Not that it will help, but maybe you missed that bit up there about Congress needing to approve high level officers?
That notwithstanding, the official absence of leadership will not mean that the services will be devoid of leadership. The President can absolutely appoint so-called “yes-men” in the interim, which requires no approval from Congress. In fact, he can leave them interim for the remainder of his administration, and Congress can do nothing about it that I am aware of.
It means they will devoid of will. The five represent a much larger group with too much desire for promotion and fear to go along. It might get a fast impeachment process underway. There are a lot of soldiers in Iraq bitching about what they have to do and the whether they can morally justify it. It wont be just 5.
Would these strikes be illegal or something? What exactly would they base their resignation on?
To be honest, this sounds like complete BS to me. What are the odds the US WILL strike? If I wanted to fuck with the Bush Administration, but didn’t actually want to stick my neck out, I would say that I would resign if Bush and his evil minons launched strikes against Iran…safe in the knowledge that as this is extremely unlikely I’m not really risking much. It gets you some cheap publicity (and of course it gets the usual suspects™ all riled up and frothy 
), but its meaningless at this point.
I’ll be more impressed if Bush DOES in fact call for (perfectly legal) strikes against Iran and these guys resign their (very prominent) commissions over it…in essence they resign their commissions because they choose not to do their sworn duty. I’d feel a bit more impressed of course if they were resigning their commissions for a valid reason of course…but it will still be impressive to see which generals and admirals(!!) are willing to toss out their careers on a matter of pure politics…
(I’m not holding my breath either for US strikes against Iran OR, in the unlikely event they happen, having a bunch of very high ranking officers resign. YMMV)
-XT
Perhaps you’ve missed the last Administration-and-a-half where Bush made it clear the law and rules don’t apply to him ? Assuming he even bothers to make it look legitimate, he can just call them “emergency appointments” or something and stall Congress until he’s out of office.
For that matter, he could just encouage the ones already there to stay on by threatening them or their families with imprisonment or torture; I doubt they’d dare go against Bush if he had their wives or children in some CIA prison.
He did, and it was, and the general consensus is that Franks was way out of his depth in that role.
If these five generals actually resign (and I don’t believe for a minute that they will), look for them to be Swiftboated by Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O’Reilly so fast their heads will be spinning. Also, the words “embolden the enemy” will be repeated ad nauseum.
How about principle: Not to put the men and women they command in harm’s way in pursuance of a policy they believe will decimate those lives entrusted to them while endangering rather than serving the country they’ve sworn to protect and defend?
True, but there are limits to how much the military is willing to turn a blind eye to political bungling. This threatened mass resignation is intended to show that limit is being approached.
If it did occur, it would give fence sitters in Congress enough political coverage to actively oppose a military operation against Iran.
Personally, I think the Bush Administration is planning an indirect approach. It only takes one side to start a war and it’s not like the Ahmadinejad Administration is a model of diplomatic restraint. I feel the White House is figuring they can create a situation where Iran will launch the first attack and then Congress will be forced to declare war in self-defense.
I dunno. The conservative media machine has to be looking at its long-term interests. There are limits to how far it will defy public opnion in support of a lame-duck President.
Frankly they don’t have that choice…nor do you WANT them too. Our military is under CIVILIAN authority, and with good reason. If these guys refuse to carry out the lawful orders of our government…well, if you don’t see that as a problem then I don’t know what to tell you.
Now…if GW and his merry men attempt to use unlawful policies, or issue orders that are unlawful THEN I EXPECT the military to go tell them to pound sand…or to paraphrase a book I just read ‘if someone orders you to point your guns at someone illegally, then point your guns at those who gave such orders’. But lawfully constituted orders given by the government? Do you REALLY want to set such a precidence…do any of you REALLY want that? I mean, I know how you feel about Bush and all…but can you not see that something like that, once set, could be turned around to less joyful pursuits than thwarting Bushco??
Certainly…and we see this kind of thing all the time. In Latin America. The results are commonly called a coup. I’m uncertain that this is a wise thing to set the precidence for…but maybe you could go into some detail why you think the military should ignore lawful orders.
Granted, these fools are only talking about resigning, not overthrowing the government…it just seems like a slippery slope to me. After all, if a soldier in the field refuses to carry out lawful orders because he doesn’t happen to like them, then that soldier is usually in some hot water…and rightfully so. These guys are high ranking officers, so thats not going to happen…quite the opposite. On boards like this one, such actions are going to be lauded as wonderful acts of selfless devotion in the undieing effort to thwart Bushco. I wonder how wonderful they would appear though sometime down the road if the shoe is on the other foot and we have a Democrat in the WH, and during a time of war high ranking officers refuse lawful orders because they don’t like them…for political reasons.
What do you think Nemo? That sound like a good thing?
-XT
Except, dear XT, that these generals and admirals set great store by honor and by their sworn word, which includes an oath to uphold the Constitution. The FF, while not inerrant nonpareils, were also not fools; they recognized the dangers of an oath to a man and not to the rule of law. For 227 years, it was contrary to American standards to make aggressive war on a nation which had not attacked us or allies we had sworn by treaty to defend, or which was not giving sanctuary to those attacking us. When we broke that, it was on the flimsy pretext of the AUMF. No such document exists regarding Iran, and if Mr. Bush gives orders to attack an Iran which has not attacked us, many a person who is not a radical leftie in politics would regard them as unlawful orders.
As I think I’ve shown in the ongoing “impeach Bush” threads, I regard there as being a serious difference between arrant defiance of Constitutional safeguards and political differences of opinion. An attack on Iran in the absence of an Irani attack on us or our forces would be exactly the thing that crosses that line. (Personally, I think that 20 years or so from now, there will be evidence unearthed that shows Mr. Bush as so clearly a war criminal that people like O’Reilly will have no choice but to denounce him – but that’s purely WAGgery on my part. However, ordering an unprovoked attack on Iran in the absence of an AUMF is definitely such defiance.)
How is it following their sworn oath to uphold the constitution by ignoring a lawful order directed to them via the sitting president exactly? I’m not grasping the convoluted logic here. How will you feel if in the future some politically minded generals decide to take the same course if there is a Democrat sitting in the office because they don’t LIKE the order…even though its a lawful order as per the Constitution?
Really? Show me where in the Constitution or in the FF’s other notes, letters or works that they say that the duly authorized military can pick and choose which lawful orders they can and can not ignore. I must have missed it somewhere in there.
I’ll just concede the point (though I can think of a few times the US DID attack other countries that hadn’t attacked us or our allies…and times we had no treaty yet engaged in war anyway).
Conceding the point I have to say…so what? The Iraqi war was legally authorized by the US government, and the powers used were those under the Constitution. Leaving that aside, we are talking about a limited military strike into Iran…a country that the legal authority of the US would have to deem a clear and present danger (due to those nuke thingies they are busy as beavers researching). Assuming the President et al makes that determination, and further assuming they use their legal powers under the Constitution, then I’m failing to see what point you are making here Poly…its a legal order. Its within the Constitution. How exactly is it a good thing for our military personnel to decide that, even though its a legal order, they won’t follow it (and will resign, with all the impact that will have politically) because essentially they disagree with the order, don’t like the order, or whatever?
Again, I’ll concede the point and not go into other instances where we went to war on flimsy pretexts and again I’ll say…so what? The war was authorized by the Congress, it was prosecuted by the President, and was fully legal under our Constitution, and fully consistent with the powers granted by the Constitution. It was, in short, a legal order by the civilan authority to the military. Yeah, it was a bad call, yeah we were stupid to do it, etc etc. Fully agree with that part.
In the end the Civilian authority is answerable to us as citizens…not the military. In fact, the contrary is and SHOULD NOT be true (i.e. the civilians answerable to the military)…if the civilian authority using its legal powers under the Constitution says go hither, then the military and better the fuck go hither and do what its told, no matter how stupid. Because if they DON’T…well, I don’t know about you, but to me thats a pretty scary thought. Because, you see, the CIVILIAN authority is at least nominally answerable to us as citizens. We can toss the bums out if we get pissed off enough, or if they fuck up enough. Note the recent change in the make up of both houses if you need an example.
Then frankly those people will be wrong…because they most certainly WILL be lawful orders. I think that Bush giving them at this point is pretty unlikely, though remotely possible…but if he does, then they are certainly within his powers to give as President.
-XT
I know you hate the Administration, and I’m not overly thrilled with them either. But stating that Bush will imprison and torture the families of military Flag Officers in order to keep them in line, is way over the top - even for you
The West Point code is Duty, Honor, Country. Doing your duty is the first obligation. I think it would be difficult for an Academy man or woman to resign rather than perform their lawful duty.
Although, come to think of it, Robert E. Lee seemed OK with it.
XT, you are aware the officers in question have a legal right to resign, right? I’m not saying they should break any laws, disobey any orders, or stage a coup. But it wouldn’t bother me if they chose to end their careers legally but in such a manner as to indicate their opposition to an ill-conceived military adventure.
Yup…I’m aware of that. The discussion sort of broadened out from the original question though (at least in my mind)…but I think I covered the actual OP somewhere up thread.
I think that the threat to resign if (legal) orders are given for some limited strikes into Iran are hollow ones…and completely politically motivated. Of course, I may be being too cynical…but I don’t think so…having met my share of Pentagon admirals and all. 
-XT
There is nothing that I don’t think Bush and friends would do. They are limited in what they can do, but they have no morality, no honor, no ethics of any kind.
Gee, ya think? Isn’t that the point? :rolleyes:
I doubt that there would be much “official” effect – that is, the command and control structure of the U.S. military wouldn’t just break down. It might skip a beat or two as new commanders are shuffled into place, but otherwise not much change.
I think the biggest impact would be the “Holy shit!” effect on the public and on Congress. If the top brass in the Pentagon nod sagely and say yes, we can militarily defeat Iran, I think the American people would tend to nervously tolerate it. But if the Joint Chiefs of Staff resigns en masse, I think the public opinion fallout would be massive.
And if things get bad enough that **Oakminster ** mans the picket line, I’ll be bringing the coffee.