consideration that will reveal much. I'm wondering if Gen. John was just worn out, or if his retirement was REQUESTED a month ago because he opposed the surge concept.

Anybody have any deeper insight than this?

Anybody feel a Draft?

Well, I'd say the 'all volunteer' army of recent years is about done in now. You can only put volunteers in harm's way for your own ego related warmongering and mismanagement for so long before they stop being volunteers. There are two things in the news tonight that make me think the US will have a military draft again early next year.

First, there's this story, which came out as I drove home from work tonight. I probably don't need to state that I only a few minutes ago predicted that he would ignore the military brass about sending yet more troops to Iraq - here it is. As Carlos Mencia says - "DE-de-de". But then there is also this other story here on AOL about a Naval buildup in the Persian Gulf because of Iran.

Now, given the comments yesterday from Colin Powell (Retired US Army General and retired US Secretary of State) who should know what he's talking about, we may have nearly broken the ability of our military to continue to perform in Iraq or any similar venue - but he was talking mostly Army, Marine Corps, and perhaps Air Force. Apparently the Navy is all we have left with enough depth to be able to increase the presence. Or maybe they don't have the ability either without relocating ships from some other fleet - those vessels are very expensive equipment and I don't believe they have a lot of extras sitting around.

But what I think concerns me more is that a) I don't think it will impress Iran much, b) if we were to make war on Iran, we could launch a lot of Cruise missiles from those ships, and c) it sounds like escalation to me.

So, given Mr. Powell's comments about the nearly broken down military capabilities, and the possibility of escalation of what is not yet a war (but which the Bushies have said repeatedly they are willing to make into a war), and the federal military testing that is given to all our high school students under No Child Left Behind (see the second and third paragraphs here) and the database they keep on those kids tested, I think you're looking at a military draft for every kid who has graduated since Bush took office. That database may well be the real meaning of 'no child left behind' - no child missed as a source of cannon fodder.

The sad part? These kids won't be volunteers, they won't have more than about 12 weeks of training (what we got before Viet Nam), they won't have as much experience as the guys who'll be allowed to go home and won't have those older guys around to help them survive, and we'll see them getting killed a lot faster than what we see now. And it's a good possibility for 2007. Bush and Cheney will do all the damage they can before he's out of office - count on it.

Chiefs Opposed to Surge

A story in today's Washington Post indicates that the Joint Chiefs are opposed to Bush's idea of a 'surge' in Iraq, and it provides some pretty negative reasons against the idea - which of course our Viet Nam defector pResident will ignore.

"At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.

The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.

The informal but well-armed Shiite militias, the Joint Chiefs have also warned, may simply melt back into society during a U.S. surge and wait until the troops are withdrawn -- then reemerge and retake the streets of Baghdad and other cities."

Bush didn't listen to the advice of the military professionals when he wanted to start this war, he hasn't listened to them since, and I don't expect him to pay attention now. Let's see what happens - Nostradamnthem is predicting a few unanticipated 'resignations' (firings for those who need me to be more specific).