> 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.
Ah, AlaskaErik has got it right. It wasn’t treason (my post #29). It was a mutiny.