Replies

Bust 'em down before booting 'em! You don't get to pick and choose wars! This isn't a buffet! Insubordination is punishable under the UCMJ no matter what rank! This is conduct unbecoming an officer.

Actually, we are talking staff officers here, and their resignations would not be considered desertion. Nazi officers were convicted at Nurembourg for saying they had to follow certain orders. The judges said no, they should have resigned. Of course, the Third Reich would have considered such a resignation a shooting offense, on the spot, I would imagine.

American staff officers who don't care for an operation should resign, we don't want them around anyway.

All that said, the article is complete BS, so none of this matters, other than as something to discuss.

Now field officers is a different story, in that case you would be correct, it would be a court martial offense to attempt to resign in the field upon being given an order.

Actually you want Generals to resign if they feel the mission cannot be accomplished with the resources so apportioned orif some aspect of the mission is not militarily sound.. far different that agreeing or disagreeing about the mission itself.

Thats not what these guys are doing ... They are directly engaging in political theater as Generals(If they exist). That is clearly unlawful under the UCMJ..

The problem here is with 900 some active Generals and Admirals you are going to have percentage that will disagree with every action just due to the sheer numbers. At less than 1% of the total number they are statistically meaningless.

If a General resigns because he does not believe a mission can be accomplished properly due to tactical or logistical considerations which are correctable and after requesting they be corrected that is not done.

That's legitimate and honorable.

These Generals (if they exist) are resigning ostensibly because they disagree with the mission. That is no more lawful than Watanabe's Baloney, no difference.

W