"A revolt within the military against Bush is brewing."

The US military officer corps prides itself on their duty to the Commander In Chief. Part of that duty is to avoid criticizing or second-guessing the war policy of the President, Secretary of Defense, or other civilians at the top - in public or on the record, at least. I'm sure you've noticed that the only vocal criticism of Bush's Big Adventure has come from officers with ret. after their rank. Active duty officers won't say boo. Since the advent of the all-volunteer army, even the enlisted ranks seem to have adopted this attitude. The NG enlistees are the least indoctrinated on this point, but have been slow to gripe as long as they are on active duty and a long way from home. You just don't buck the system, if you can help it.

So, any 'revolt' Bush is likely to see will be in the form of an intense whispering campaign against his and Rumsfeld's leadership. Open revolt isn't in the cards, but a covert revolt could be coming soon.

How this would be played to the public would depend on whether the media turned on Bush. If so, the turn would come from the top and it could be breathtaking in its breadth and suddeness. And it wouldn't come from the NY Times, but from the big three networks and the big chain newspapers. I can't say I see it there, yet. But it isn't the sort of thing that is easy to foresee.

Maybe the guy was a kook, maybe he saw what was developing and called out the b.s. and they let him go. I don't know, but I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop. Just one of many very strange things I have seen come across the radar in the past few years.

Another example was General Anthony Zinni, who was sent as an envoy to broker the conflict between Israel/Palestine by Bush, who later became an active in saying the invasion of Iraq was misguided before the war started.

Add in how the reserve troops have been treated down in Georgia and probably some other things that are out there and it is hard to tell what is going to happen.

The article is a Macguffin for this thread.

well duh

That being said, I still think the whole thing with General Tommie Franks was weird. The guy led the force into Bagdad, then suddly he was retired.

No weirder than the whole thing with Generals Garner or Zinni or Shinseki or Army Secretary White. You talk out of turn in this administration and you get whacked. Abizaid was more successful because the political situation changed and he played the game better.

To whom were you addressing your question?

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1837816

My source for news from the troops:

http://www.sftt.org/

And further down:

"There has never been a more humane campaign," Gen Myers said, "and that goes for operations in Falluja."

I fucking hate people like this. War is inhumane by definition -- you don't talk about things being 'more humane,' ya clod.

"A small band of terrorists are not going to be permitted to determine the fate of the 25 million Iraqi people," he added.

Why let the terrorists decide what to do with Iraqi lives, when the US is doing a MUCH better job? Old Rummie is still acting like he's living in a commando version of Sims: where the one who blinks first, loses.

Yeah, Kerry's just the Man to give Power to the People!

First, my sense is that the US military will not 'revolt' in the sense of taking up arms against any component of the government and it is nowhere near that point. Rather, if they could be said to be in 'revolt' in any sense, it would be in the sense of being revolted by the arrogance and ineptitude with which the current administration has been conducting the war in Iraq.

I do not know for a fact, but believe it is quite possible that the military is ready for that policy to change dramatically, because under current leadership, their mission is vague, their force inadequate and their chances for success precarious, all of which facts do not rise from military weakness, but from weak, ignorant, arrogant and posturing leadership at the top.

The reason I call it a covert revolt is that orders will be carried out, active duty officers will continue to obey and to give lip service, overtly, to the wisdom of their superior officers and civilian commanders. The 'covert revolt' they would be most likely to carry out would have to be in the form of candid, but unattributed criticism of those same leaders. Journalists would be given the story, but not on the record. Retired officers would be persuaded by active colleagues to mount a campaign of attack.

None of this would be openly attributable to officers or soldiers. That is what I envisioned as a 'covert revolt'. Soldiers have a fairly refined code of honor. Bush talks the talk, but his actions and those of his advisors tell a very different story. I am sure Rumsfeld has lost every shred of respect among his generals. Bush is a short step from joing him there.

(x-post w/Ned)

I'm so out of touch with the US I don't know how any of this is playing out in the general public.

I am talking about balance between the Constitutional branches of government, not "giv[ing] Power to the People," which would require a Constitutional amendment.

Just why exactly do you think Kerry is an elitist? And who are "the People" for whom you presume to speak?

already seen someone say that the timeline isn't quite right, that this appropriations bill was from different month as when Woodward places the Bush discussion with Rumsfeld, but it's still very cuirous, as if it is true, it definitely has Watergate and Iran-Contra beat.

I was wondering about this. During the Clinton years several conservative civilians suggested that the military rank and file had little respect for the president because he had dodged the draft. So I wondered what military types thought of Dubya, given that he was able to go into the National Guard and his attendance there...hasn't been shown to have been rigorous.

(For example, check out this Doonesbury strip.)