If true, that’s treason.
> If true, that’s treason. <
In spirit, yes it was treason. But not legally. The Constitution defines treason in Article III, Section 3, Clause 1:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
I suppose the Founders set the treason standards rather high to stop a president from charging every opponent with treason, as the kings of old did. The behavior of those generals does not meet those high standards.
But what those generals did was a really big deal, on the same level as treason. So how could it be described? Gross dereliction of duty? That seems way too mild.