probably a good idea to read this, particularly US readers

[solarbird]

Breaking Ranks: Dissent and the Military Professional. The military is trying how to figure out how to deal with the abdication by Congress of its role over military policy. The linked article talks about Bush administration ineptitude in Iraq, the Bush administration's unconstitutional and treaty-violating torture and habeas corpus orders, and so on - the author of this article has no illusions about these acts - but also deals with that dereliction of Constitutional duty, noting:

In a February 2010 article, Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling, USA, accused Congress of "all but abdicating many of its war powers."13 He is correct. In recent years, Congress has proven less than vigorous in carrying out its constitutional duties pertaining to the military, creating what is essentially a constitutional void.

The military seems to be talking to itself about how to fill that void.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Well, that particular discussion has been going on, within the senior ranks, since the MacNamara era of the Vietnam conflict.

A certain amount of introspection is encouraged amongst candidates for staff officer postings -- not just at Carlisle in the States, but in other countries as well. I can personally (and anonymously, necessarily) speak to the long-drawn-out ruminations at Valcartier, concerning the Canadian military's performance, or lack thereof, as a voice of conscience to then-Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau during the quickly-suppressed Canadian civil war of October, 1970. Younger readers in Canada may wish to run a Google search on the October Crisis to understand what that was all about.

Turning to America, there were small-scale, but highly-effective, interventions by the senior staff against Presidential actions which the Joint Chiefs of Staff viewed as erroneous:

1) at the end of the Nixon presidency, to frustrate a feared Gotterdammerung use of the nuclear command system by Mr Nixon (which was probably a beneficial intervention)

2) and at the end of the Carter presidency, to hobble and ultimately botch the Delta Force operation to rescue embassy hostages from Tehran (which, personally, I think was badly-intentioned).

One more point. Discussion grounded in candour is good; one expects staff officers to possess skills of critical and lateral thinking, and to be willing to step up to roles beyond those of their immediate posting. However, the discussion can also be taken out of context. It would be quitre understandable for people to take LCL Yingling's remarks out of their intended context and see them as a rumination upon the possible need for a coup d'etat.

Historically, the political classes ofimperial states have resorted to the creation of concentric layers of personal defence corps, along the lines of the Praetorian Guard (in Rome) or the Fuhrer Begleit Abteilung (in Germany).

There is a continuum of conscience and self-aggrandizement between GEN Douglas MacArthur on the one hand, and OBST Claus von Stauffenberg on the other hand.

Apologies for anonymous and somewhat-rambling commentary; for some of us who served or who are still serving, this debate carries risks of severe personal consequences. I add the obligatory disclaimer that I am fully cognisant on the prohibition of foreign involvement in American political discourse (would that such prohibition were symmetrical with respect to othe countries!) and in no wise am I a party to American politics.

-- a retired staff officer with various decorations that would only matter to others of like circumstance