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?
They are doing it, thank God.
It might be helpful if you could provide an example of when a request from CENTCOM for more troops or more equipment was denied.
Your point? The comment was and still is inane and stupid! It is so because it was detremental to the morale of troops in harm's way, who may feel that a little more metal under their APCs might help protect them, even if it doesn't.
Your sources?
"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. "
You do realize that many troops in the field are not wearing all the body armor they are given because it slows them down. Based on your posts on this thread, your knowledge of what is going on in Iraq is based entirely on media reports. Too bad. You are being lied to.
He would be sitting in a Persian throne in Tehran saying he must have gotten the GPS coordinates mixed up (wink, wink).
(PS he would probably have bath tubs full of 'HOLY' korans for visitors to piss on)
Armoring Humvs doesn't make them impervious or indestructible to IED attacks. It depends on the size of the IED. Iran has been supplying the insurgents and foreign fighters with larger bombs and shaped charges that can defeat the armoring.
There is nothing "flippant" about this comment. You always go to war with the army you have, not the Army you want. Read Army at Dawn" on the subject of going to war unprepared (and the invasion of North Africa was 2 full years after the US commintted to heavy war footing).
The alternative is to sit on your arse, like McClellan, waiting for the perfect force while the enemy ravages the countryside.
The "perfect force" is unattainable, because conditions are always changing. Why don't you get together with your engineering buddies and design the undefeatable Humvee? Then you could go on to the unsinkable sub.
A lot of people (including Mr. Blankley, use the words "resignation" and "retirement" interchangeably. With "resignation" you get no pension, with retirement you do. A patriot, who was sincere and wanted to make a point, would resign. An opportunist who had an agenda or an ulterior motive, would wait, retire, take the King's shilling, slander the "officers appointed over him" and then hold himself up as a patriot (or allow others to do so).
"Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops"
Maybe 'J F'in' could be picked up with them since it's all about Treason.
[Imagine] 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. ... 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?
The author sets up an outrageous scenario, deliberately using rapid wording and deliberate questioning to induce an emotion of shock & horror in the reader. An axiom for subsequent discussion is thus established upon emotion without debate: that mass resignation of generals is illegal mutiny. Cognitive dissonance is established in the reader's mind, and before the premise can be discussed and clarified it is acted on as though unquestionable fact. Further using terms like "mutiny", "revolt", "usurp", "sedition", etc. there is no room to discuss alternative views.
Having established an emotional framework of imagining highly respected people turning en masse against their leader - Rumsfeld - the author reaches his goal of planting the thought that Rumsfeld must be really really horribly bad for that many upstanding generals to deliberately and uniformly act in such an atrocious manner, as though they had no other option but mutiny.
Thing is, it ain't so.
There is no mass exodous of generals. No such thing has happened, no such thing is happening, and there is no indication that such a coordinated action is being planned. Having planted the "Rumsfeld is bad" meme in the reader's mind, the article will soon be forgotten and the author will not have to face future criticism of "see? you were wrong, it didn't happen" - but the idea will linger in the minds of many readers, who will recall "Rumsfeld is bad" but not recall the rationalle of the persisting emotion.
Should that scenario occur, no illegality follows. The generals have the right to submit their resignations. If the resignations are accepted, the organizational structure under them will promptly fill the vacancies. If the resignations are not accepted, they are obligated to continue fulfilling their duties as generals. Much as the author blathers "...but...but...it's MUTINY!", it's not. Mass resignations can be formally rejected and the personell retained, or can be accepted and new personnel installed. Only if they retain their power & positions, voluntarily or not, and proceed to disobey direct orders could they be charged with mutiny or similar crimes - which would then be prosecuted as defined while others are promoted into the vacated positions.
But if active generals in a theater of war are planning such a series of events,
Pure fearmongering. Unless Holbrooke - not noted for having positive views about the Bush administration - knows something the rest of us don't, there is no such conspiracy underway. Even if it is, the conspiracy as reported is little more than a coordinated graceful lawful exit of those who wish to leave; if many generals want out, what less mutinous way is there than periodic lawful resignations?
A true mutiny would involve far more than a few dozen top leaders. A true revolt would not leave mere easily-filled vacancies. The emotion inspired by the author would be warranted by the generals retaining their power and physically removing Rumsfeld from office, and subsequently installing their own Secretary of Defense. A true mutiny would involve the generals and troops failing to carry out their orders yet retaining their positions. A true revolt would involve Rumsfeld being unseated involuntarily, not generals merely walking out.
Short of the unlikely & loudly-discussed worst-case scenario actually happening, military life carries on. A few long-retired generals and a tiny percentage of current generals voice their dissent, par for the course and healthy for debate.
The author tries hard to convince the reader "the generals are revolting because Rumsfeld is so bad" by flailing about horrible consequences of far-out baseless predictions ... there is no revolt underway, and the best (worst?) he comes up with is a lawful, peaceful, graceful exit of those who would best not serve in such capacities anyway, while cooperators fill the void.
I'll second that.
jw
[Imagine] 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. ... 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?
The author sets up an outrageous scenario, deliberately using rapid wording and deliberate questioning to induce an emotion of shock & horror in the reader. An axiom for subsequent discussion is thus established upon emotion without debate: that mass resignation of generals is illegal mutiny. Cognitive dissonance is established in the reader's mind, and before the premise can be discussed and clarified it is acted on as though unquestionable fact. Further using terms like "mutiny", "revolt", "usurp", "sedition", etc. there is no room to discuss alternative views.
Having established an emotional framework of imagining highly respected people turning en masse against their leader - Rumsfeld - the author reaches his goal of planting the thought that Rumsfeld must be really really horribly bad for that many upstanding generals to deliberately and uniformly act in such an atrocious manner, as though they had no other option but mutiny.
Thing is, it ain't so.
There is no mass exodous of generals. No such thing has happened, no such thing is happening, and there is no indication that such a coordinated action is being planned. Having planted the "Rumsfeld is bad" meme in the reader's mind, the article will soon be forgotten and the author will not have to face future criticism of "see? you were wrong, it didn't happen" - but the idea will linger in the minds of many readers, who will recall "Rumsfeld is bad" but not recall the rationalle of the persisting emotion.
Should that scenario occur, no illegality follows. The generals have the right to submit their resignations. If the resignations are accepted, the organizational structure under them will promptly fill the vacancies. If the resignations are not accepted, they are obligated to continue fulfilling their duties as generals. Much as the author blathers "...but...but...it's MUTINY!", it's not. Mass resignations can be formally rejected and the personell retained, or can be accepted and new personnel installed. Only if they retain their power & positions, voluntarily or not, and proceed to disobey direct orders could they be charged with mutiny or similar crimes - which would then be prosecuted as defined while others are promoted into the vacated positions.
But if active generals in a theater of war are planning such a series of events,
Pure fearmongering. Unless Holbrooke - not noted for having positive views about the Bush administration - knows something the rest of us don't, there is no such conspiracy underway. Even if it is, the conspiracy as reported is little more than a coordinated graceful lawful exit of those who wish to leave; if many generals want out, what less mutinous way is there than periodic lawful resignations?
A true mutiny would involve far more than a few dozen top leaders. A true revolt would not leave mere easily-filled vacancies. The emotion inspired by the author would be warranted by the generals retaining their power and physically removing Rumsfeld from office, and subsequently installing their own Secretary of Defense. A true mutiny would involve the generals and troops failing to carry out their orders yet retaining their positions. A true revolt would involve Rumsfeld being unseated involuntarily, not generals merely walking out.
Short of the unlikely & loudly-discussed worst-case scenario actually happening, military life carries on. A few long-retired generals and a tiny percentage of current generals voice their dissent, par for the course and healthy for debate.
The author tries hard to convince the reader "the generals are revolting because Rumsfeld is so bad" by flailing about horrible consequences of far-out baseless predictions ... there is no revolt underway, and the best (worst?) he comes up with is a lawful, peaceful, graceful exit of those who would best not serve in such capacities anyway, while cooperators fill the void.
I hate to break this to you, pal, but back in the 80's many of us on the North German plain would have faced a massive Soviet military with thin-skinned vehicles with extremely limited cross-country mobility. No taxpayer (and certainly no Democrat congressperson) seemed to mind at that time, 'cause we were saving a whole lot of money by not buying armored support vehicles (even in the face of a substantial Soviet rear-area threat). Oh, and BTW, we didn't have head to toe body armor, either! That was the "army we had, not the army we wished for"!
My sources for what? For saying you have no idea what you are talking about? Let's put it this way...the countless friends and acquaintances I have currently working at the Pentagon, have more on their minds then clever nicknames stolen from the pages of DU. And they are honored to work for Rumsfeld. In the joint command in which I currently work, Rumsfeld is regarded a great leader doing an outstanding job during a difficult time in history. His televised press conferences are about the only thing more popular than televised car chases, and folks love to watch him slap down the media that has done more to damage our military and effort in Iraq than any terrorist organization.
Bottomline, the military is full of educated professionals who not only understand what Rumsfeld is doing, but are dedicated to helping him succeed. You may want to believe the media portrayal that it is full of a bunch of thumbsuckers thinking up clever nicknames, but that is not reality.
God Bless those HEROS.
Today in history:
When the British soldiers reached Lexington, Captain Jonas Parker and 75 armed Minutemen were there to meet them. The Minutemen were greatly outnumbered. The British soldiers fired, killing 8 Minutemen and injuring 10 others.
LATER...
As the British soldiers headed back to Boston, they were attacked by the Minutemen. All along the route, Minutemen, local farmers and townspeople continued the attack against the British. By the time the soldiers reached Boston, 73 British solders were dead and 174 more were wounded.
In the days fighting, 49 patriots were killed, and 39 more were wounded.
I have a feeling that these guys would have liked some up armored HMMWVs too.
God Bless all of our heros past and present.
I don't know if he is the "worst ever" as Lincoln's (War Secretaries) Cameron and Stanton, FDR's Woodring, and Kennedy's McNamara probably take the cake...but, according to the rumblings of many high-ranking officers as reported in the MSM, Rummy is pretty well hated at the Pentagon for his management style. The best SECDEFs, IMHO, were Forrestal (the 1st), Henry Stimpson, and the recently departed Cap Weinberger.
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.