Rumsfeld and the Generals

[Luke T.]

What if he/she knows the orders they have been given are illegal? Serious question: what is the appropriate course then?

That would be an "unlawful order". If it involves life and death, you do not have to obey an unlawful order. And you are required to report your superior to his superior.

There's a fine line between disobeying an unlawful order and mutiny, so you better know what the hell you are doing.

 

[Crossbow]

Probably many of you have seen this article in today's New York Times "Top Retired General Rebuts Critics of Rumsfeld" by Christine Hauser. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/w...&en=46571ab513b7bb32&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

I was more curious about anyone's thoughts about when it is appropriate for military personal especially high ranking military personal to speak out against the civilian authorities. The article of course is mostly about retired generals but they do cite some unspecified individuals of the military in active service who have concerns.

Now, I have no love of Rumsfeld but I do believe the military should be under civilian control and it is the responsibility of the citizenry to hold Rumsfeld and the Bush administration responsible for the strategic (sometimes tactical) decisions. It is the responsibility of the military to keep the civilian authority factually informed about its capabilities and the threats presented.

Do you believe military leaders should ever break rank to openly question civilian authority?

Absolutely! Military leaders should speak out if they know of serious problems that are not being addressed by the civilian authorities.

Of course, they have to be very careful in doing so, because if they make such complaints without first going through official channels, then they will likely be fired because they did not do their job properly.

And of course, if even they do comply with all of the rules, regulation, and procedures for voicing such problems, then they will likely be fired for some other reason because no one likes a whistle blower.

Pretty tough nut, either way. However, military leaders are expected to follow orders, make decisions, be responsible to the people under their command, and think once in a while. Nazi Germany should be always remind one of the dangers that can occur when military leaders follow all orders without question.

By the way, if several retired flag officers feel so badly about the Iraq War that they are responding in this manner, then that probably indicates that at least a sizeable minority of current flag officers feel the same way.

 

[Luke T.]

You are to dutifully complain up the chain of command and, in doing so, place your head on the chopping block.

It's a risk, yes. But it isn't automatically a career ender. If it was an unlawful order, then the career which ends will be the unlawful order giver.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

That would be an "unlawful order". If it involves life and death, you do not have to obey an unlawful order. And you are required to report your superior to his superior.

There's a fine line between disobeying an unlawful order and mutiny, so you better know what the hell you are doing.

What if, and of course this is purely hypothetical, the illegal order comes from the highest authority?

 

[Luke T.]

What if, and of course this is purely hypothetical, the illegal order comes from the highest authority?

God?

On the serious side, even the highest authority is subject to the law. There is a provision about "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

God?

On the serious side, even the highest authority is subject to the law. There is a provision about "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution.

Yes, but how are these supposed to come to light if a poor, dutiful staff officer is put in the position of being given illegal orders from on high? The Commander-in-Chief has no superior to report to. That is our hypotheical general to do, according to the U.C.M.J.?

 

[headscratcher4]

Please. Charles Martel's victory at battle of Tours. Napoleon victory at the battle of Austerlitz. Odo of Aquitaine's victory at the Battle of Toulouse.

These were serveal orders of mangitude greater.

Yeah, this is sort of on the order of Germany's blitzkrieg of Poland (NOT in brutality and complete disregard for life, but in the use of technology and speed).

I would think that a "great" victory would be one where the odds were so against the victor...Agincourt, for example, where the French overwhelmingly outnumbered Henry V.

A great victory, it would seem to me, would be one where the war is essentially over as a result of the defeat of the enemy, and rebuilding can begin...considering we're still in Iraq, still fighting, still losing soldiers and that most of the rebuilding money seems to be either squandered or yet to be spent, that the streets of Bahgdad and other major cities are very dangerous, that bombs are going off killing dozens of civilians every single day, it would not seem that the mission, as it were, has been accomplished.

 

[Mark]

That would be an "unlawful order". If it involves life and death, you do not have to obey an unlawful order. And you are required to report your superior to his superior.

There's a fine line between disobeying an unlawful order and mutiny, so you better know what the hell you are doing.

But if the unlawful order (thanks for the clarification) goes all the way to the top, what are the specific options?

I should think it would be going to the media, no?

 

[davefoc]

1. It was one of the greatest military victory in the history of the world.

Was this comment meant to be taken seriously? What are some other great military victories that rank up there with it? Was Rummy's presence a key factor in making this "one of the greatest military victory in history?" If he was a key factor in that do you give him any credit for the debacle that the occupation has turned in to?

2. What seems is not necessarily what is

Absolutely true. I think Rumsfeld was involved either through direct action or failures to act. I can't prove that. But I can prove that he was the guy in charge at the time and if Bush had wanted to make a strong statement that the abuse scandals didn't represent the policies of his administration he would have fired Rumsfeld. Instead, he allowed the scandals to seem like accepted policy and the incidents seem to have served as lightning rod to draw anti-American insurgents to the cause because the rate of American casualties climbed after the abuses became public.

3. You can debate that, but I've seen no evidence

Here's an article in Salon that details Rumsfeld's involvement:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/04/14/rummy/

4. Rummy does not set the military budget, congress does

In normal circumstances I think the secretary of defense would deserve criticism for not making the tough decisions that his position requires with regard to making reasonable recommendations regarding which defense programs to keep and which to cut. In this case the congress and the POTUS are working in a symbiotic relationship to reward their industrial benefactors without regard to the costs of this corruption to the nation. So I guess the defense of Rummy here is that he is just one tiny player in the overall Republican strategy to rape the country for the benefit of their corporate buddies.

 

[Doubt]

But if the unlawful order (thanks for the clarification) goes all the way to the top, what are the specific options?

I should think it would be going to the media, no?

No. That is not a legal option. In fact, Publicly airing a disagreement with the Commander in Chief would violate the UCMJ. Serving officers don’t get to speak their mind in public. That is one of those rights you give up as an officer.

You can resign and speak up, as long as you don’t spill anything classified.

I am not sure what the best legal course of action is. Going to Senators and Congressmen on the defense committees may be an option, but I am not sure about that.

Side note: One reason you may not hear more retired generals speaking out is that many have jobs as analysts or work for defense contractors. They could lose their jobs by speaking out.

 

[Meadmaker]

Do you believe military leaders should ever break rank to openly question civilian authority?

I think they should, if retired. The public has a right to be informed, and who better to inform them?

I recall during the Serbian war seeing some retired generals criticizing the way it was being fought. Some of them had been military talking heads during the Gulf War, and were then hired as media analysts to comment on military matters.

You don't recall them too much because we won that war, quickly, with 0 dead, 0 wounded, and three captured.

 

[CapelDodger]

A great victory, it would seem to me, would be one where the war is essentially over as a result of the defeat of the enemy, and rebuilding can begin...considering we're still in Iraq, still fighting, still losing soldiers and that most of the rebuilding money seems to be either squandered or yet to be spent, that the streets of Bahgdad and other major cities are very dangerous, that bombs are going off killing dozens of civilians every single day, it would not seem that the mission, as it were, has been accomplished.

Agincourt was similar in some way. The pace of life was more leisurely in those days, but no victory could stop the steady attrition which eventually drove the English Kings out.

For a momentous victory, look to Blenheim. That whole campaign was magnificent, in conception, in planning, in execution and in the blood-bath.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think they should, if retired. The public has a right to be informed, and who better to inform them?

They also have a duty towards their service, which doesn't just go away on retirement. If the service has concerns which the civilian authority is not addressing, who better to convey them?

I recall during the Serbian war seeing some retired generals criticizing the way it was being fought. Some of them had been military talking heads during the Gulf War, and were then hired as media analysts to comment on military matters.

You don't recall them too much because we won that war, quickly, with 0 dead, 0 wounded, and three captured.

The problem there, as I heard it, was that they could have had it over in ten minutes if they were allowed to take some casualties. Which, to the military mind, goes with the terrain and is offset by the experience gained in action. (That's not irony, I have no problem with that at all.)

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes, but how are these supposed to come to light if a poor, dutiful staff officer is put in the position of being given illegal orders from on high? The Commander-in-Chief has no superior to report to. That is our hypotheical general to do, according to the U.C.M.J.?

According to precedent established at Nuremberg an illegal order from the Supreme Authority is still illegal, and should not be obeyed. That outranks the UCMJ. IMO.

 

[geni]

For a momentous victory, look to Blenheim. That whole campaign was magnificent, in conception, in planning, in execution and in the blood-bath.

However the victory was in large part due to unforced errors made by the oposition.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

According to precedent established at Nuremberg an illegal order from the Supreme Authority is still illegal, and should not be obeyed. That outranks the UCMJ. IMO.

I tend to agree, but what is our hypotheical general supposed to do, retire in protest?

 

[WildCat]

They also have a duty towards their service, which doesn't just go away on retirement. If the service has concerns which the civilian authority is not addressing, who better to convey them?

This is VERY dicey ground. When the military has final say, or even influence over, the civilian government you are in dangerous territory. How far away is the day then when the civilian gov't has to have the support of the military? Recent events in Pakistan come to mind...

Politicizing the military is a very dangerous thing for any democracy, IMHO.

 

[Luke T.]

But if the unlawful order (thanks for the clarification) goes all the way to the top, what are the specific options?

I should think it would be going to the media, no?

No. You go to your Congressman. Something I saw many times in the military. Most of the time it was some young sailor bitching about something really stupid. But you would be surprised how quickly Congressmen respond to complaints from their military constituents and the brouhaha which ensues.

 

[Luke T.]

Also, a direct order from the President coming down to a lowly staff officer is highly unlikely.

"The President says to torture these prisoners." That's not how it works. The staff officer would hear, instead, "I want you to torture these prisoners" from his superior. It would be up to that superior to have not passed that instruction down if it came from higher up. So the lowly officer reports his superior. Then that superior will have to justify his orders, and so on up the chain of command.

And in any case, any change in policy is going to come in the form of a written instruction. An "instruction" is an official document. So then you have hard evidence.

edited to add more clarification

 

[CapelDodger]

1. It was one of the greatest military victory in the history of the world.

As a response to davefoc's
[QUOTE]1. Numerous failures during initial occupation ...[/QUOTE]
that's pretty evasive. Occupation follows conquest. The conquest was not as awesome as you seem to think. Very professional.