On the other hand, Gen Keane was smart enough to turn down the CSA position when Rummie offered it to him. Not wanting to be a lackey to the Devil, he let Gen Casey take that job (and the disintegration of the Army continued…).

Keane’s got a very strong opinion on defense issues, he’s a major force in DC not because he wants or craves influence but because he’s a very smart man who is willing to push hard to make the military a better force. That kind of an attitude bothers some people, but wanting to see actual progress in the defense world will irritate the Villagers.

“…for retired generals who represent defense corporations to be included in decision-making on major military programs”

I’m trying to think of the appropriate response to such an overwrought exaggeration. Spencer, I do hope that you’re able to tell the difference between a highly qualified defense expert with 30-35 years experience who is advising the active duty military and/or govt civilians on acquisition-related issues and the few bad apples who abuse the priviledge of their military experience. I’m personally disappointed that Bender has joined the USAToday team who have been breathlessly reporting on the idea that retired general/flag officers have no right and no place to advise their active duty colleagues on important defense issues.

“The only reason the administration pivoted to that argument was because of the Dems’ post-November Senate losses.”

I would argue that you’re putting too much into that statement. First of all, I think the arms control advocates (think tanks, etc) were the ones who pushed that line, just because it embarrassed the Repub hawks that they were screwing up there. But the administration’s line has been, I think, more a point of rebutting over and over the Repub talking points of “too many consessions, hurts missile defense, doesn’t do this that and the other thing, the negotiators were on drugs, yadda yadda.” Then they just let Kerry patiently nurse the process along, giving the moderate Repubs every opportunity to do the right thing until the elections, yes, that’s true, but more because McConnell started crowing about “oh I iz bringin the Pain now” and everyone saw how the Repubs were running down the clock. FWIW.

Max Boot is and continues to be an ass. Biden conducted the unintentional faux pas of a politician telling the truth. We need to get out of Afghanistan, it has no national security value as long as NON-STATE actors are able to move to other failed/weak states. Obama’s still spinning a yarn that allows him to continue working with Republican hawks up to the 2012 election. Since committing to getting out by 2012 would provide too much ammunition to the right wingers (“Dems weak on defense, etc etc), the goal will be getting out immediately after. The Iraq model offers a two-year pullout, so by 2014, we’re outta there.

What “enduring political committment” do we owe Afghanistan? Protecting their drug trade? Providing target practice for Taliban insurgents? Covering for the Pakistani government’s support for Taliban? Pray, do tell.

“Try not saying vile shit about millions of people.”

Yes, I see what you mean.

“That’s why clients seek patrons.”

Come on, you’re either deliberately twisting or misreading this situation. Clients seek patrons for protection, yes. But these fat cats were egging the US govt to attack Iran in a pre-emptive mode. It’s as if they’ve been wearing eye-shutters for the past ten years. I would like to think that rational Arab leaders would at the least understand the limitations of US “pre-emptive” strikes into Muslim countries, in particular when we’re overextended into Iraq and Afghanistan.

If the Arab states weren’t buying billions of dollars of military gear and didn’t have US/French/British bases all throughout, they MIGHT have a justification in asking us to take out Iran. But that’s not the case, is it? They have no justification thinking that Iran is going to attack them with conventional arms in an effort to expand the Persian empire over the Arab states. It’s ludicrious.

You’re exaggerating. Kyl’s opposition was no surprise to anyone tracking the treaty. It was always a Repub objective to deny Obama any foreign policy achievement before the election, this is just rubbing salt in the wounds. While Sen Lugar wants this treaty, he doesn’t have the balls or the power to influence his idiot neocon colleagues.

You might recall that Sen. Jesse Helms held up the Chemical Weapons Convention from ratification for about four years, but it was eventually signed because even idiot Republicans recognize that treaties have a purpose in limiting the weapons of the Other Side. Kyl’s just looking for some time to strut around the barnyard like a bantam rooster, and Obama doesn’t have the moxy to pull the trigger on this ass.