Does anybody think the military itself will rebel?

[lildreamer316]

(tiptoeing quickly over to my flame suit) I know that is almost impossible to comprehend; but with the firings and the polls and the low morale and the missed recruitment goals......is this possible? I feel like I am daring to say the forbidden, but I have to ask....
For godness sakes. They're going to try to do Hiroshima again. I certainly don't think I could do it, but I'm not in the military. Enlighten me?

[evilqueen]

1. No flame here.

I don't think the lower ranking soldiers will rebel, but I do think the top brass are highly pissed and considering it. And I'd like to encourage all top brass to speak out about the things that they're being told to cover up.

[Gildor Inglorion]

2. Not a chance in hell

n/t

[Just Me]

3. Well, nothing is impossible to comprehend.

But, at this present moment, I can only imagine military involvement in the event senior members of this administration are indicted and refuse to leave office. But, like Rummy says, "Who knows?" *LOL*

[Just Me]

20. I am compelled to add that, the neoCONs have/are engaging in a coup.

If you think about it, the neoCONs are the ones engaging in a coup of our military.

[sasquatch]

4. If it does this is what will happen

You'll either have a fascist dictatorship take hold or their will be another civil war.
Troops will choose between the Paul Hackett's or the loyalist.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. I don't know if they have cleansed the military enough

during the Nixon mess they were asked, where do you stand

Behind the Constitution Sir....

It will take even more for senior officers to do it, but rumors are a plently that we may be comng to that point.

Rest assured it willnto come from a sergeant or an LT... but what I fear is that modern LT, who will be a general in 30 years... think of the formative years for that officer

[Cleita]

6. I would really fear a military coup.

We have seen in the past how those work out, which is one of the reasons I have never favored a military person for president (as much as we all liked Clark).

What I would like to see is the military brass have a problem with decisive movements. You know what I mean, just being too slow to react to things and get them done. Paper work, equipment checks, etc., slooww, slooowwww and sloooower.

[expatriot]

7. Not a chance in frickin hell.

whatchoo bin smokin, boy? even having low morale doesn't mean you don't support the Commander in Chief and the Constituional order of government. This is one hundred percent crazy talk in my opinion but we all have opinions so don't stop talking.

[lildreamer316]

10. Just food for thought

Just throwing it out there; I'm not particularly committed to it one way or another unless someone can show me that I should be.

[expatriot]

22. food for thought is what keeps us all nutritionized and on our toes

and stuff. we are outside the boxers, conservatives are inside the boxers.

[BrklynLiberal]

8. Isn't that what the whole Gen. Byrnes thing was supposedly REALLY

about? He was fighting against what Rumsfeld and Cheney were planning to do as far as setting up a domestic "terrorist"' attack to justify the US to attack Iran.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lildreamer316]

13. Thanks

I had read a couple of these but it's good for me to be able to ref them against each other. Wondering if we need to tie these all together...

[Laughlandia]

15. Not with the neocons...

As long as the neocons hold the reigns, this will not happen. Anyone who publicly expresses dissatisfaction will be slapped down hard. The only form of protest you're likely to see will come from those who retire and are in a position to speak their minds. The right-wing smear machine will, of course, attempt to destroy these people.

[DivinBreuvage]

11. Never say never, comrades

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. hmmm yes when the Russian Navy rebelled

[Pepperbelly]

27. I was in a mini-mutiny once but ...

it didn't last very long and no one actually knew we mutinied. Does that count?

[uppityperson]

12. If you mean they say "no", perhaps. A coup, no.

If you mean do more and more of the military refuse to follow orders, some will but I do not think the military as a whole will. It is up to us people, we citizens, to rebel and call down the administration that is supposed to represent us. The military won't.

If you mean a coup, no.

[lildreamer316]

14. Like mabe a majority of them?

Enough to put a halt to any major action like Iran? That's what I'm wondering.

[uppityperson]

16. Never say never but not very likely.

Part of the military training is getting it through your head that you are only a cog, that the higher-ups have A Plan. Aha, so will enough of them realize that the Plan is "wtf do we do now" and refuse to bomb Iran? I don't think so. I think Mr.bush will bomb Iran with convential weapons and whine. I think they might instigate an Israel/Syria/Iran/USA thing, but don't think the military will say no. Will he say nukes? Probably not for a while. I think it will be conventional and deadly. what the fuck does he think he is doing that's right he doesn't think.

So, things must get uncomfortable enough for enough people in the USA for them to actually take the time and effort and energy and change things. Because change is difficult and scary and they know what the bad things are now but the future is uncertain.

[Cleita]

32. And you really believe that?

The Catholic or any church tells you the same as well and God has a plan. Seems like the military works on the same principle. Really, you need to ask for the blueprints before you go along with the plan.

[uppityperson]

35. I agree with you. Question authority.

Unfortunately many in the military don't. And unfortunately I believe humankind is not, as a species, humane or kind, but I keep trying to change that.

Unless you were asking do I really believe Mr.bush will bomb Iran and that people have to be more uncomfortable to change and change is difficult.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Actually more questioning goes on than you'd think

The problem is you have to be damn sure that you are right, or the consequences for being wrong are a tad more serious than in the civilian world... Can you say Leavenworth? And in time of war in a war zone can you say firing squad?

[Cleita]

37. I know what you are saying. You can't say I won't.

However, I do know that you can display reluctance. If the whole team won't play, then the leader has to come up with another plan. Really, think about it. When one person says you have to, the only way it works if they follow.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. I know, look down at how I stopped volunteering

I questioned a very illegal order, my company was never deployed. They followed, if they had not, I probably would be dead. And Mexico City FOLLOWED, funny when the equivalent of a Lt General is playing catchup to a lowly O-3

But hell you have to be so sure of it, it is hard to comprehend at times.

Where this breaks (can we say Abu Graib) is when those who should know better, starting with the senior enlisted fail (the sergeant involved. Pvt England is still in the mode of yes sir no sir, three bag full), But the breakdown went further, to platoon and company commanders all the way to the DoD, senior civilian staff... in that case, the private who leaked the photos has left the army and moved out of his town.

But taking a stance takes guts... and it happens inside the military More often than people realize... I suspect Byrnes is one of those profiles in courage.

Oh and the military also says that if you say follow me, and they don't follow, you deserve what is coming next... but that is a full different ball of wax

[lildreamer316]

50. I LOVE this idea!

The next time someone says that God has a plan for (whatever) I'm gonna ask to see the blueprints.
Great turn of phrase!!!

[FightingIrish]

17. 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 governing 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 squandering 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.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Very well put

I might add... the oath is not to the President but to the Constitution (which you know), We came close to this point during Nixon, and Congress asked where the military stood, behind the Constitution. I hope, if they decide to go that route, that they remember that

[punpirate]

30. All that said, here are a couple of things...

... for consideration. Since a military coup would be illegal under the Constitution, arranging one for the sake of removal of the current government and installing another would likely result in the conviction of the leaders for treason. That eventuality would encourage the military to resist giving up control (which is the pattern all over the world regarding military takeover of governments).

The second matter is that there have been coup attempts (formal and informal) in the past. A group of industrialists and Wall Street bankers sought a military overthrow of FDR's government in 1933. They just picked the wrong person, Smedley Butler, to lead that military coup. He threw them over.

In 1961, Edwin Walker was relieved of his European Theater command for inciting his troops with right-wing literature and indoctrination lectures and for his public statements that it was the duty of the military to oppose civilian leadership in "preservation of the Constitution." Precisely the scenario being described today, except that the military leadership were the right-wingers and the civilian leadership was described as liberal appeasers (yup, same language, even then). Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer was relieved of his position as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and sent to NATO, an effective demotion, because of his rather right-wing influence on the joint chiefs (all this was the basis for Fletcher Knebel's novel, Seven Days in May, which was a lot closer to truth than fiction.

I doubt that a full-fledged military coup would be possible today, since the same tools available to Kennedy are available to Bush--dismissal and demotion and marginalization. That's why I think it's important to keep track of indications of those events--they'll be markers for what's happening inside the Pentagon.

Cheers.

[lildreamer316]

51. WOW very very well said.

This is exactly my thought train. It is certainly a delimma. Thanks for putting that into very eloquent words.

[firefox]

18. Their oath is to protect Constitution from enemies, both

foreign and domestic.

[punpirate]

29. That's not all of it, however...

... the second part is: "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." (For officers, enlisted is similar.)

The only official option for dissenting officers is retirement or resignation. That's one of the reasons why I've suggested that we need to keep apprised of those, as a sudden exiting of field-grade and general staff officers might indicate that something untoward is approaching.

Cheers.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Yes and I will remind you

disobeying illegal orders, though a career killer, is an obligation of those in Uniform as well.

This brings up how mine went down the drain (if you can call volunteering a career)

I was a medic with the Mexican Red Cross and until that fateful morning we were still part of the Army reserve, that fateful morning was the day the civil war started (January 1st, 1995)

Well I went down to work wearing still my Rank Devices and carrying my ID. When I got there an Army Colonel was there with orders to mobilize us... I was the Company Commander... I took devices off, and ID out and basically started citing the Geneva Convention as well as the fact that we were neutral as this was an internal conflict.

To make a long story short, within three months I was out... but we were never mobilized... every troop and officer across the world learns that one duty is to disobey illegal orders, and that is part of the UCMJ... the more I think about General Byrnes, the more I think there is more to that story than meets the eye. I wonder, did he refuse to obey illegal orders?

[punpirate]

41. Disobeying an illegal order...

... is not the same as arranging or supporting a military coup. Nor can a soldier be considered blameless in disobeying an order from the President to begin an attack on another country which the President had determined (rightly or wrongly) was a threat to the security of the US.

The constraints on disobeying an illegal order are fairly clear in the UCMJ. There has to be clear violation of US law involved (which would include violation of the Geneva Conventions, as we are a signatory to that treaty). Failing to act, or refusing to act on either a declaration of war or a national security issue, as determined by the President, would encourage prosecution of the officer or enlisted person involved.

The larger problem in this is the broad discretion given to the President by virtue of the War Powers Act, which was effectively a voluntary forfeiture by Congress of its powers to declare war.

That's part of the problem with having so much power invested in the White House and the National Security Council because of its direct advisory power. Stack the NSC with neo-cons and you get the invasion of Iraq, no matter what the military may think of it, and without any illegal orders being involved. The Iraq invasion was entirely stupid and wrong and justified on manufactured evidence--and the military certainly thought it was ill-advised--but, according to Congress and the law, it was lawful. It's up to Congress to determine that they were deceived by Bush and impeach him for his deceit (something they simply will not do out of partisan considerations).

Right now, Bush can plan and execute an air attack on Iran, quite lawfully, because of provisions of the War Powers Act. All he needs is a pretext (or a pretense) for doing so.

Byrnes may well have been headed for a fall for reasons unrelated to the charges made. We'll just have to wait for more information. But, his options are limited under law, as I've suggested. If he were aware of a determined plan to attack Iran, for example, without cause, he could stay in the Pentagon and dissent, formally or informally, he could resign and make public his concerns (which could open him to other charges). But, in no way, under current law, could either arranging a coup or refusing an order to prepare for an attack be construed as the lawful disobeyal of an illegal order. That's the UCMJ, too.

He or others, indeed, might feel that something is seriously amiss in the Pentagon, but his first responsibility is to report those misgivings up the chain of command. That's UCMJ, too.

He, or others, might be right in their estimation that a war without cause is being planned, but if he's not privy to the same intelligence as the President, he can't say that he's fully informed on the legality of the action, and that would be used against anyone rebelling against a Presidential order for military action. That's the essence of civilian control of the military, according to the Constitution. That's UCMJ, too.

Assuming for the moment that Byrnes was brought up on trumped-up charges as a means of silencing him on the issue of a planned attack--or to avoid the public exposure of a trial for attempting insurrection within the Pentagon--and there's no solid evidence right now that such is the case, he's still got his stars in a wringer, because there is, as far as we know, no unlawful order to be disobeyed. Planning is just that--planning.

Cheers.

[TheDebbieDee]

42. "Sudden exiting of field-grade and general staff officers......

might indicate that something untoward is approaching."

This has already happened. Several Generals retired or resigned their commissions when they could not support or execute the admin's plans for the Iraq invasion in the run-up to the war.

That's how Tommy Franks, dumb hick that he is, got to lead the invasion. All the Generals above him rank refused to take an understaffed and ill-equipped invasion force into Iraq.

[punpirate]

47. The run-up to the Iraq invasion...

... was the example I had in mind. We haven't seen that level yet with regard to Iran. In a much, much earlier post on the subject (several months ago), I suggested that were we to see the departure of several top-level brass hats over the course of the summer, we could expect some ill-advised action on the part of the Bushies in the fall.

The question becomes one of disagreeing with immoral justifications for an attack, or concern for the safety of troops. Many of those leaving the Pentagon before the Iraq invasion had concerns about the wisdom of trying to invade and occupy Iraq with insufficient numbers of troops. That had less to do with the morality of invading and much more to do with the safety of the troops and for the long-term success of the mission given to the military.

In the case of Iran, an invasion would present exactly the same problems for the top Army and Marine brass. But, would a massive air strike give the same qualms to the Air Force and Navy? Perhaps not, if they felt that their technological and numerical advantages would prevail.

There have been rumors (and, so far, just unsubstantiated rumors from questionable sources) that some Air Force planners are mightily upset with White House plans for an air war against Iran on moral grounds, but have not spoken out thus far because of career concerns. If we start to see Navy and Air Force people leaving, that may be an indication.

Cheers.

[Lexingtonian]

21. Nope.

Stop panicking, will ya?

What the military does in this situation was seen late in 'Nam. Units just crapped out and individual soldiers variously went alcoholic, did harder drugs, violated rules and got brigged, got sick, fraternized off with locals, murder/suicided, took selfinflicted injuries, and so on. Officers retired. Morale went...whereever it did. Units refused to take casualties, would just throw all the firepower in the general direction of the opponent and walk away when the ammo ran low or ran out.

The reliance on National Guard and Reserve units seen now was very deliberately put in place by the Pentagon after 'Nam, when it was decided that the reason the war dragged on so long was the disconnection that existed then between the soldiers/casualties and the general electorate (which consists largely of people between 40 and 70).

What we're seeing now is what what those Pentagon people created as the accountability mechanism- casualties directly affecting the electorate, especially in the most "patriotic"/conservative parts of the country where soldiers are disproportionately from, which in turn drives an accountability the politicians are held to.

As it is, we've now (via these things) nearly reached the point where the Bush people's key demographics are starting to give up on Iraq and turn on them. Moderate Republicans are pretty much gone, but that's not a terrible problem in itself (yet). It's when their hardliners start giving up (in their wierd, psychotic, cognitively dissonant all-at-once crisis-of-faith fashion) they can definitely fall through the ice, politically speaking, and that's what this Washington Post article is about- doing all they can to limit the damage.

[TheDebbieDee]

23. Self delete

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. When my husband left for Iraqi Freedom we considered that

option... he is now retired and never close to the top of the officer corps (enlisted after all)

[TheDebbieDee]

28. Self delete

[Mr_Spock]

25. I won't comment on an issue like this myself

When I hear about crackdowns in upper management I do take notice though.

[SeaRust]

31. Coup d'Etat--A Practical handbook

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674175476/002-4159737-4553626?v=glance

This is the best and most readable guide for planning your Coup. Please remember some of the most important lessons.

Seize the media
Unsure about loyalties--round them up
Don't announce what you haven't accomplished
Predictions usually aren't
Plan for both failure and success --both may happen

[Cleita]

33. Sounds like a gamblers manual. No thanks!n/t

[SeaRust]

39. Gamblers?--I don't get it---eom

[libertypirate]

40. If the good guys saw something comming... It is their duty...

That may not sound like much, but again we are talking about the good guys. I know I don't give my word unless I mean it.

[FreedomAngel82]

43. I wonder about that myself

:shrug: What will happen when they come back? What about their mental health too?

[RiDuvessa]

44. Military Coups always go badly.

The military has no right to rebel against a duly elected government. No would you want it to. You would not want that precedent set. Once you walk down that road, you can never go back. Would you really want the military to think it has the right to decide who belongs in office?

History is rife with examples of dictatorships that started with a military that thought it knew best. The Roman Republic turned into an empire when the military decided it liked Ceaser best. Look at Pakistan, Argentina under Peron, and all the petty dictatorships in Africa. Let me tell you, if the military rebels against the president, then the WILL decide who belongs in office, and it will go downhill from there.

There is a reason that the founding fathers made the military subservient to the government. The military is not suited to running a free government. Too much in the military relies on people obeying orders. If the military does as you are asking, it will result in a civil war, and probably end with a military dictatorship.

"I (state your name) do solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according the the regulations, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, So help me (insert deity of choice)."

This is the oath of enlistment. They only difference for officers is you take out the "and the orders of the officers appointed over me." No, I do not think that the military will rebel, and would be very scared if they did.

[wli]

45. but was Bushler in fact duly elected?

There's an interesting twist.

[RiDuvessa]

49. Until he is removed via legitimate means

i.e. impeachment, court finds evidence of fraud, etc, Bush is the legitimate President. The military does not have the right to decide whether the president is legitimately elected, nor should they.

Now, if the courts find evidence of fraud, and the Supreme Court declares the election null and void, or the Congress impeaches him and he refuses to leave office, then the military might have a legitimate reason to rebel.

Do you want the military to approve and endorse every election? The thought of that scares me worse then Republicans.

[wli]

46. it's possible, but the resignations indicate otherwise...

That is, it looks like they're rolling over and resigning instead of participating in the nuclear false flag or whatever.

[stevietheman]

48. Believe me, you're not the only one thinking about this....

if Bush dare attacks Iran, we all know what the grave danger of doing that will be, if some force *doesn't* physically remove the President.

Maybe it's a bad assumption, but I would have to believe the purpose of an American military coup would be to restore Constitutional government.

I cannot support a coup today, if Bush attacks Iran, or pulls a MIHOP terrorist event, all bets are off.