US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack

[danarhea]

I wonder how much more of America's military will tell Bush to "stick it" if he gives the order? There is a huge difference between someone who once "played at" being a soldier and the real thing. The real soldiers value the oath they took to defend America against ALL enemies, both foreign and domestic. I don't need to explain that last sentence. You know exactly what it means.

Looks like America has some real leaders at last. They are the generals.

Article is here.

 

[1069]

And you're nuts if you don't think Bush doesn't have a dozen sycophants waiting in the wings to replace every one that threatens to "resign" (their careers are now in their death throes anyway, if Bush ever finds out which ones of them said it... if any of them actually did, that is).
Has the Bush administration ever demonstrated any qualms about forcing the resignation of dissidents and dissenters, however highly placed?
Why then should they care if some threaten to resign of their own initiative?
It's not likely they'll even get a chance. Not now.

 

[danarhea]

And you're nuts if you don't think Bush doesn't have a dozen sycophants waiting in the wings to replace every one that threatens to "resign" (their careers are now in their death throes anyway, if Bush ever finds out which ones of them said it... if any of them actually did, that is).
Has the Bush administration ever demonstrated any qualms about forcing the resignation of dissidents and dissenters, however highly placed?
Why then should they care if some threaten to resign of their own initiative?
It's not likely they'll even get a chance. Not now.

Doesn't change the fact that these generals are the true leaders. Yes, Bush will fire them all if push comes to shove, but in doing so, the American people will see and know with no uncertainty who is right and who is wrong on this issue. Many Americans know already, which explains Bush's poll numbers, and the dismal outlook for the Republican party in general next year.

Yes, Bush may fire, but the generals will lead by example.

 

[jfuh]

Where were these generals when this incompetent administration wanted to invade Iraq? Oh right, Shinzeki was fired.

 

[PrimBabUB]

Unless you can NAME the generals this is just more BS propaganda.

 

[Goobieman]

This is all just BS propaganda in an attempt to look like someone stopped the Bush administration from doing something it wasn't planning to do in the first place.

You better not attack Iran!
You better not attack Iran!
You hear me! You better not attack Iran!

PS:
If you dont attack Iran, I rock!!

 

[Hatuey]

Unless you can NAME the generals this is just more BS propaganda.

I love how when a conservative brings a news article with from a news source that has an unnamed source talking about Iran giving weapons to terrorists. It's obviously true. When another conservative brings in another news article from the same news source who has an unnamed source speaking out on the white house. It's all propaganda.

-----------------------------------------------

I think it's good these generals are threatening to quit if Bush attacks Iran...I wonder why they didn't do this in 2003.

 

[MSgt]

Yes, Bush may fire, but the generals will lead by example.

There is nothing that suggests these Army Generals are doing the right thing. This is abandonment of duty. A soldier may not question any lawful order and he damn sure should not voice his dissention in the public arena. No President should ever be made to feel that the security of the nation resides on the shoulders of a few Generals. We may as well give all powers to the military if these indivuals are "leading by example."

The only thing these Generals are managing to do is give credibility to all those soldiers who simply choose not to deploy. It is not the soldiers duty to decide what is and is not our enemy. They are setting a poor example and this is why we see so much dissention in the U.S. Army in every excursion. What would our military look like if it was made up of such unproffesioanl leaders that they would simply quit when the deployment was not desired? Plenty of Genrals disagreed with our activity in Somalia and Kosovo. Plenty disagree with Iraq. Plenty disagreed with Vietnam. Plenty disagree with our half century foreign policy in the Middle East. Why don't they all just quit? Why don't they all take their experience and flush it leaving their men to the less experienced so that they could set a "good" example for civilians?

The correct course of action for these "leaders" is to explain their grievances via the Chain of Command and if there protests fall upon deaf ears a General Officer has two choices - 1) resign or 2) obey his Commander in Chief. It is not a matter for public knowledge. It is the civilian's job to elect our leadership. If they fail, then they can't look towards the military to fix it. Welcome to democracy. This is the government we all want. We all voted for it. Shut the **** up until the next election.

Despite the rantings of the desperate American Left and the useless Global left, President Bush is not some Hitler siezing power from the American people. He is not a "domestic" enemy. The last thing anybody wants is for the American military to siege upon Washington to topple an elected President. This is a path civilians don't realize should never be taken, because once it is done, it will not stop.

 

[Goobieman]

I love how when a conservative brings a news article with from a news source that has an unnamed source talking about Iran giving weapons to terrorists. It's obviously true. When another conservative brings in another news article from the same news source who has an unnamed source speaking out on the white house. It's all propaganda.

-----------------------------------------------

I think it's good these generals are threatening to quit if Bush attacks Iran...I wonder why they didn't do this in 2003.

So... the generals arent named, and you don't care...

 

[danarhea]

There is nothing that suggests these Army Generals are doing the right thing. This is abandonment of duty. A soldier may not question any lawful order and he damn sure should not voice his dissention in the public arena. No President should ever be made to feel that the security of the nation resides on the shoulders of a few Generals. We may as well give all powers to the military if these indivuals are "leading by example."

The only thing these Generals are managing to do is give credibility to all those soldiers who simply choose not to deploy. It is not the soldiers duty to decide what is and is not our enemy. They are setting a poor example and this is why we see so much dissention in the U.S. Army in every excursion. What would our military look like if it was made up of such unproffesioanl leaders that they would simply quit when the deployment was not desired? Plenty of Genrals disagreed with our activity in Somalia and Kosovo. Plenty disagree with Iraq. Plenty disagreed with Vietnam. Plenty disagree with our half century foreign policy in the Middle East. Why don't they all just quit? Why don't they all take their experience and flush it leaving their men to the less experienced so that they could set a "good" example for civilians?

The correct course of action for these "leaders" is to explain their grievances via the Chain of Command and if there protests fall upon deaf ears a General Officer has two choices - 1) resign or 2) obey his Commander in Chief. It is not a matter for public knowledge. It is the civilian's job to elect our leadership. If they fail, then they can't look towards the military to fix it. Welcome to democracy. This is the government we all want. We all voted for it. Shut the **** up until the next election.

Despite the rantings of the desperate American Left and the useless Global left, President Bush is not some Hitler siezing power from the American people. He is not a "domestic" enemy. The last thing anybody wants is for the American military to siege upon Washington to topple an elected President. This is a path civilians don't realize should never be taken, because once it is done, it will not stop.

Its not that they are willfully disobeying an order, but that they are simply retiring if ordered to attack Iran, which they have the right to do, since no order exists which would force them to remain.

And thanks for posting something substantive. I believe you are the only one on your side who has. With that, we know where each other stands on the issue. Lets go a couple more rounds with this. Loser buys the beer. Fair enough?

 

[Wyrmdog]

There is nothing that suggests these Army Generals are doing the right thing. This is abandonment of duty. A soldier may not question any lawful order and he damn sure should not voice his dissention in the public arena. No President should ever be made to feel that the security of the nation resides on the shoulders of a few Generals. We may as well give all powers to the military if these indivuals are "leading by example."

The only thing these Generals are managing to do is give credibility to all those soldiers who simply choose not to deploy. It is not the soldiers duty to decide what is and is not our enemy. They are setting a poor example and this is why we see so much dissention in the U.S. Army in every excursion. What would our military look like if it was made up of such unproffesioanl leaders that they would simply quit when the deployment was not desired? Plenty of Genrals disagreed with our activity in Somalia and Kosovo. Plenty disagree with Iraq. Plenty disagreed with Vietnam. Plenty disagree with our half century foreign policy in the Middle East. Why don't they all just quit? Why don't they all take their experience and flush it leaving their men to the less experienced so that they could set a "good" example for civilians?

The correct course of action for these "leaders" is to explain their grievances via the Chain of Command and if there protests fall upon deaf ears a General Officer has two choices - 1) resign or 2) obey his Commander in Chief. It is not a matter for public knowledge. It is the civilian's job to elect our leadership. If they fail, then they can't look towards the military to fix it. Welcome to democracy. This is the government we all want. We all voted for it. Shut the **** up until the next election.

Despite the rantings of the desperate American Left and the useless Global left, President Bush is not some Hitler siezing power from the American people. He is not a "domestic" enemy. The last thing anybody wants is for the American military to siege upon Washington to topple an elected President. This is a path civilians don't realize should never be taken, because once it is done, it will not stop.

As an expeditionary conflict, a fight we would be picking for suspect cause, I think you're exaggerating here. These are men who have undoubtedly already expressed their objections to any proposed conflict with Iran that *we* begin. There are very specific conditions we are supposed to meet before any pre-emptive action is taken militarily and Iran does not currently qualify.

When we took our oaths, we swore to defend the United States from enemies, and it is entirely likely that these officers do not believe that Iran is an enemy deserving of violence. Soldiers rarely agree with everything they are ordered to do but most, including these men, do as they are ordered, trusting that their superiors know what they are doing. But what's happening here is that if they are ordered to wage war on Iran, we are opening a third front. This is strategically unsound and it is a recipe for military and political disaster and they are stating as much by doing this. In all likelihood they view this as the last thing they can do to rescue the country they love.

Am I speaking for them in this? Absolutely. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. But your assertion that this type of behavior could somehow lead to the military marching on Washington is silly. They are resigning (and this whole argument presupposes this report is accurate), not organizing coups. Despite what you may think, this is fundamentally different. They are acting within the bounds and expectations of a democracy, as you pointed out we are.

 

[Hatuey]

So... the generals arent named, and you don't care...

Have you seen any reports of these generals claiming that this report is false?

 

[Binary_Digit]

When we took our oaths, we swore to defend the United States from enemies,

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

The only time an officer or soldier should disobey an order given by a superior is when the order is unlawful. Their opinion may be right about attacking Iran, but their opinion doesn't matter when it comes to what they are told to do. It's unacceptable to have people in the military who won't follow orders based on their opinions instead of established laws.

They are acting within the bounds and expectations of a democracy, as you pointed out we are.

The military is not a democracy, nor should it be.

 

[AcePylut]

Lets get to the heart of the matter, directly from the link initially provided:

"There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran"


Four or Five..... out of how many?

Is this newsworthy? Not in the least. Four or Five hundred? Absolutely. But hey, it lets the media bash bush once again, so of course it gets front page air play

 

[Wyrmdog]

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

The only time an officer or soldier should disobey an order given by a superior is when the order is unlawful. Their opinion may be right about attacking Iran, but their opinion doesn't matter when it comes to what they are told to do. It's unacceptable to have people in the military who won't follow orders based on their opinions instead of established laws.

This isn't disobeying an order, and if you want to bring unlawful into it, you open an whole new can of worms about the liberties taken by this administration. Remember that legality is often, in terms of warfare, decided after the fact.

The opinion of officers ALWAYS matters. They are selected for competence and intelligence, among other things, and their input and support is and should be crucial. Besides, if you find it unacceptable for them to be there, they're solving your problem for you by leaving, eh?

The military is not a democracy, nor should it be.

The military serves a democracy, and participation in it does not mandate non-participation in the democratic process or the ideals it espouses. It suspends certain liberties for operational and organizational success, but not indefinitely. This is not questioning orders under fire or during an operation, where you'd have a point.

As it stands, your comment that the military is not a democracy is meaningless. I did not make that claim and if what I wrote came off that way, I was sloppy. My point is that they are citizens of the United States as well as soldiers, and they have the luxury of resigning in protest. There is nothing wrong with that. They are not disobeying lawful orders nor do they have any stated intent to do so.

This is a legitimate course of action whether or not you agree with it.

 

[danarhea]

This isn't disobeying an order, and if you want to bring unlawful into it, you open an whole new can of worms about the liberties taken by this administration. Remember that legality is often, in terms of warfare, decided after the fact.

The opinion of officers ALWAYS matters. They are selected for competence and intelligence, among other things, and their input and support is and should be crucial. Besides, if you find it unacceptable for them to be there, they're solving your problem for you by leaving, eh?



The military serves a democracy, and participation in it does not mandate non-participation in the democratic process or the ideals it espouses. It suspends certain liberties for operational and organizational success, but not indefinitely. This is not questioning orders under fire or during an operation, where you'd have a point.

As it stands, your comment that the military is not a democracy is meaningless. I did not make that claim and if what I wrote came off that way, I was sloppy. My point is that they are citizens of the United States as well as soldiers, and they have the luxury of resigning in protest. There is nothing wrong with that. They are not disobeying lawful orders nor do they have any stated intent to do so.

This is a legitimate course of action whether or not you agree with it.

Well put.

 

[Binary_Digit]

This isn't disobeying an order,

I know, because they weren't ordered to invade Iran. I was assuming the context that they've already done what they're threatening to do. Unless they can show that the order was unlawful (which is likely btw), then they shouldn't be allowed to disobey it. Maybe people at that high of rank are allowed to, but I don't think they should be.

and if you want to bring unlawful into it, you open an whole new can of worms about the liberties taken by this administration. Remember that legality is often, in terms of warfare, decided after the fact.

No argument here!

1. The opinion of officers ALWAYS matters. They are selected for competence and intelligence, among other things, and their input and support is and should be crucial.

2. Besides, if you find it unacceptable for them to be there, they're solving your problem for you by leaving, eh?

1. I agree, but voicing opinions are one thing, threatening to leave your post is entirely another IMO.
2. Hah, that's so true. There is a bright side, I guess.

The military serves a democracy, and participation in it does not mandate non-participation in the democratic process or the ideals it espouses. It suspends certain liberties for operational and organizational success, but not indefinitely. This is not questioning orders under fire or during an operation, where you'd have a point.

As it stands, your comment that the military is not a democracy is meaningless. I did not make that claim and if what I wrote came off that way, I was sloppy. My point is that they are citizens of the United States as well as soldiers, and they have the luxury of resigning in protest. There is nothing wrong with that. They are not disobeying lawful orders nor do they have any stated intent to do so.

This is a legitimate course of action whether or not you agree with it.

Well like I said, maybe Generals and Admirals have that option, but that's not the military I served in. Peace time, war time, it doesn't matter, you follow lawful orders or you go see the Skipper for a boot camp refresher. As important as flag officers are, I can't imagine why they'd be allowed to refuse lawful orders from the CinC of all people.

 

[Wyrmdog]

Well like I said, maybe Generals and Admirals have that option, but that's not the military I served in. Peace time, war time, it doesn't matter, you follow lawful orders or you go see the Skipper for a boot camp refresher. As important as flag officers are, I can't imagine why they'd be allowed to refuse lawful orders from the CinC of all people.

I understand that, but where we run into trouble is assuming they're refusing to follow orders by resigning (which I don't believe is the case, though I understand some will make that case) and second that the order is lawful.

It is these assumptions about the situation that I'm questioning.

 

[MSgt]

As an expeditionary conflict, a fight we would be picking for suspect cause, I think you're exaggerating here. These are men who have undoubtedly already expressed their objections to any proposed conflict with Iran that *we* begin. There are very specific conditions we are supposed to meet before any pre-emptive action is taken militarily and Iran does not currently qualify.

None of what you wrote has anything to do with a General Officer displaying his grief to the public against the President of the United States, who is elected by the people. Like I said, there is a procedure and making a spectacle of dissention amongst the ranks is not one of them.

But your assertion that this type of behavior could somehow lead to the military marching on Washington is silly.

My assertion was in direct response to the sentiment that military men should display their dissents in such a public manner. It is also in direct response to the senitment that the White House holds a "domestic" enemy, in which some view as a military duty to topple.

Silly was the original sentiment for which I replied.

 

[MSgt]

The opinion of officers ALWAYS matters.

In the correct format and arena. You are confusing the issue between legitimate questioning and consultation and strongarming with threats over something they don't agree with.

The military serves a democracy, and participation in it does not mandate non-participation in the democratic process or the ideals it espouses.

And the Democracy chooses the civilian leadership that orders the military.

My point is that they are citizens of the United States as well as soldiers, and they have the luxury of resigning in protest. There is nothing wrong with that.

Yes...there is. These are not Captains or Corporals that are reaching their EAS's and are on the way out. There are General Officers that have made public threats of retirement if the President doesn't do as they wish. This is not the example that should be set towards their men. These type of sentiments within our military does not reflect on the level of professionalism that it is supposed to be.

This is a legitimate course of action whether or not you agree with it.

No...it is not. The legitimate course of action is to write a statement via the Chain of Command. If they are in consult, then they have a duty to define and explain the negatives and positives of a mission to their superiors. If they feel the need to enter the political arena then they should wait until they retire and then write a book like others have done before them.

 

[danarhea]

None of what you wrote has anything to do with a General Officer displaying his grief to the public against the President of the United States, who is elected by the people. Like I said, there is a procedure and making a spectacle of dissention amongst the ranks is not one of them.



My assertion was in direct response to the sentiment that military men should display their dissents in such a public manner. It is also in direct response to the senitment that the White House holds a "domestic" enemy, in which some view as a military duty to topple.

Silly was the original sentiment for which I replied.

Lets not misconstrue what I said. Yes, I did say that I view Bush as a domestic enemy, but nowhere did I say that the military has an obligation to overthrow the government. What I did say was that the generals in question are within their legitimate rights to resign if they feel that Bush is giving orders detrimental to what they regard as legal and proper. Let me also add that you will see a good number of commissioned officers resign, as is their right to do, because of Bush's insanity, should he give that order. Now that we have cleared that up, I respectfully ask that you not again try to put words in my mouth I never said.

As far as overthrowing the government goes, let me add that there are revolutions in America all the time. In fact, this is the only nation in the world where a revolt can happen without a shot being fired. You are going to see such a revolt next year, when the Republican party is pretty much destroyed at the ballot box. The election of 2006 was only the first shot fired. When that happens, hopefully saner elements in the GOP will prevail and take the party back and rebuild it in the image it once had before the parasites took it over.

 

[Cremaster77]

The correct course of action for these "leaders" is to explain their grievances via the Chain of Command and if there protests fall upon deaf ears a General Officer has two choices - 1) resign or 2) obey his Commander in Chief. It is not a matter for public knowledge.

While historically this may have been correct, for better or worse, internal military workings have become part of the national media, and this administration's policy has had it's fair part in contributing to this. Who authorized all those imbedded journalists in Iraq as part of the Public Relations campaign for the war? When you invite the media in to report the internal workings of the military, don't be surprised when they report the internal workings of the military.

It is the civilian's job to elect our leadership. If they fail, then they can't look towards the military to fix it. Welcome to democracy. This is the government we all want. We all voted for it. Shut the **** up until the next election.

Actually, only 27% of voting age adults actually voted for this administration. While I agree that it's counterproductive for active generals to openly criticize the COC, this is hardly "the government we all want" or that "we all voted for".

 

[Goobieman]

Actually, only 27% of voting age adults actually voted for this administration. While I agree that it's counterproductive for active generals to openly criticize the COC, this is hardly "the government we all want" or that "we all voted for".

This argument can be made for almost any administration.
And if you didn't vote, then you have no standing to complain.

 

[MSgt]

While historically this may have been correct, for better or worse, internal military workings have become part of the national media, and this administration's policy has had it's fair part in contributing to this. Who authorized all those imbedded journalists in Iraq as part of the Public Relations campaign for the war? When you invite the media in to report the internal workings of the military, don't be surprised when they report the internal workings of the military.

You are slanting the issue into a different topic. The issue of imbedded reporters was a stroke of genius. The Pentagon allowed reporters who had sufficient fortitude to embed themselves with combat units liberating Iraq. It had finally dawned on a new generation in uniform that the press versus the military hostitlity was far from consistent, that many in the media did want to get the story right, and that it was often the military, no the media, that was responsible for keeping old resentments alive.

The media isn't at fault here. The unproffesional behavior of these Generals are.

Actually, only 27% of voting age adults actually voted for this administration. While I agree that it's counterproductive for active generals to openly criticize the COC, this is hardly "the government we all want" or that "we all voted for".

You missed my entire point. Democracy is the desired government we all want. We announce this every 2 years and every 4 years. Those that vote, vote for their guy. This "is the government we all want."

Personal anguishes about current sponserships doesn't really matter. You will exercise your right to vote for the next sponsership in 2008. And with this new President, we will still have the government that we all want. Mere disagreement with policies does not constitute a "domestic" enemy or a General's will to dissent against a Commander in Chief on a public platform.

 

[Navy Seal Patriot]

US generals are expendable--one quits or resigns or demoted or re-assigned you will always have some brown nose West Cadet waving his hand to replace him. Real good officers never climb that high--usually.