Thoughts on Senior Military Resignations and Coups

[Stinky The Clown]

As discussed here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x887680 Sy Hersh is postulating that some senior military leaders are considering resigning rather than go along with plans to start a war with Iran.

In my view that is exactly the right thing to do.

Others, here and elsewhere, call for the military to 'do something' to stop what they (the military) see as the civilian leadership out of control. That 'something' would, in deed and in fact, be a coup d'etat. And that would be, in deed and in fact, treason. As in 'go before a firing squad' treason. And that would be terribly wrong and counterproductive; it would simply embolden and empower the cabal to suspend all civil rights and declare a dictatorship.

So let's go back to the notion of resignations. I think there's a real chance that could happen. Look at the recently retired big guys from the military. Tony Zinni .... speaking out against what's happening. Hugh Shelton ... working with John Edwards during the campaigns. Gen. Shalikashvili fired for not going along. Wesley Clark, running for President and constantly speaking truth to power. Even current JCS Chair, Marine 4-star Peter Pace, has consistently not been on the same page as the cabal. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2529844) Barry McCaffrey, who worked in the Clinton Administration after his retirement has been speaking truth to power for a while now. Even Little Dicky Meyers, recently retired JCS chair is rumored to be left-leaning (sorry, I can't find a link for this, but I know I saw speculation about it). Retired Adm Crowe is a Dem. Many more examples up and down the ranks of the professional officer corps. Even back in my days in service, our then CNO, Adm Elmo Zumwalt, was a pretty liberal guy ... some even saw him, at the time, as a flaming, bleeding heart liberal who was out to ruin the Navy. Jim Webb, in Virginia, former Reagan Navy Secretary and Annapolis grad ..... running for the Senate as a dem and speaking out against the cabal at every turn.

Look at the Band of Brothers running for elective office ..... all dems except for what? One? Two?

As Hersh points out in the article/post linked above, the military has always been loyal to 'the president', even if not to the man holding that office.

I think this is very true today. Sure, there are some cheerleaders who choose to be, but mostly they're disgusted. Do you think Jack Murtha is without their support? You can bet your last dime that he's on every general's speed dial ... and they on his. He truly **does** speak for them.

Even slap happy cheerleader and maybe Senate candidate Tommy Franks was famously rumored to have been abused by the cabal in general and Rummy in particular. Sadly, in line with typical Republican-think (McCain, anyone?), he just bent over, spread 'em and asked for more.

But back to my point. I do think the military's senior leadership is considering this option. Surely any one of them with enough years to retire would be a fool not to.

And if that were to happen, where would that leave Little Lord Fauntleroy with his little fake flight suits and his little fake quasi-uniforms, and his penchant for using 'the troops' to cover for him?

But most of all, think what such a happening would do to the average 'Murikin'. They love their GI Joe images and their flags. And who owns that more than the military?

I think a mass resignation would send a message to the country and the world like none that has ever come before. If it were to happen all on one day it would truly be a historical day on a par with few others days in all of recorded history.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. The July Plot - Military Elite Tried to Assassinate Hitler

At the end of 1943 the Schutz Staffeinel (SS) and the Gestapo managed to arrest several Germans involved in plotting to overthrow Adolf Hitler. This included Dietrich Bonhoffer, Klaus Bonhoffer, Josef Muller and Hans Dohnanyi. Others under suspicion like Wilhelm Canaris and Hans Oster were dismissed from office in January, 1944.

Major Claus von Stauffenberg now emerged as the leader of the group opposed to Nazi rule. In 1942 he decided to kill Adolf Hitler. He was joined by Wilhelm Canaris, Carl Goerdeler, Julius Leber, Ulrich Hassell, Hans Oster, Peter von Wartenburg, Henning von Tresckow, Friedrich Olbricht, Werner von Haeften, Fabian Schlabrendorff, Ludwig Beck and Erwin von Witzleben.

After Adolf Hitler, Hermann Goering and Heinrich Himmler had been assassination it was planned for troops in Berlin to seize key government buildings, telephone and signal centres and radio stations.

At least six attempts were aborted before Claus von Stauffenberg decided on trying again during a conference attended by Hitler on 20th July, 1944. It was decided to drop plans to kill Goering and Himmler at the same time. Stauffenberg, who had never met Hitler before, carried the bomb in a briefcase and placed it on the floor while he left to make a phone-call. The bomb exploded killing four men in the hut. Hitler's right arm was badly injured but he survived the bomb blast.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERjuly.htm

Not exactly sure why this came to mind.........

[Stinky The Clown]

3. History is rife with stories of the military taking the leadership to task

That story probably came up for you for the same reason such stories come up for me ..... because the military, contrary to what some may say, is largely made up of principled people who have limits.

[BrklynLiberal]

8. Guess the people who have to actually FIGHT in the wars do not love them

as much as the old men who sit at home and send others to do the fighting.
:think:

[FightingIrish]

2. I wrote this several months ago and submitted it to DU

Maybe it was over the top then, but it seems less so today.

Is a military coup in the United Sates out of the question?

That a reasonable person would ask that question speaks volumes about the sorry state of our republic. The cathartic political event that would be expected in a banana republic or a nation whose citizens aren't quite up to leading themselves is now something that has to at least be contemplated in light of the dimming prospects for our future.

History is rich with military patriots who risked everything in civil disobedience to preserve the values they had dedicated their lives to defend. When the leaders of nations have lost their bearings it has often fallen to the generals and admirals to right the ship of state. From the Roman Empire to the Third Reich, voices of reason in times of imperial madness were often those who led the legions in battle and carried the scars of war. With our heritage of presumed democracy, the idea of warriors at the helm is a frightening thought but rejecting the idea of a military coup outright is a little less imperative when the dismal options before us are weighed.

It is almost certain that the Republican dominated congress lacks the will, the courage and the wisdom to clean up the mess they have enabled. Even if impeachment could proceed as it was truly intended by our forefathers, the presidential line of succession is thoroughly populated with true believers of the same radical ideology that got us into this mess. It is highly unlikely that a president who can find no fault with himself could be persuaded to resign even if promised immunity and free drugs for life.

Waiting for another tainted election is even less appealing unless we could be assured that once again every vote would count and no entitled citizen would be barred or intimidated from voting. Three and a half years is an eternity with a maniac splurging his political capital.

Is a military coup even possible? Surely there are many high ranking officers who do not relish further degradation of our armed forces and who are sickened by the administration's breach of faith with those who volunteer to serve. Career officers who have studied the art of war and dedicated their lives to our security have been appalled at the callous abuse of our military by its civilian masters. Many of them have left the service as a matter or of conscience or have been pushed aside for speaking out when they could not live with their own silence. Doubtless there are many like minded individuals still wearing stars on their shoulders.

Obviously there is no provision for a military takeover in our constitution. It is inconceivable that the founders of our republic could have imagined a situation like the one we are now suffering. They had counted on Congress to retain its power to wage war. They believed that they had created a system where religious zealots could not hold sway. They assumed that the electoral process would send the most qualified and most deserving to the seats of power. They crafted a system of checks and balances that seemed tyranny-proof. They failed to imagine the likes of the cynical manipulators of our democracy who carried George W. Bush to the highest office in the land.

In our system of checks and balances, the power of the military is quietly ignored although it carries the ultimate stick of statecraft. The synapse of authority occurs between the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Commander-in-Chief. If the awesome power of America's military were to be used to avert the catastrophe we are racing toward, the tectonic shift of power would ultimately have to take place at that highest level. Getting the heads of all branches of the service to rebel in unison is unlikely although there are very high ranking commanders in all our armed services who might rise to such an occasion. The seeds of a coup would likely germinate a few pay grades below the Commander-in-Chief and a little more removed from the trappings of empire.

Would the American people tolerate even a momentary suspension of the Constitution? Given the trashing our democratic covenant has already suffered at the hands of this administration, many could be persuaded that it might just be worth the societal trauma if it could restore all that we have so recently lost. Freedoms we took for granted, national pride and prestige that were part of being American and the certainty that we had a government of the people are all worth fighting for even if it means fighting the leadership now in power.

Could we trust a military junta? We would probably trust them no more readily than we trust the people who lied us into a war, hog-tied our personal liberties and gave away the store to corporate interests. Consider, however, that most of the leaders of our armed forces rose to the top in a different system. Even though the military is not without its politics, the flag officers got to the top largely on merit and not by virtue of corporate contributions or peddled influence. Many of them could be easily elected to high political office if the playing field was not tilted by greed and corruption.

The thought of a military takeover is nonetheless chilling. Were it to happen we would suffer greatly if the leaders of the coup were not people of highest principle with no higher ambition than to quickly give America back to its people. It is equally chilling to ponder endless war led by a "war president" who knows absolutely nothing about war. Given the options, we might be better following a leader into battle who could at least utter a coherent command and remain upright on a bicycle.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. I missed this the first time. Thanks for the re-run ......

... that's a great post.

[Selatius]

6. If a hypothetical coup fails, there will be a horrible civil war.

I guarantee it. There are probably high ranking officers and generals who are just as loyal to their masters in power today as there are those who are loyal to some higher notion of freedom.

There will be war between them if one or the other is not quickly crushed. Then it will be war on US soil, and I don't think you really took that into account. My parents experienced war on their own soil when they lived in Viet Nam.

When you speak of war against your own government, you are not talking about just yourself. You're also talking about risking the lives of your family and friends as well, so when you talk of this issue, you've got to be deadly serious in viewing such a notion from all viewpoints. If a coup fails to achieve its objective outright, it's not going to be relegated in some distant capital. It's going to be in our backyards.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." - Abraham Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois, June 16, 1858.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. I could not agree more. A coup is **absolutely** the wrong course. PERIOD

But resignations on principle ... strong and eloquent. And maybe equally or more effective than a coup.

[paparush]

14. In a principled country, I would agree...America does not meet...

that standard.

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. Agree strongly

There is no going back once that's happened. Every subsequent administration is not really the civilian military leadership - quite the opposite.

[TankLV]

22. Too often now, I think that the cleansing effect of a Civil War to defeat

those who have destroyed our country would not necessarily be a bad idea.

How much longer can we take the abuse of the many by a few?

How long?

The last Civil War was a just war to fight slavery and racism.

The next one will be to restore our democracy.

[oneold1-4u]

5. The time frame

"it would simply embolden and empower the cabal to suspend all civil rights and declare a dictatorship."
This has already bin set up and not one good hand slap by the citizenry. The military leadership has to have lost some faith in the citizen, and they will be needed to help return this nation to normalcy when the cabal does fall!

[babylonsister]

9. I'd love to see this; they'd retain their retirement while

voicing their objections loud and clear.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. Exactly. Its perfect.

They lose nothing, the country gains a lot, and snot nose gets clobbered by them.

[Jai4WKC08]

10. Hersh did more than postulate

He specifically claims that some officers have told him they would resign. But it wasn't about war with Iran. It was over nuclear war with Iran.

Here's the pertinent excerpt of the transcript:

HERSH: ...We learned in the, three decades ago during the Cold War that we saw a lot of digging outside of Russia. We didn't know what it was. It turned out to be an underground contingency of government facilities, 75 feet underground, hard rock. And at that time, our planners -- if you want to have an all-out war with the Russians and decapitate, destroy the leadership, the only sure way, they said, 30 years ago, was nukes. So when they looked at the underground facility in Iran -- as I said, this place, the main place is 75 hard feet underground, the only way you can tell the White House for sure, folks, you have to use a tac nuke. But that isn't what they were -- they were just giving the range. But it's the fact that the White House wouldn't let it go that has got the JCS in an uproar.

BLITZER: And you're saying that some senior military officers are prepared to resign?

HERSH: I'm saying that, if this isn't walked back and if the president isn't told that you cannot do it -- and once the chairman of the joint chiefs or some senior members of the military say to the president, let's get this nuclear option off the table, it will be taken off. He will not defy the military in a formal report. Unless something specific is told to the White House that you've got to drop this dream of a nuclear option -- and that's exactly the issue I'm talking about -- people have said to me that they would resign.

BLITZER: Do you want to name names?

HERSH: Are you kidding?

BLITZER: I'm giving you the opportunity.

HERSH: No. You know why? Because this is a punitive government right now. This is a government that pretty much has its back against the wall, as you've been saying all morning, in Iraq. And in the military -- you know, one thing about our military is they're very loyal to the president, but they're getting to the edge. They're getting to the edge with not only Rumsfeld but also with Cheney and the president.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/09/le.01.html

Frankly, I'm not sure what I think about this.

Of course, every officer has the duty to resign rather than do something which is morally wrong or would endanger national security. And nuking Iran is easily both.

But if it's a case of a group of officers threatening to resign en masse and publicly, in order to force a president to take a different policy route... even THIS stupid president and THIS disasterous policy option... well, it makes me VERY uncomfortable. And VERY angry at the idiots who've brought us to this point.

I think it may well be something that has to happen. But it's a very bad day if/when it does.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. I'm not sure I'd call it a 'bad day' .......

I would call it a 'momentous day' ....... or an 'historical day' .... maybe even a 'biblical day'. But I can't call it a bad day.

When I spoke to my wife about this this morning, she saw it as you do (I don't know that both of you saw it that way for the same reasons, however). Her concern was for the precedent it sets. My view is that the notion of mass resignation would take a lot of senior officers doing some extraordinarily deep soul searching and then, as a group, be willing to take an irrevocable (not actually, but effectively so) step to stop the government and to turn national policy. To call it an act of desperation would surely be true. I can't see it happeneing every time they disagree. But this is not nearly so trivial as an 'everytime'. In the entire history of our nation we have never ever waged preemptive war. And surely not two in one presidency. And surely not with tactical nukes just for the sake of watching shit blow up and hoping polls rise with the radiation and mushroom cloud.

No .... these are extraordinary times and they call for extraordinary measures.

Thanks for contributing some thoughtful dialogue to my thread.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. Yet more fodder for this notion .......

In today's LBN ... with a link to a NYT article: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2217610

The military may well be so broken that it is becoming increasingly intolerable for even its career staff to remain.

Little Boots has a record of breaking whatever he touches. This is but one more example.

[grasswire]

15. get the March Harper's magazine

They brought together a small group of experts to study this very matter. The highlights are printed in the magazine.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. What was the gist of the article?

[grasswire]

19. my mistake -- it's the April issue

And I'll find it in the house and summarize here later today. The opinions on the subject were divergent. One participant was a high-ranking active duty officer, which made it interesting.

[lonestarnot]

16. Nay, bushitler will war with incompetency, all the better. He doesn't

want people who can think, just people who can take orders.

[Norquist Nemesis]

18. A couple of questions here

"But most of all, think what such a happening would do to the average 'Murikin'. They love their GI Joe images and their flags. And who owns that more than the military?

I think a mass resignation would send a message to the country and the world like none that has ever come before. If it were to happen all on one day it would truly be a historical day on a par with few others days in all of recorded history."

If this happened, I predict the first thing Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Boykin, DeLay, and fervent Bush Backers would do is swiftboat them into traitor status.

But, I'm relatively naive when it comes to military protocol for promotions and such. So, let's suppose these officials did resign. I agree that it would 'send a message to the country' and be historical. But where does that leave us? Who would be replacing them; who would be making the choices on their replacements? And would the replacements be able to carry out the 'plans' wholeheartedly without any interference or opposing views? (Serious questions.)

[Stinky The Clown]

20. Since this is all speculation, allow me to speculate ......

Who would lead? Well, whoever's left. And whoever the cabal chooses. And therein lies a real risk. That said, the 'resigners' - assuming there are LOTS of them - would be there to speak truth to power and could frame the debate like no one else would ever be able. And the debate would be between them and the usual RW shills. The officers who remain - with a few exceptions for designated spokespersons - are unlikely to speak out as that is not what military officers do.

Swiftboat? Possible, but not likely. Remember, this would be the heart of our officer corps.

[w8liftinglady]

21. this is an excellent post.

thank you for posting this information.

[grasswire]

24. here's the skinny

Participants:

Andrew J. Bacevich, professor of international relations at Boston University and the author of "The New American Militarism" -- officer in the U.S. Army from 1969-1992

Brig. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap Jr., a staff judge advocate at Langley AFB. In 1992 he published an essay entitled "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012." His views here are personal.

Richard Kohn, chair of the curriculum in Peace, War, and Defense at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and editor of the book "The United States Military Under the Constitution of the United States 1789-1989"

Edward N. Luttwak, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the author of many books, including "Coup D-Etat, A Practical Handbook"

Bill Wasik, senior editor Harper's

Part One:

Wasik: Let us begin with the most straightforward approach. Would it be possible for a renegade group of military officers, or the officer corps as a whole, to simply plot and carry out a coup d'etat in the United States?

Luttwak: If somebody asked me to plan such a coup, I wouldn't take on the assignment.

Dunlap: I wouldn't, either (Laughs)

Luttwak: I've done it for other countries. But it just wouldn't work here. YOu could down the list and take over these headquarters, that headquarters, the White House, the Defense Department the television, the radio and so on. You could arrest all the leaders, detain or kill off their families. And you would have accomplished nothing.

Bacevich: That's right. What are you going to seize that, having seized it, gives you control of the country?

Luttwak: You would sit in the office of the Secretary of Defense, and the first place where you wouldn't be obeyed would be inside your office. If they did follow orders in the office, the people in the rest of the Pentagon wouldn't. If everybody in the Pentagon followed orders, people out in the military bases wouldn't. If they did, as well, American citizens would still not accept your legitimacy.

Kohn: It's a problem of public opinion. All of the organs of opinion in this country would rise up with one voice: the courts, the nedia, business leaders, education leaders, the clergy.

Luttwak: You could shut down the media ---

Kohn: You can't shut it down. It's too dispersed.

Luttwak: No, you could shut down the media, but even if you did shut down the media, you still wouldn't be able to rule. Because, remember, in order to actually rule, you have to have acceptance....

Kohn: I've raised this point before with military audiences: Do you really think you can control New York City without the cooperation of 40,000 New York police officers? And what about Idaho, with all those militia groups? Do you think you can control Idaho? I'm not even going to talk about Texas.

Bacevich: And this comes back to the federal system. As Edward pointed out, even if you seized Washington, Americans are willing to acknowledge that Washington is the seat of political authority only to a limited extent. The coup plotters could sit in the Capitol, but up in Boston we're going to ask, "What's this got to do with us?"

Dunlap: It's also impossible given the culture of the military. The notion of a cabal of U.S. military officers colluding to overthrow the government is almost unthinkable. Civilian control of the military is too deeply ingrained in the armed forces.

snip

Bacevich: But this does bring up another crucial reason there could never be a military coup in the United States: the military has learned to play politics. It doesn't need to have a coup in order to get what it wants most of the time. Especially since World War II, the services have become very skillful at exploiting the media and at minipulating the Congress -- particularly on the defense budget, which is estimated now to be equal to that of the entire rest of the world combined.


Many pages more. This is just the beginning of the dialogue.

[Stinky The Clown]

25. That's all about a coup ..... what about mass resignations?