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]

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

That is practically treasonous to me. I got out in 1973, made to feel ashamed of my service because of Kerry's concurrent boostering the chopping off of fingers and heads crap so he could launch his political career in Leftachussetts.

But I did get a job in Leftachusetts! (though the state later became Left-it-chussetts to me).

[Yasotay]

Dec 1943 Stimson to Ike:

"Ike I want you to use MY plan to invade Europe. I don't like your plan. I'm NOT going to give you what you want BUT what I THINK you need."

Jan 1944 Stimson to Ike:

"Ike I want you to discuss with Marshall your requested troop levels to invade Europe. You need to decrease them tenfold .... you don't need the 82nd or the 101st and I'm taking away the Big Red One. Afterall I've given you this Revolution in Military Affairs with 10,000+ planes. Because of this RMA you get no follow on forces."

Feb 1944 Stimson to Ike:

"Ike, Why aren't you supporting Wild Bill? Don't you know that SF can beat Hitler? Bill is telling me that you aren't doing a very good job .... let me send you someone who can help and be your deputy ...."

March 1944 Stimson to Ike:

"Ike, Did you get my memo .... I don't trust you and I want to review all of you troop orders for D-Day BEFORE you move forward ..... remember you can't do anything without my approval because I'm in charge."

May 1944 Stimson to Ike:

"ATTACK!!! ATTACK NOW!!!Wild Bill just told me Hitler is in Normandy .... "

Yes Rumsfeld is wrong.

[cookcounty]

I missed it! I turned it off justt before! Can you summarize?

[kabar]

The military is becoming increasingly politicized. Kerry trotted out on stage former flag officers who acted as props at the Dem national convention. The Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change issued a statement on June 16, 2004 calling for a change in the administration, i.e., that the President not be reelected. Can you ever recall such joint actions by career military officers and foreign service officers?

If political appointees must be concerned that military commanders will release to the public sensitive, "insider" information against them to challenge their policies and to attempt to remove them from their jobs, then this will certainly have a chilling effect on their interactions. It also challenges the civilian control over the military. The level of candidness will be affected and policy suffers as a result. Also, political appointees may select those for jobs whose political leanings are more like theirs rather than the best person for the job. Personal loyalty becomes more important than competence.

I can't recall very many instances recently where former DOD political appointees used "insider" information against military commanders in public and called for their resignation or firing. Do you?

[gogeo]

When they criticize, they do so in the political sphere. In fact, this is starting to reek of politics. It's starting to sound like the whining many of us see daily in our own workplaces. Generals are subject to the same human weaknesses as anyone else; their service doesn't make them infallible.

Some tasks are difficult by nature. It's tough, for example, to "criticize the war, but support the troops." Most peaceniks can't pull it off. Likewise, when a former employee/General starts spouting off about the flaws of his former workplace, it's tough (but possible) to not sound whiney. Most folks, I think, gave these former Generals the benefit of the doubt for good intentions. They saw it as merely a difference of opinion.

It's gone past that now. They overstepped, and they should expect he backlash that is surely coming.

[NAVY84]

Just to add the Navy's two cents - There were still some WWII vintage ships around into the late 80's. We were ready to backup the checks our President wrote when he said 'Tear down this Wall'.

Had your back pal. We would have kept the beans and bullets commin'.

[kabar]

Phony strawman not analogous to the current situation. We used the Franks' war plan not the Zinni/Shinseki plan.

[ChinaThreat]

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

You are ridiculous. No, that means there is an appropriate place and time for dissent. In the middle of a war with millions of people who want to kill you is not the time or the place.

If you bother replying again, please use some logic other than the "damn it all except free speech" logic. Yelling "fire" in a movie theatre is probably a sacred right to you also.

[gogeo]

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.

Anyone so shortsighted as to regard hindsight as infallible also wouldn't understand that there's no perfect alternative. We could have dumped another 200,000 troops into Iraq; that may very well have set off Iraqis unifying against what would be viewed as an occupation force. You don't get to choose your consequences, merely your actions.

Any real world choice involves not perfect and imperfect alternatives, but flawed versus flawed. Those who employ 20/20 hindsight reveal their ignorance about real world decision making. Perfect decision making does not allow for consequence-free results; most often you merely get to choose the negative alternatives you'd rather risk.

That's the nature of life and the nature of war. I'd be disappointed if lessons weren't learned from this action. There are, however, some lessons that only experience can teach.

[jpsb]

I hope you are right, I fear we are not prepared for a general war in the middle east and I think one is coming (soon). I am not oppose to fighting such a war, in fact I think we need to, I fear we will not becuase of a lack of trust in this administrations conduct of the war in Iraq. It is prefectly clear that Iran is preparing for and seeking a militray confrontation with the usa. Iran reminds of Japan in 40/41. Iran seems to think the usa will pail out of the middle east should we get a bloody nose there. I am afraid they might be right.

[gogeo]

"Two US generals in Iraq have criticised the policy of excluding senior Baath Party members - including Iraqi army officers - from jobs in the post-war administration

Maj Gen John Batiste - commander of the US First Infantry Division - told the New York Times newspaper that it would be a good thing to harness their energies. "

Okay...what were the risks involved with including Baath Party members?

[cookcounty]

I think you are seriously mischaracterizing what happened with your WWII fictional uptake. Again, given our other commitments around the worls, where would you have gotten massive quality force levels for Iraq?

I agree that the US military is too small, but making a decision in 2002 to increase the force would not have yielded results forat least 3-4 years. A division is not just 12,000 guys with uniforms and some target practice. Even in very low-tech WWII, from the time of conscription (Sept of '40) until first deployment of large land forces (Nov '42) was 26 months. In today's hi-tech world, training takes a lot longer.

[gogeo]

Some don't seem to get that when war is declared, you already have a military in place with equipment that may, in some cases, be many years old, designed for a different threat in a different place. Equipment is constantly being replaced; you can't replace it all at once. BY DEFINITION, someone somewhere will have old equipment.

You don't get to go shopping every time war is declared. Those who take offense at "the army you have," show their ignorance of the way the military (and the world) works.

BTW...those who are loudest about this, the Hillarys of the world, don't see this as a reason to increase defense spending, which would speed the replacement process. It's just a reason to never go to war in the first place.

[pawdoggie]

Had your back pal. We would have kept the beans and bullets commin'.

Thanks. I may have been in the Army, but I always knew that if it wasn't for the Navy and the Marines, our "stuff" was in the wind.

[cookcounty]

"Okay...what were the risks involved with including Baath Party members?"

They very real possibility that they would have provided a 5th column to Saddam, to whom they had pledged loyalty and killed people to prove it.

We didn't leave Nazis in charge of Germany. We didn't leave Communist Party members in charge of Grenada. Their "energies" are not necessarily desirable.

[capitalist229]

The real mutiny is by the MSM conspiring to bring down what they despise - the USA.

One day, there will be a reckoning for these traitors under a tree.

BUMP

[PISANO]

What these retired Generals are doing would be horrendous enough in PEACETIME but DURING A WAR, it is beyond the pale and if it isn't against the UCMJ or LAW, IT SHOULD BE!!

[gogeo]

Yes, and it's not just a matter of adding armor; that stresses suspensions and frames, leading to a less reliable vehicle. The only long term answer is vehicles designed to work with the added weight.

If things were as simple as critics seem to think, don't you think someone directly involved may have caught on?

[pawdoggie]

You don't get to go shopping every time war is declared.

Amen. I kinda figured Mr. "Meandog" was either a Democrat fifth columnist trying to sow dissension in the ranks, or some Rambo wannabe who thinks we've got James Bond's "Q" locked up in the basement with all kinds of miraculous gadgets just waiting for the SECDEF's order to begin "surge" production.

[Yasotay]

Wrong again