There is an amazing story in the NY Times today about a quite serious debate going on among students and faculty about, not only on how the war was fought, but the responsibility of commanders to speak up against decisions they know are wrong.
The article raises serious Constitutional questions regarding following the chain of the civilian command over the military.
For the sake of argument, a question was posed: If enough four-star generals had done that, would it have stopped the war?
"Yeah, we’d call it a coup d’etat," Colonel Fontenot said. "Do you want to have a coup d’etat? You kind of have to decide what you want. Do you like the Constitution, or are you so upset about the Iraq war that you’re willing to dismiss the Constitution in just this one instance and hopefully things will be O.K.? I don’t think so."
Is it that simple? Or . . . do
"We have an obligation that if our civilian leaders give us an order, unless it is illegal, immoral or unethical, then we’re supposed to execute it, and to not do so would be considered insubordinate," said Major Timothy Jacobsen, another student. "How do you define what is truly illegal, immoral or unethical? At what point do you cross that threshold where this is no longer right, I need to raise my hand or resign or go to the media?"
Interesting questions, where is the line drawn? What should the military brass have done?
But there is a much bigger question. Back in 2003, very few people in the military, Congress, the main stream media, or respected citizens were asking the hard questions of the administration. When people did raise questions they were ignored, or it was suggested that they were being disloyal, or worse. It is amazing that even in a democracy, with a free press, free speech and the right of dissent, that we allowed this situation to happen. We need an even more balanced form of goverment, to further break up the concentration of political power. How do we prevent another tragic unnecessary war?
http://www.nytimes.com/...