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?
We should all be happy. If they weren't pounding on Rummy, they'd be pounding on someone else.
And pounding on Rummy is like pounding a rock pile.
May their hands bruise and bleed.
Remember the days when the Army didn't have body armor? How about the times it didn't have socks? This whole no armor cry is the biggest bunch of bullshit I have heard in a long long time.
I'm not following you...explain?
Agreed. Rumsfeld is the oldest and youngest SecDef in history.
When it is made to soldiers who are rummaging through landfills for discarded metal to use as armor on APCs to protect against IEDs that are killing your buddies it is not only BLATANTLY WRONG, it is BLATANTLY STUPID...
...from NEWS RELEASES from the United States Department of Defense just this morning:
No. 325-06 IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Apr 17, 2006 Media Contact: Marine Corps Public Affairs - (703) 614-4309
Public/Industry(703)428-0711
DoD Identifies Marine Casualties The Department of Defense announced today the death of four Marines who were supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Lance Cpl. Derrick J. Cothran, 21, of Avondale, La.
Cpl. Pablo V. Mayorga, 33, of Margate, Fla.
Lance Cpl. Justin D. Sims, 22, of Covington, Ky.
Pfc. Ryan G. Winslow, 19, of Jefferson, Ala.
All four Marines died April 15 when their HMMWV struck an improvised explosive device during combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Cothran, Mayorga, and Winslow were all assigned to the 2nd Tank Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C. Sims was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C.
Like you pointed out, some people have a hard time with reality Apparently you are one of them.
I understand that there are hundreds of retired generals and admirals, so these are just a handful. Iny any event, Rumsfeld has done a superb job. We are lucky to have him serving.
Patton was no fan of FDR, and probably had the largest ego in the entire history of the US Military. Yet even though he disagreed with the brass, he did his job, and didn't complain to the media. If he disagreed, he expressed himself privately.
Civilian control is essential to a free society.
Follow orders or retire/resign, you have no other options.
While I've been a supporter of Rumsfeld, I've come across a few military folks that are not happy with him. Their criticism stems more from his "transformation" vision than the Iraq strategy and execution. He is not well liked by SF people.
If only that were true. Currently, the US Military enjoys very high favorability and trust ratings by the US public. Colin Powell is the most admired man in America. A retired flag officer is not just like any other citizen. Whe he/she speaks, people listen.
...and I presume you do?
Just what IS the "strategy" behind this, other than more general muck-raking aimed at this Administration?
The more Generals that come out against Rumsfeld, the LESS likely it will be that President Bush would accept his resignation. For one thing, Rumsfeld has submitted it TWICE and the President has refused it both times.
For another, when you poke the White House, they always dig their heels in and resist with more might. If Rumsfeld were to resign now, it would look like a victory for the left, and I don't see them allowing that to happen. At least while Karl Rove is still breathing. ;)
Wait a minute...is this another Karl Rove Rope-a-Dope? LOL!
Why replace Rumsfeld in the middle of a war we are winning?
They didnt get appointed to their positions because of family connections or payments. They worked their way up a demanding and tough ladder of promotions. There is very little chance they will throw it all away to play lapdog to the media.
BS, lots of generals got where they are by kissing ass.
The quote is :
"As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want, You can have all the armor in the world on a tank, and it can [still] be blown up."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/08/rumsfeld.troops/
Sorry but that's the way it is. Same story that applied to our tanks in WWII - Send out seven Shermans to get a Tiger, hope you get some back - My uncle had 3 Shermans shot out from under him. He never complained about it.
War sucks, put the microphones away and go back to kickin' the bad guys A$$es.
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.
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.
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.
The usa is risking total defeat in a general war in the middle east.
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.
They are most likely Army. His "transformation" vision is fundamentally changing how the Army will do business. But that is long overdue and for some reason, only the Army has been unwilling to initiate those changes on its own. Somebody had to kick them into gear. Fortunately, Rumsfeld was willing to take the inevitable heat for getting the ball rolling. He can take it.
That's a safe bet.
It is indeed interesting that these few disgruntled generals have a problem with Rumsfeld's leadership style. Read Rumsfeld's impressive resume. With his long and proven record of achievement and success in the public and private sectors, Rumsfeld is not the one to be lectured on how to manage and lead.
He has been a 4 term Congressman, WH Chief of Staff, SecDef twice, NATO and OECD ambassador, Chief Executive Officer, President, and then Chairman of G.D. Searle & Co., a worldwide pharmaceutical company, and CEO of two other conmpanies, and honored as Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical Industry. He chaired the bipartisan U.S. Ballistic Missile Threat Commission, in 1998, and the U.S. Commission to Assess National Security Space Management and Organization, in 2000. He has served on numerous commissions and panels. Does this sound like someone who doesn't know how to manage people and resources?
I might add that Rumsfeld served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Captain in 1989.
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.