GENERALS HAVE HAD ENOUGH; OPENLY CRITICIZE NEO-CONS
Gen. Anthony Zinni
top military brass are now in open rebellion against the armchair
civilian war hawks—the hard-line neo-conservatives in the
Republican Party who convinced President George Bush to invade Iraq
and who now are behind calls to wage war on Iran. Read Michael Collins
Piper’s provocative analysis of recent events and what this
says about the GOP.
P. 4, AMERICAN
FREE PRESS * May 1 & 8, 2006 Neo-Con
with Michael Collins Piper
Brent Stirton/Getty Images
GEN. GREG NEWBOLD
PAUL D. EATON
Paul J. Richards/AFP/
GEN. ERIC SHINSEKI
well-respected retired military leaders are being savaged
for questioning the Bush regime's policies regarding Iraq
Revolt of the Generals
Military Men Who Oppose
By Michael Collins Piper
generations, Republicans were strong supporters of the American
military. But now that top military men are in open rebellion against
the armchair civilian war hawks — the hard-line pro-Israel
ideologues who directed President George Bush to order an invasion
of Iraq and who now want war on Iran — the angriest voices
condemning the military are from GOP circles.
Following the lead of the neo-conservatives, who
are viewed as fanatics but still dominate the Bush administration
and key GOP policy groups, many GOP loyalists are declaring war
on the battle-tested generals, admirals and other military heroes
who are saying, “Enough is enough.”
Although none of the military men have yet said
“No more wars for Israel,” their rhetoric in writings
and public utterances says essentially that.
Conservatives roundly denounced former Marine Gen.
Anthony Zinni as an “anti-Semite” for noting that pro-Israel
neo-conservatives were the driving force behind the Iraq war and
that everybody in Washington knew it. Zinni knew what he was talking
about: he formerly commanded all U.S. forces protecting Israel in
the Middle East.
More recently, another retired Marine, Lt. Gen.
Greg Newbold, former director of operations for the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, wrote in Time that the Iraq war was “unnecessary”
and that the rationale for war by those whom he called “the
zealots” made no sense. Newbold’s choice of the word
“zealots” was loaded. The term arises from the legend
of the Zealots — an ancient sect of Jewish fanatics.
Newbold quit the service four months before the
Iraq invasion, in part, he said, because he opposed those who exploited
the 9-11 tragedy “to hijack our security policy”—
referring to the zealous neo-con fanatics. He added:
“Until now, I have resisted speaking out
in public.” But, he said, “I’ve been silent long
What particularly disturbed Newbold’s critics
was that he said he was speaking out “with the encouragement
of some still in positions of military leadership.”
He also struck out at what he called “the
distortion of intelligence in the buildup to the war” —
a slam at the neo-conservatives and their Israeli allies who shoveled
up garbage, disguised as “intelligence,” and used it
to justify the war.
Newbold brandished his anger at the armchair war
hawks, most of whom never served in the military, saying, “the
commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness
and swagger that are the special province of those who have never
had to execute these missions — or bury the results.”
Newbold’s statements received much media attention, so the
neo-cons fired back.
Perhaps the most telling attack on the generals
came from Stephen Herbits, a former top executive of the Seagram
liquor empire, the fiefdom of World Jewish Congress chief Edgar
Bronfman, a major patron of Israel.
This longtime Bronfman henchman was appointed by
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to make “heads roll”
in the military, screening all Pentagon promotions and appointments,
implementing the agenda of enforcing lockstep Zionist control of
the American war machine.
EXAMINE THE GENERALS
Writing in the April 20 edition of the egregiously
pro-Israel Washington Times, Herbits urged the media to
start to investigate military leaders who dared to take on the administration.
Herbits said it would be “a service to this
country when the media digs a bit below these attacks to examine
Herbits is obviously calling on spy agencies such
as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a conduit for Israel’s
Mossad, to come up with “data” on the military men and
provide it to the media to bring the dissidents into line.
But cracking the whip over the entire military
will be tough. On April 18, David Broder, senior Washington
Post commentator, revealed that some months ago after he wrote
of how Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) — a former Marine colonel
who served in Vietnam — had called for U.S. withdrawal from
Iraq, Broder was contacted by a Pentagon officer who gave his name
and rank and then said:
“This is a private call. I am not speaking
officially. But I read your column, and I think it is important
for you to know that Jack Murtha knows us very well and speaks for
many of us.”
This is no secret to those who know official Washington
since Murtha has been a leading Capitol Hill voice for the military
for years. And this is what makes pro-Israel Republican attacks
on Murtha so disingenuous: they paint Murtha as a “pacifist,”
“defeatist,” “liberal” ideologue. He is
anything but that.
For its own part, in an April 18 editorial, titled
“The Generals’ Revolt,” The Washington Post
said “the rebellion is problematic” and “threatens
the essential democratic principle of military subordination to
civilian control — the more so because a couple of the officers
claim they are speaking for some still on active duty.”
That same day, a lead editor of The Washington
Times Tony Blankley — an advocate of all-out war against
the Muslim world — declared that generals still in service
who may be planning to quit together in protest against Bush policies
may be “illegally conspiring.”
Not content with accusing American military leaders
of being seditious, Blankley followed up the next day with a repetition
of his smears, calling for a court of inquiry to determine whether
the military leaders are guilty of insubordination.
Echoing Blankley, shrill pro-Israel agitator Charles
Krauthammer, a psychiatrist by profession, not a soldier, blustered
on April 21 with a column in The Washington Post crying
of “The General’s Dangerous Whispers.”
In the end, though, what’s most interesting
is that prior to the explosion of reports in the mainstream media
about the dissatisfied generals — four years after American
Free Press first broke the story at a national level, even
before the invasion of Iraq — the April issue of America’s
oldest and most respected magazine, Harper’s, featured
a provocative cover story:
“American Coup d’Etat: Military thinkers discuss
This was one month after Harper’s
— in another cover story — called for the impeachment
of President Bush.
Clearly, some people in high places are not happy
with the pro-Israel internationalism of the Bush regime.
(Issue #18 & 19, May 1 & 8, 2006, AMERICAN