Seven Days in April -- Generals Prepare to 'Revolt' Against Rumsfeld

Real Clear Politics ^ | April 18, 2006 | Tony Blankley

[conservativecorner]

Consider two hypothetical situations. In the first, a United States Army general officer in a theater of war decides by himself that he strongly disagrees with the orders of the secretary of defense. He resigns his commission, returns to private life and speaks out vigorously against both the policy and the secretary of defense.

In example two, the top 100 generals in the Army military chain of command secretly agree amongst themselves to retire and speak out -- each one day after the other.

In example one, above, unambiguously, the general has behaved lawfully. In example two, an arguable case could be made that something in the nature of a mutinous sedition has occurred in violation of Article 94 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice procedure. When does an expanded version of the simple honesty and legality of the first example cross over into grounds for a court martial?

More specifically, can a series of lawful resignations turn into a mutiny? And if they are agreed upon in advance, have the agreeing generals formed a felonious conspiracy to make a mutiny?

This may sound far-fetched, but in Sunday's Washington Post the very smart, very well-connected former Clinton Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke published an article entitled "Behind the Military Revolt." In this article he predicts that there will be increasing numbers of retired generals speaking out against Sec. Rumsfeld. Then, shockingly, he writes the following words: "If more angry generals emerge -- and they will -- if some of them are on active duty, as seems probable . . . then this storm will continue until finally it consumes not only Donald Rumsfeld."

Mr. Holbrooke is at the least very well-informed -- if he is not himself part of this military cabal intended to "consume ... Donald Rumsfeld." Mr. Holbrooke sets the historic tone of his article in his first sentence when he says this event is "the most serious public confrontation between the military and administration since . . . Harry Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur."

He takes that model one step further later in his article when he compares the current campaign against Rumsfeld with the MacArthur event and with Gen. George McClellan vs. Lincoln and Gen. John Singlaub against Carter, writing: "But such challenges are rare enough to be memorable, and none of these solo rebellions metastasized into a group, a movement that can fairly be described as a revolt."

A "revolt" of several American generals against the secretary of defense (and by implication against the president)? Admittedly, if each general first retires and then speaks out, there would appear to be no violation of law.

But if active generals in a theater of war are planning such a series of events, they may be illegally conspiring together to do that which would be legal if done without agreement. And Ambassador Holbrooke's article is -- if it is not a fiction (which I doubt it is) -- strong evidence of such an agreement. Of course, a conspiracy is merely an agreement against public policy.

The upcoming, unprecedented generals' "revolt" described by Mr. Holbrooke, if it is not against the law, certainly comes dangerously close to violating three articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice:

"Article 94 -- Mutiny and sedition (a) "Any person subject to this chapter who -- (1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuse, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny; (2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition; (3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition."

"Article 88 -- Contempt toward officials "Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

"Article 134. General Article. Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."

Certainly, generals and admirals are traditionally given more leeway to publicly assess war policies than is given to those in lower ranks. But with that broader, though limited, discretion comes the responsibility not to be seen to in any way contradict the absolute rule of civilians over the military in our constitutional republic.

The president has his authority granted to him by the people in the election of 2004. Where exactly do the generals in "revolt" think their authority comes from?

[cookcounty]

"but without troops to prevent looting and maintain order the good will evaportated."

If you don't speak the language, the only way to stop the looting is to splatter the looters brains against the wall. You couldn't stop the looting with a million troops if they have orders not to shoot unarmed civiians.

The iraqis looted, not the Americans. It's the Iraqis fault if there was looting and stop blaming the Americans.

And speaking of the "not enough troops," where were these to come from? --- Waiting 3 years for a draft and training of whole new divisions? French troops? The crack French riot police are now complaining that they are stretched to the breaking point because over the last 6 months they are averaging 47-hour work weeks! (the poor puppies)

[pawdoggie]

Actually, Patton (who once described himself as "the best as$-kisser in the Army) would probably have kept his mouth shut, so long as he thought he had an opportunity to command soldiers in the field.

[Rokke]

Your quote was pre-OIF. That involved pre-war planning and his numbers did not match what Gen Franks (the CENTCOM commander) was requesting. As CENTCOM commander, Gen Franks was responsible for determining what he required to accomplish the mission. His requests were always met. As I stated, it would be helpful if you could provide an example of when a request from CENTCOM for more troops or more equipment was denied.

[ChinaThreat]

So you think that you avoid battle until every possible provision that is requested is provided to your forces? You would make a lousy officer. Very McClellanish in my opinion.

If that is the way our armed forces worked, this country would have never existed. Just ask the Continental Army. They went to war without shoes at Valley Forge. They went to war with the Army they had and they won. No one is advocating not supplying our troops. But you don't sit at the rear and let strategic opportunities pass because you don't have every piece of gear you want at your disposal. That is REALITY my friend.

There are few luxuries in combat. You fight with what is available. If that means rummaging through landfills for armor, then so be it. Should our troops just stay on bases until they are provided with every piece of gear they request? Of course not.

In every conflict we have ever fought, the Grunts have been innovators. They dug in the landfills of France, Belgium and eventually Germany. They fought with what they had and asked the generals to provide them with better equipment when possible.

Rumsfeld was stating the obvious. When it is time to fight. You fight with what you have. Duhhh.....Otherwise we would sit around on our bases slowly being mortared to death.

Fighting a counter insurgency is a difficult task. Not every patrol can be conducted in an Abrams or a Bradley. Our troops routinely walk on patrols in places like Fallujah and Tikrit with little more than body armor for the abdomen, chest and head.

As an officer, my troops would go with what we had. Of course you do what you can to provide you men with the best available. But the best is not always available. That is no excuse to sit on your ass and not take the battle to the enemy.

[Miss Marple]

Why does Holbrooke seem so positive that such resignations will occur?

Here are things that I have noticed over the last 6 years:

1. Bill Clinton, before leaving office, moved many lower level political appointees into civil service positions within the government. These people are in the Pentagon, State, Justice, and the CIA. They cannot be fired unless they are caught doing something really wrong, like stealing or embezzlement. These are the sources of the unending leaks.

2. There definitely is a faction in the CIA which is pro-democrat, anti-Bush, and has been screwing up intelligence and leaking information since shortly after September 11, 2001.

3. General McInnerny said yesterday that associates of John Kerry were facilitating the meetings of the dissident generals with the press.

4. Interesting that these generals choose to speak out NOW, and not 6 months ago. Why would that be>

I am not one for black helicopters and tin foil theories, but I am beginning to fear that there is a real conspiracy by liberals within the government, aided and abbetted by the press in real and not imagined collusion.

Holbrooke may be having delusions of grandeur over his influence and how many generals would actually jump ship, but Tony Blankley is taking this seriously, and I have never known him to be an alarmist.

[HawaiianGecko]

Generals Thomas McInerney and Richard Meyers were together yesterday on one of the Fox Shows, and I think they hit this right on the head. The paraphrased comment was "I think this is a stealthy plan being run by a Democratic operative still loyal (to either Clinton or Kerry, I think he said Kerry) and these Generals have been caught up in politics that are out of their lane and control. They should be embarrassed that they put themselves in this position."

Holbrook seems to me to be the sneaky type of SOB that would put this together. I think Blankley is on to something here and I hope he pursues it with vigor.

The title seems very apropos.

[Future Snake Eater]

wtg generals....see what happens when you open your mouth before thinking things thru.....

I know! And they complain about us LTs being dumb!

[ChinaThreat]

Im referring to the fact that the VC credited the anti-war movement with their political victory. Seditious speech and anti-war protests among our own population pushed them through their roughest moments. They accredit their political victory with the dissent in America's own house.

[NAVY84]

Thankfully the 'NEO-CONS' held a significant reserve (4/5s or so of our military) We are able to cover troop rotations and still deter the likes of North Korea, China, Iran, Syria and others. Sounds like Rumsfeld and company are making the best of what they have. Oh yeah, did you notice that this is all being done while maintaining the strongest economy on the planet. I think the President has just the right people exactly where they belong (including a number of ex-generals properly nashing their teeth on the sidelines)

[dfwgator]

Seems to me, some of the generals see Iraq as a war in itself, while Rumsfeld views Iraq as a battle in a much bigger war.

It may very well be the case that a large part of the decision to go into Iraq was to eventually take on Iran, since the Saudis were not proven to be always faithful allies. With Iraq, it is now much easier to go after the two primary supporters of terror, Syria and Iran.

[cookcounty]

Ok, I'll grant you that Baptiste apparently did make his views known, though I have a hard time accepting the idea that Baathists should have been given power and authority. We didn't let Nazis run Germany after WWII.

Still, it's a tactical matter, and open criticism at this time does nothing to move the mission forward. His obligation is to sit on it (at least for now).

So when the General was laying it on thick with his lavish praise for Rumsfeld, was he being honest? Couldn't he just have introduced him as "Our very energetic and experienced Secretary of Defense and former fighter pilot who has come see firsthand what's happening on the ground?" Why all this glorious "perfect man for the moment" crap if he didn't believe it?

[kabar]

I am amazed that now when "career military" are critical of a failed Bush policy (and have been seen day one), they are now traitors.

I wouldn't use the word traitor, but they are using poor judgment by publicly airing their views and calling for the resignation of the SecDef. They are undermining the morale of the troops and the mission itself. Zinni was against the invasion of Iraq in the first place and advocated containment.

I remember senior military saying that more troops would be needed to secure Iraq after Saddam's fall. The Bush neocons told us "not so" our troops will be "greeted as hero's" and to an extent that was true, but without troops to prevent looting and maintain order the good will evaportated. With 20/20 hindsight it is now clear the professional military was correct and the neocons wrong

You must be referring to the General Shinseki and Zinni plan using overwhelming force. Tommy Franks changed the plan developed under his predecessor, Zinni at CENTCOM.

"In a speech to a business group in Washington, retired Army Gen. Tommy Franks said that when he gave Bush a status report on the war in Afghanistan on Dec. 28, 2001, he also presented the commander-in-chief with a plan for launching combat operations against Saddam Hussein."

Franks said he told Bush he didn't like the plan and that he was ordered to put together another one, which he showed to the President in January 2002.

The Franks Plan was vetted and approved by the military commanders, Rumsfeld and Bush. Some in the military also wanted to use many more troops in Afghanistan.

What is maddening is the neocons will not admit/learn from their errors and continue to PERSONALLY ATTACT and destroy (just like Clinton) any and all critics.

What neocons are you referring to? Kristol wants Rumsfeld to resign.

The magnitude of the failure will soon be apparent as no one will trust this administration to deal with Iran. And Iran is a far more dangerous problem for the usa then Iraq ever was

You are buying the MSM crap. Over the past three years, we have destroyed two oppressive and murderous regimes [Saddam and the Taliban] and liberated two countries totalling over 50 million people, free elections have been held in Iraq and Afghanistan, 8.5 million Iraqis braved death and injury to vote for a constitution and the formation of a new government, and suffered very low casualties.

In the region, Syria has moved out of Lebanon and Libya has renounced its ambitions for a nuclear weapon including turning over to us all the nuclear material and equipment it had. We now flank Iran with troops and planes in Iraq and Afghanistan, making it far easier to exercise a military option against Iran. Given our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Iranians believe that what Bush says is very credible.

The usa is risking total defeat in a general war in the middle east.

Certainly not in Iraq. The "enemy" cannot operate in any significant way, military units, hold territory, etc. They are forced to use IEDs and suicide bombers in sporadic attacks confined primarily to a small area of the country. They don't have a viable political alternative except anarchy. They also constitute a very small percentage of the population with estimates ranging from 10 to 30 thousand. The only way we can be defeated is at home by losing the support of the American people and Congress.

A coup in Patistan could change the balance of power, Turkey is a wild card. Iran is attempting to become the Islamic super power, Iran needs a confrontation with the usa to achieve it goals. It is 1913 all over again and we had better get our ducks in a row fast. Russia is once again no friend, dido China. Both are backing Iran.,/i>

Do you think that Pakistan would confront the US militarily? Turkey is a member of NATO. As long as a Kurdistan is not formed and Iraq remains a country, Turkey will not be a "wild card." Iran doesn't want a confrontation with the US, just the appearance of one. The Iranian leadership is under domestic pressure. Stirring up nationalistic feeling is one way to defuse the opposition.

1913 all over again? LOL. What are the similarities? Russia has an economic interest in Iran. They are building the nuclear reactors and have been for quite a while. China is interested in locking up long term oil contracts with Iran and have been doing so. They have also sold arms to Iran. We are meeting with China and Russia to see if we can arrive at some joint policy. If not, we will proceed ahead in pursuit of our national interests. The Chinese and Russians were against our involvement in the Balkans.

[kabar]

Perhaps Baptiste has a personal axe to grind

Reason for Batiste's appointment to newly created post is unclear

V Corps explains appointment of a second deputy commander

[NAVY84]

Allowing how a 'soldier (or sailor or airman) feels' to cloud ones judgment is NEGLIGENCE. A commander's duty is to do the right thing no matter what. (example: Our up armored equipment is slower, less maneuverable and more prone to breakdowns. This may or may not have helped to save lives. Balance is critical in all military decisions)

Sometimes cold hard facts save lives because the troops can go back to worrying about things they can change. Helping reporters set up the SecDef is not a critical skill in a combat zone.)

[XJarhead]

The media painted Rumsfeld's comment as if it was the only thing he said. That isn't even close to the truth. He was asked a question about armor, and gave a multi-paragraph answer, leading off with all the efforts they'd made and were still making to improve delivery of gear. He then pointed out that the reason everyone didn't have all that stuff beforehand is because you "go with the Army you've got" at that time. And you constantly try to improve. There was nothing remotely insensitive about what he said, except as portrayed in the media.

When my unit deployed in the Gulf War, we were missing lots of stuff. Only 2 GPS's, etc. and wearing body armor that was two generations behind the stuff they now issue. SHould we not have fought until every single person had the most up to date equipment? That never happens. It's impossible, because you constantly are refining and tweaking all your gear.

People complained about Rumsfeld's comment because they'd rather be lied to than told the truth. And the truth is not everyone is going to have the most up to date stuff whenever we go to war. Rumsfeld had the cojones to give an honest answer to an honest question, and for that, he should be thanked.

[gogeo]

What I know about Patton I know from George C. Scott movie. While he appeared to be a loose cannon he did, as you suggest, keep disagreements private.

[NAVY84]

Amen.

[hgro]

Retired General Clark is a joke without a finish. A BJ Clinton flunky - maybe now a Hildabeast flunky whose clutch on reality is failing.

Brit Hume put on the tube last night Gen Zunni contradicting himself in statements to Congress two years ago and those he is making now.

These two politicos are making their motives obvious, they want to be elected to Congress so they can continue to be Charlie Schumers to the TV press conferences.

[kabar]

4. Interesting that these generals choose to speak out NOW, and not 6 months ago. Why would that be?

The critics (Kerry, Biden, Pelosi, Harkins, etc) were calling for Rumsfeld's head around the same time in 2004. These same shrill tones are now coming from the generals, some of whom are still using the arguments about the invasion plan. Why then and now? In 2004 it was the Presidential election and now it is the mid-terms

The attacks on Rumsfeld are really attacks on Bush and the war. A Rumsfeld resignation is an admission that the war is not going well and that the war was a mistake. Some are comparing Rumsfeld to McNamara so that the Iraq war can be linked to Vietnam. In sum, it is all about politics and nothing else.

[Gamecock]

***They accredit their political victory with the dissent in America's own house.***

Using that logic, sending off dissenters to a gulag helped them then, didn't it?