The true danger of Pentagon corruption

by Mustang

With the possible exception of America’s gunboat diplomacy period, it has not been the mission of the Defense Department (or its predecessors) to engage in the art of statesmanship.  Sadly, except for John Hay, Elihu Root, and a fictional character named Bess McCord, diplomacy hasn’t been the domain of our State Department, either.

The Pentagon - Wikipedia


For the people running the Pentagon, the solution to every problem is remarkably consistent: bomb, kill, destroy.  Their names and faces may change, but the Pentagon people all cling to the same myths — that there are such things as surgical strikes and that a nation can be deterred by America’s ability to produce “shock and awe.”  It hasn’t happened yet, but that doesn’t keep the Pentagon from strutting about trying to convince us of how awesome our military is.

Of course, the people who suffer most are innocent (like us) who are stuck with an out-of-control government.  Among these innocents, we will discover survivors with deep scars and long memories, which will one day require we send our young people into harm’s way to confront them again.  For the American people, it has become a never-ending story.

This November, President John F. Kennedy will have been murdered for sixty years.  As it happens, John Kennedy was not one of my favorite presidents — but I do not think he deserved an assassin’s bullet.  The fact is that John Kennedy ran afoul of the Pentagon and its creation, the Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.).

Had Mr. Kennedy survived with wounds, what would he have learned from the experience?  It might have been that even if a president distrusts the Pentagon and C.I.A., it would be best to keep a smile on his face and stay out of the rear sight of a skilled rifleman.  That term, by the way, would not describe Lee Harvey Oswald.  He barely qualified with the service rifle while serving in the Marines.

There was another lesson: if the Pentagon or C.I.A. wants to remove a president, there will be no hesitation in doing it in front of the first lady or national television camera.

In Kennedy’s day, the Pentagon’s generals regarded him as a weak sister.  He was no such thing, but neither was he exceptionally bright — or well-served by either the Pentagon’s leadership, anyone in the C.I.A., or his baby brother “Bobby.”

The generals and C.I.A. leaders didn’t like Kennedy because of the disaster they created in the failed Bay of Pigs invasion.  The C.I.A. crafted this calamity and tried to sell it to President Eisenhower toward the end of his administration.  It was handed off to Kennedy, who was as inexperienced at that time as Barack Obama in 2009, who entered the White House with all thirty minutes of U.S. Senate experience.  Eisenhower didn’t approve the mission because he knew better.  Kennedy was naïve.

Badly stung, John Kennedy never again trusted the generals.  By the time Kennedy learned not to trust the C.I.A., following the C.I.A.’s assassination of South Vietnam President Ngo Dinh Diệm, his own murder was only days away.  If anyone ever wanted to compile a list of suspects in the Kennedy assassination, the Pentagon and C.I.A. would appear at the top of that very short list.

That was a long time ago — but this question remains: why do the Pentagon’s generals and C.I.A. remain fascinated with the Russians and former Soviet Republics? If, for example, we Americans didn’t like having Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles (I.C.B.M.’s) in Cuba, what makes us think that the Russians would want them pointed in their direction from Turkey? In his dealings with the Soviet Union, John Kennedy could rationalize the Russian’s point of view.  Mr. Kennedy’s ability to understand the other fellow’s point of view helped avoid an atomic war during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

If anything, today’s generals are far worse than those mutton heads in the 1960s.  I suspect that the issue here, resting just below the surface, is that these generals live for conflict: it’s how they became three and four-star officers.  In any case, what’s the point of having lethal weapons if you can’t use them?  Here’s my point: why are these “skilled warriors” charging into the Oval Office and demanding that the President forget any intention of supplying Ukraine with rockets and tanks?  Answer: they want a war in Eastern Europe.

Our problem today (and we’ve had it for a while) is that our presidents are mental flat-liners.  President Reagan was indeed entering into the early stages of dementia in the final days of his administration, but Joe Biden was elected at a time when he was already living in the  Twilight Zone.  A conspiracy theorist might wonder if the men behind the curtain didn’t arrange this on purpose — to see if we needed a president at all.

This “problem” is not unique to the United States.  The entire European Union has proven that all that’s needed to make things go is a figurehead that can be swapped out every twelve months.  Presidencies are a thing of the past.  What is the problem?  These stocking-stuffer heads of state pose a clear and present danger to global peace and stability.  The problem is that none of these people, including the President of the United States, represent the nation’s interests or its people.

Let’s revisit Cuba in 1962 and see if we can find any parallels to the mishmash in Ukraine.  Did the United States wish to see Russian missiles sitting in silos in Cuba?  Of course not.  But they had the right to station those missiles in Cuba, with that government’s permission.  The Cubans were happy to give that permission, especially after the C.I.A.’s bumbled attempt to overthrow Castro and assassinate him.  The C.I.A. can deny that all they want, but it is a fact.

Four years earlier, the U.S. decided to place nuclear missiles in Turkey.  If global peace was the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy in 1959, then we can only conclude that missiles in Turkey were a hair-brained idea.  And so, too, was the United Kingdom and United States’ decision to engineer a coup d’état in Iran in 1953.  It’s been one terrible idea after another since the end of World War II.

Scars and long memories continue to plague us.  For the most part, this is our fault, not Iran’s, Cuba’s, or Russia’s.

President Kennedy, in establishing a naval blockade around Cuba, declared war against the Soviet Union (naval blockades are acts of war), and the Soviets backed down.  It was a  gamble that paid off because we (narrowly) avoided a nuclear war.  But the Pentagon’s generals balked.  They wanted that missile exchange; they wanted a full-scale invasion of Cuba.  This should scare the crap out of us: America’s generals today want a war with Russia in Ukraine.


There is no good answer to this question — we should all be sitting on the edge of our seats.  The question should lead us to this conclusion: Senate confirmation of the appointment of individuals to high-ranking military and naval ranks isn’t good enough.  There has to be something more to protect us from our generals and admirals, who seem too anxious to take our country to war.

We shouldn’t care whether the former Soviet Republics are granted membership in the European Union, but there is no justification for urging these Republics to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (N.A.T.O.).  All that was, was poking the Russian bear with a stick.  What kind of foreign policy is that?  If Kennedy were alive today, he would be urging us in his aged and feeble voice that N.A.T.O. is a dinosaur that needs to be put down — for the good of all humankind.  The events in Ukraine would prove the wisdom of Kennedy’s post-mortem advice.

The scary version is that our late presidents are as muddle-headed as anyone in the Pentagon or C.I.A.  May God help us!

Mustang has blogs called  Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

23 Responses to “The true danger of Pentagon corruption”

  1. Weekend News/Opinion Links - The DaleyGator Says:

    […] Bunkerville looks at the Pentagon and corruption […]


  2. Baysider Says:

    I never knew the military tried to sell Eisenhower on the Cuba mission. That might have been part of the hand off from his administration to Kennedy’s. You ask good questions – and some obvious ones (missiles in Cuba vs. the idea of missiles in Turkey; as I recall that was part of the ‘deal’. Reading more, I see.).

    Your posts are usually quite clear, but I am puzzled about this conclusion: “demanding that the President forget any intention of supplying Ukraine with rockets and tanks? Answer: they want a war in Eastern Europe.’ I am not sure how that follows. Do you mean if we don’t help Ukraine the war will expand into Europe? As in the Russians will take Ukraine and head west? Clarifications appreciated.

    If a war makes sense anywhere, it would be replacing the failed narco states from which thousands are fleeing to the U.S. Now I know, that is not the only reason. People still want benefits and yes, even now, opportunities. Better to create them near our border and bring stability here instead of fiddling around half way ’round the world. NOT suggesting that – cuz we don’t “do” nation building well, now do we. I only present this as a point of absurdity to illuminate the stupidity of mucking around in Ukraine by comparison. Back to the Halls of Montezuma ….

    Kennedy is still lionized for meeting with Khrushchev, (well, it was Obama in 2008 that lionized him as a model – Wowzer! that’s all I needed to know about Obama to tell me that he was either clueless or not as stupid as he sounded but took voters to be fools which may be true). Kennedy himself said “he handed me my head on a platter.” From the Russian’s assessment of JFK (weak and naive) we got 1) missiles in Cuba, 2) the Berlin Wall, and 3) a fuel on the fire of war smoldering in Vietnam.


    • Ed Bonderenka Says:

      The military did not foment BOP.
      CIA did.
      Kennedy got bushwhacked by it.

      I just tire of Mustang’s diatribes against this country in general.


      • Mustang Says:

        I’m sorry you can’t distinguish between government and country, Ed. There is no diatribe … only history.


      • Baysider Says:

        Ed, I love your faithful weekly service, but on this one I have to agree with Mustang. (Whatta shock.) Can I say BOP was military? No, except for the credible case made here. But I see a big difference between our nation and our government too. (:


      • Mustang Says:

        Ed, it is a stretch trying to separate the U.S. military from the C.I.A., since its seed was Major General William Donovan, and its initial directors included Rear Admiral Souers, LtGen Vandenberg, Rear Admiral Hillenkoetter, General William B. Smith, and former O.S.S. Regional Chief, Allen Dulles.

        I agree that the silly idea came from the C.I.A., but it wouldn’t have gotten off the ground without the full support of the U.S. military — to whom Eisenhower turned for advice. That advice did not excite Eisenhower into immediate acceptance of the project.

        At the time of the B.O.P., the invading force had between 1,400 – 1,500 CIA-trained (Cuban ex-pat) ground troops. They would oppose 34,000 Cuban army and armed police and 250,000 Cuban militia. They stood no chance of success. None.

        Supporting these hapless men were 16 B-26s, 8 C-46s, and 6 C-54s (all of which were U.S.A.F. assets), 5 M-41 tanks, some number of motorized vehicles, and 5 re-supply ships, courtesy of the U.S. Army and Navy. The operational planning staff included active duty Army, Air Force, Marine, and Navy personnel.

        So, Amigo, if you are trying to disconnect the U.S. military from this idiotic invasion of a sovereign country, which might have resulted in a nuclear holocaust, it isn’t working. As John Kennedy used to say, “Success has many fathers; failure is an orphan.”


  3. The Night Wind Says:

    Also on the JFK Assassination, here’s an interesting commentary from President Johnson if you haven’t seen it:

    Liked by 2 people

    • Mustang Says:

      Right. At the top of my suspect’s list … as the man behind the curtain, is L.B.J. He was a true Texas outlaw and a backshooter.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Baysider Says:

        Yes and yes. The Warren Commission’s objective was NOT the truth. It was closure before the 1964 election.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Always On Watch Says:

        My mother was on a first-name basis with “Lyndon.” No hanky panky going on between them — just a distant friendship from the days of FDR. In fact, Mom called “Lyndon” when he was chosen as JFK’s running mate. I hesitate to state in a public forum some of the words exchanged (I overhead Mom’s end of the conversation, and she didn’t know I could be listening. I was a sneaky kid. 🙂 ).

        Much later, as an adult, I asked Mom if “Lyndon” could have engineered JFK’s assassination. Her response, “Certainly in Texas.”

        Now, there is my 2 cents worth.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. The Night Wind Says:

    Good post. We’ve had a problem with a Deep State all throughout our history, but it especially took off after WW2. You mentioned Kennedy—I’ve never researched this, but FDR’s death also seemed very conveniently timed; as well as the suspicious circumstances around the death of his top military advisor James Forrestal. When Truman was sworn in, he didn’t even know about the Manhattan Project or the cabal of Corporate/Deep State interests that Roosevelt had been fighting since the 1930s.

    It’s well-known that Roosevelt had far different plans than what actually materialized. For example, he opposed the creation of NATO, the State of Israel, a Central Intelligence Agency, and many other events that led to the Cold War. Roosevelt realized that the US and USSR would emerge as the real superpowers after the war and had an understanding with Stalin that real world peace would depend upon the two countries cooperating and not seeking confrontation.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mustang Says:

      If ever there was a communist in the White House (other than Wilson, FDR, Wallace, Carter, Obama, or Biden), it was Eleanor Roosevelt. She could not have been too pleased that her husband was playing Patty Cake with his aide down in Warm Springs — but I think the man was ill and that his presidency lasted far too long. As for Truman, he ranks among my least favorite presidents … but only because his gross incompetence resulted in the deaths of 38,000 Americans. I can’t imagine why FDR picked him as V.P., other than Wallace being a Red.

      Your theory about FDR not trusting a CIA could be spot on. I know he loved the OSS, but only because he could control it. He was a control freak. Thanks for commenting. Very interesting!!!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Baysider Says:

      YEs. Mustang wrote “It’s been one terrible idea after another since the end of World War II.” There were some pretty bad ones in WW2 also. Battlefield decisions designed more to serve Joe Stalin’s FUTURE interests than ours, present or future. From Diana West in American Betrayal: “Moscow got their agent to insert language in US-Japan communications designed to create war. … The House was forbidden to hold hearings on Japanese espionage – which helped the Soviet goal. Moscow urgently needed Pearl Harbor. … What Moscow urgently needed they usually got: weapons and material lifeline – lend-lease, the result of a successful triple play of Stalin’s influence team: Hammer to Hopkins to White.” That same pipeline also ran secret nuclear plans to Stalin and supplied him with huge quantities of materiel only possible to use in nuclear development, up to and including uranium and heavy water. Stalin kept thousands of our soldiers as prisoners in labor camps. And we kept MUM. Years later when Yeltsin visited the U.S. he publicly promised Bush he would look into any of these that might still be alive, and Bush shut that right down. This ‘problem’ of not putting the safety and welfare of your citizens first has deep roots.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. geeez2014 Says:

    As I’ll probably never stop saying, I wish you could get these things published in mainstream media…. Great to read these discussions here, but MORE NEED TO SEE YOUR THOUGHTS!

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Mustang Says:

    @ Mark

    What the Pentagon is supposed to be doing is putting every effort into defending the United States, its people, and its interests. I do not think the United States should isolate itself from global involvement, but I do believe the U.S. government has lost its way. If we have an interest in Ukraine, it is to broker a lasting peace, not expand the violence by adding our weapons technology to the mix — weapons that Ukraine could just as easily turn against the U.S. or N.A.T.O. allies in the future.

    Milley isn’t a stupid man — he’s simply more interested in his career than finding ways to defend the United States. It makes NO sense to allow gender-confused persons to enlist or serve in our armed forces if, by doing so, these people become permanently unable to perform in a combat role. If their condition interferes with combat efficiency or readiness, why in the world would Milley, or any other service chief, support transgender enlistments?

    We can answer this question by turning our attention to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General David Berger. There is nothing he wants more than to become J.C.S. Chairman. To get into that chair, he’s willing to destroy the fighting capability of the U.S. Marine Corps. There is no rear he is not willing to kiss to achieve his next promotion. We don’t need people like this serving in uniform, much less with stars on their shoulders.

    The mission of our military is not to prove the worthiness of progressive social engineering. It is to locate, close with, and destroy our nation’s enemies by fire and maneuver. The men we need wearing four stars are combat veterans — warriors who have proven themselves on the battlefield — NOT the administrators and politicians who have never heard a shot fired in anger and who think the best way to earn promotion is to kiss a superior’s hind quarters.

    Mark Milley, for example, does not have a single combat award because he has not served a combat tour of duty in 43 years of military service. All of Berger’s decorations are administrative (rather than combat) save one — the Legion of Merit, recognizing meritorious conduct while serving in the rear with the gear.

    The idiocy doesn’t stop with transgender enlistments. Neither of these officers is a combat officer. Neither of them is qualified to determine whether women are suitable for service in front-line units as riflemen, machine gunners, mortarmen, or combat leaders — yet both directed the assignment of women in these capacities. No one who has served in combat thinks this is a good idea, and not even our best women officers believe it is worthwhile. So then, what makes either of these men suitable for promotion above major?


    • Baysider Says:

      “what makes either of these men suitable for promotion above major?” Clinton and Obama extirpated some quality men from upper ranks. Creating the vacuum into which these REMF’s were sucked.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Silverfiddle Says:

    “War is good for business, and business is good.”

    Liked by 2 people

    • Mustang Says:

      And supported by people who have never seen a war they didn’t like. I imagine Liz Cheney has made a fortune in war industry investments. She wants to be president now that she lost her job in the House. More political fun with Liz and Dick.


  8. markone1blog Says:

    With the generals (like Milley) promoting transgenderism in the ranks and gender equality throughout, do those same generals think that the Russian army soldiers (which may include excellent female snipers) will pair female-to-female and male-to-male just for fairness? Do they think that the transitioning soldiers can just sit out of the next war?

    If they are as hawkish as they seem, have they looked at the army they have created/decimated?

    Liked by 1 person

    • peter3nj Says:

      The images of the 60’s hippie war protesters sticking a flower into the National Guards rifle barrels come to mind only now with the guardpeople wearing flowers in their hair.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Mustang Says:

      Mark, I answered this in the above comment, 10:26 a.m. How critical is this topic? Sufficient, I think, that if the average American voter realized how dangerous it is to choose someone like Biden, Obama, Bush, or Kerry/Gore, they’d be petrified to vote on Election Day. These mutton heads have no hesitation in sending your children into harm’s way, but you will never see their children heading in that direction. Just because we have to know how to fight doesn’t mean we should go around looking for a fight.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: