They don't know who they're dealing with!
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?
On paper MecCellon(sp?) was a far better general then Grant. In peace time MeCellon was a far better General then Grant. War changes everything.
We have some of them (Bathists) around as advisors and technicians. They are just not running the show. Some will in time earn their stripes with the Iraqi people and become productive. Sounds like a pretty good plan to me.
Why are you still in Normandy? Stalin keeps saying that our efforts prove that we really our the "Little Allies". I remember your plans back in 1940 about needing a large Army .... but that is SO unneeded. I gave all that money to Wild Bill who promises me everything can be done with mercenaries.
BTW, I've got this secret I can't tell you about yet .... it will win the war if you can't ....
Rumsfeld has proven himself period. What is on paper is his actual performance. He's done it. He has run two Fortune 500 companies successfully and been SecDef twice, once in peacetime and once at war. Rumsfeld has the complete confidence of his boss and CIC, George W. Bush.
Read your on posts. You are the one yelling fire.
They don't know who they're dealing with!
No one wants a conscripted military. What we gain in quantity we lose in quality. There's no gain. Pain as an end in itself is pointless.
Are you hearing anything about this situation with the generals?
Your last name is German right? I sense a problem here .... Uncle Joe offered up some camps in Siberia to send German Americans that don't measure up. To calm Uncle Joe down I had to tell him the secret I can't tell you, but Wild Bill assures me Uncle Joe can't get one for ten years. Now get out of Normandy and take Paris Now!
Well said!
Just for info: IIRC The all volunteer force peaked at 20 Active and 17 Guard Divisions + ~20 Seperate Brigades, 3 Active and 1 Reserve USMC Divisions (Troop equiv of ~12 Army LIDs) 596 of the planned 600 ship (15 CVBG) Navy, 25 B-2s, 100 B-1s, 450 B-52s, and a ton of A-10, F-15, F-16, F-111 ...
I think we could do what we need to without the draft, but we'll need to do something about some ex-generals, the dems and their traitorous friends in the media.
You've purported in your profile: "I enjoy a spirited debate on FreeRepublic, but you better be willing to support your contentions with factual support, or I will quickly lose interest in anything you have to say. That especially applies to conspiracy theorists and anyone who thinks name calling is a useful debate technique"...
So I again ask for your "factual support"...my sources actually WORK at the Pentagon and have often been the anonomous (because of their active-duty status) ones usually reported in the MSM.
Glad to hear that. I wasn't too concerned about it until this Tony Blankeley article came out. Maybe I'm just watching too much "24" and seeing a conspiracy everywhere I look :)
Thanks for the quick reply.
You better have a good explanation, because some of those leaks breached security during a time of war, and I want to know who they are. And furthermore, if you do not turn them in for violating security, you are just as guilty as they are.
Read meandog's last paragraph in post 175. He knows who the "anonymous sources" in the MSM are. Swell guy, huh?
A little revisionist history on your part.
Early in the War, McClellan played an important role in raising a well-trained and organized army for the Union. However, meticulous in his planning and preparations, his leadership skills during battles were questioned, and he was accused of being incompetent and overly cautious. While skilled in organization, he lacked the decisive drive of Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant, or William Tecumseh Sherman, who were willing to risk a major battle even when all preparations were not perfect. The failure of his Peninsula Campaign in 1862 to seize Richmond was due in no small part to McClellan's slow and cautious troop movements toward the Confederate capital of Richmond, which provided the Confederate leaders valuable time to strengthen the city's defenses.
General McClellan also seemed never to grasp that he needed to maintain the trust of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, and proved to be frustratingly insubordinate to the commander-in-chief. After he was relieved of command, McClellan became the unsuccessful Democratic nominee opposing Lincoln in the 1864 presidential election.
Rummy, on the other hand, is being credited with tearing down much of the military (the Navy, for instance, must draw down by 80,000 sailors by 2009). The future Rummy military is going to rely on UAVs to do much of the USAF's airwarfare, DDX warships with only 80 sailors, an Army that uses robotic soldiers, etc.
The DOD budget, aside from the Iraq war, has gone up every year under Rumsfeld after the disasterous gutting of the military under Clinton/Cohen and the so-called peace dividend. Manning levels have also increased. As usual, you have your "facts" wrong. Who is doing the "crediting?" You and the Dems?
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.