[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.
Here are things that I have noticed over the last 6 years:
1. Bill Clinton, before leaving office, moved many lower level political appointees into civil service positions within the government. These people are in the Pentagon, State, Justice, and the CIA. They cannot be fired unless they are caught doing something really wrong, like stealing or embezzlement. These are the sources of the unending leaks.
2. There definitely is a faction in the CIA which is pro-democrat, anti-Bush, and has been screwing up intelligence and leaking information since shortly after September 11, 2001.
3. General McInnerny said yesterday that associates of John Kerry were facilitating the meetings of the dissident generals with the press.
4. Interesting that these generals choose to speak out NOW, and not 6 months ago. Why would that be>
I am not one for black helicopters and tin foil theories, but I am beginning to fear that there is a real conspiracy by liberals within the government, aided and abbetted by the press in real and not imagined collusion.
Holbrooke may be having delusions of grandeur over his influence and how many generals would actually jump ship, but Tony Blankley is taking this seriously, and I have never known him to be an alarmist.