It would be interesting to know whether these voices, now no longer heard in the halls of the Pentagon, were voices urging resistance to White House ownership of the military and its guiding policies, or voices favoring another War. Because policy arguments among Pentagon leaders, both civilian and military, are by tradition not out in the open (as would be normal in the case of members of Congress and other leading political personalities), it is possible to weed out certain points of view in the Pentagon and not have anyone really notice.
A clue to this tendency is found in the removal in March of Admiral Fallon as head of U.S. Central Command (which, among other responsibilities oversees the mid-East), following Fallon's apparent public criticism of Bush's policies. Fallon's removal was voluntary (so it is said publicly).
The expectation in Military culture is that the chain of command is to be followed, unless the orders given are "manifestly" illegal. General officers do not usually speak their conscience publicly while inside the Military, but only after retirement. At the same time, during discussions inside the Military, general officers are encouraged to present contrary views as to the efficacy of plans (whether the goals and missions can be achieved by the suggested means).
Obviously Bush would not have made Gates Secretary of War (Defense) if Bush anticipated any reluctance on Gate's part to follow orders and support White House policy. Given what we know from the past of this White House, and its relationship to the Pentagon as well as to our intelligence services, it ought to be clear that these institutions have by now been carefully cleansed of any serious potential dissent.
As pointed out in this blog years ago, in spite of the direction of the War in Iraq, the administration is in the process today of seeking to finalize Iraqi government support for permanent military bases there. Obama, who has just secured his presidency (baring outside interference), is clearly on board for a long term presence in the area. This need for a permanent base structure was already a goal of the imperial ambitions of the neo-cons, previously exposed in their position papers back in 1992.
Something, that seeks to dominate the world using the blood and sweat of the American People, still grinds slowly forward toward its goal of imposing a New World Order, run by the West, and overseen by the still anonymous aristocracy of wealth I have been calling the Lords of Finance. This monster, out of our Founder's worst nightmares, also readies itself to use extra-legal (outside the U.S. Constitution) powers to control dissent in the United States.
If another War is added to the mix, during a time of economic chaos, internal dissent inside the U. S. will escalate. Are we ready for these trials?
