Posted on 04/18/2006 5:28:03 AM PDT by 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?
There were plenty of risks including the appearance of keeping in power the same murderous crowd that oppressed the vast majority of the people. I agreed with the decision to get rid of the Baath Party members. There is no doubt that many of them were not guilty of the crimes committed by the leadership, but Iraq needed a fresh start even if it caused some short term problems.
If you read my other posts, you will notice that I don't agree with the disgruntled generals and their unprecedented call for Rumsfeld's resignation.
No, they weren't "in charge," but many former Nazis did operate the infrastructure during the period immediately following WWII, under Allied supervision.
Bull, it took less than six months to go from civilan to combat vet in Veitnam.
Exactly. Those who employ 20/20 hindsight with such assurance reveal their ignorance.
A perfectly stated TRUTH that ONLY a LEFTIST would have difficulty understanding or ACCEPTING.
It probably hurt their FEELINGS!!
"Stimson to Ike" To Be Continued ....
I think this is 1939. 911 was the Panay Incident. I fear 'Pearl Harbor' is yet to come. That will get us off our butts. (I hope)
Patton was doing that, but wasn't that why Ike relieved him from Third Army?
Another is that unless you want to take on the world all at once, you pick and choose which battles you're going to fight first. Afghanistan and Iraq were easily justified and have created a modest domino effect.
I don't follow those who say W didn't put the nation on war footing. What else should have been done?
'
"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."
Nevertheless, Franks insisted the decision to invade wasn't made until March 17, two days before the war began.
Rumsfeld can not resign, the anti-war crowd would have a field day at conformation for a new SoD, but Runsfeld needs to realize he's no where near as smart as he thinks he is.
The Nazi party comprised a much larger percentage of the German population than the Baathists, especially when you include the Hitler Youth.
I agree, I'm afraid we are going to lose a city or two.
Do you still have the memo in your pocket saying the failure is all your fault? ..... Remember it was your plan and you approved it! I'm glad I gave you the 29th ID ... even though they are so old army .... It's too bad the Rangers didn't find those guns .... ignore their reports about finding them. FYI, I canceled the Pershing tank development .... You will just have to use the Shermans you have against those Panthers and Tigers ... after all you have to fight with the army you have .... Why do you keep wanting Patton? He's so old army and SPIT and polish? Your staff continues giving me memos asking for more troops? WHY? Don't you know that you don't need them?
draft to build 4 or 5 new Army divisions.
Take a gander at Rumsfeld's resume. Do you think that his impressive record in public service and private business reflects someone who doesn't know how to manage people and resources? The disgruntled generals are unhappy that we have a SecDef who actually runs the Department of Defense and doesn't act as a figurehead. They also have a personal agenda. It has more to do with the generals' egos than Rumsfeld's. He doesn't have anything to prove.
"but, according to the rumblings of many high-ranking officers as reported in the MSM,"
Nothing said after this makes any diference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.