The right of generals to resign

[MrBigglesworth]

The Sunday Times has a story about how some generals would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran:
SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece

Is it healthy for the country for generals to do something like that, or should they follow any order that they are given? How far does that go? The 'following orders' defense didn't work at Nuremberg, but this situation isn't anywhere near that. On some level though, the generals should follow civilian leadership even if they don't approve of the mission.

Just wondering what people thought about the duty of generals to follow orders no matter what.

[Young Drachma]

I'm pretty sure that officers have the right to resign their commissions, though I'm not sure of the specifics of that.

Because most generals have served 20+ years, they can retire whenever they want pretty much and so..seems like it'd be more a case of saying "well, it's been real. But I'm outtie," than flat out disobeying a direct order that's given by the CINC.

[JeffNights]

Of course they can retire whenever they want to....Bush and his people know this, kinda like a checks and balances type of thing..although I'm thinking good ol' bushie-poo doesnt really comprehend in the first place.

[st.cronin]

I didn't realize it was already time for the monthly OMG WE'RE ABOUT TO ATTACK IRAN thread.

We are not going to attack Iran.

[Izulde]

There's really no incentive to attack Iran.

[st.cronin]

There's really no incentive to attack Iran.

That's putting it mildly.

[EagleFan]

I thought this was the top story...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1437672.ece

:D

Oh, and of course we are going to attack Iran. Bush is going to lead us to the end of the world. If Kerry were elected we would be sitting around a campfire with Iran, toasting marshmellows and singing Kumbaya (sp?). ;) :D

[MrBigglesworth]

I'm pretty sure that officers have the right to resign their commissions, though I'm not sure of the specifics of that.

Because most generals have served 20+ years, they can retire whenever they want pretty much and so..seems like it'd be more a case of saying "well, it's been real. But I'm outtie," than flat out disobeying a direct order that's given by the CINC.
Is that good though for the country? Basically I guess what I am saying is, do generals have a moral obligation to follow whatever order the CINC gives, or is it moral for them to resign if they don't believe in the order.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... do generals have a moral obligation to follow whatever order the CINC gives, or is it moral for them to resign if they don't believe in the order.

Hmm ... I'd probably be inclined to argue that it's "moral" for them to resign if they are unwilling to follow a lawful order but I'd question their integrity strongly if they know they are unwilling to do so but delay resigning in order to continue drawing a paycheck/getting closer to pension/etc in spite of the fact that they have sworn an oath to do so.

[MrBug708]

Is that good though for the country? Basically I guess what I am saying is, do generals have a moral obligation to follow whatever order the CINC gives, or is it moral for them to resign if they don't believe in the order.

I don't think morals has anything to do with it. If they resign they would be people who could step up. Most generals could pretty much quit when they want to or so I think. Funny how that works....

[duckman]

I wonder if the president can reject any retirement or resignations from generals. If that is possible, it would force them to command or be charged with not following a lawful order.

[MrBigglesworth]

I wonder if the president can reject any retirement or resignations from generals. If that is possible, it would force them to command or be charged with not following a lawful order.
That's a good question. There was a story about a private being court martialled because he refused to go to Iraq (would have accepted going to Afghanistan), and he is in jail right now I believe. Do generals have the ability to deny assignments that soldiers don't? If they do, I could see why, if they can't, I could see why too.

[astrosfan64]

If it is a time of war a general can not simply say "i'm out". He could refuse to follow an order, but then he would be releaved of command and maybe prosecuted.

Heck, Officers can't even say I'm out at the end of their tours in a time of war.

[gstelmack]

I'd love to see how that stacked up against the "stop-loss" orders that affect all other officers in the military...

[sachmo71]

I don't know 100% how it works, but I believe that an officer's commission is voluntary after they have served any mandatory time required on initial enlistment.

In this case, I would hope that it was more of a case of not having faith in the CIC, rather than a number of people trying to make a political statement.

[Shepp]

In the case of most Generals they have already served for the 20 years that the service requires to retire. They are still there, well because their generals. Most of these folks are are threatening to resign are simply retiring.

[Barkeep49]

I think there's a key difference between: launch a war against country X and capture city Y, once the country is already at war with Country X. Generals need some willingness to follow orders they disagree with. The launching of a war, however, seems like an order they should be entitled to resign over.

[SteveMax58]

...SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources....

...The 'following orders' defense didn't work at Nuremberg, but this situation isn't anywhere near that....

...Is it healthy for the country for generals to do something like that, or should they follow any order that they are given?

As you pointed out, Nuremberg was a much different situation. Following orders to round up civilians & place them in ovens, or conduct experiments on them is much different than following orders to invade and occupy. You can argue war crimes against the Political leader for invasion & unrightful occupancy, but not the soldiers carrying out those actions. Murdering captured civilians is an obvious crime to anybody's senses...and anybody assisting or ordering that is just as guilty.

I think it is acceptable to resign, under extremely specific circumstances...as in getting the order to begin exterminating detainees (civilian or otherwise)...but as a General in any military, you are there to advise & carry out your Political leaders' direction. Morality is determined by the voters that put them in office...voice your opinion all day...but it isnt your decision as a General.

As a side note...the bolded part is where I think people need to be careful in completely believing what is said. "Unnamed officials", "according to close contacts", "reliable sources report"...regardless of which political side they seem to help or reinforce...all have to be properly weighed alongside of speculation. Not that I'm saying reporters need to divulge their contacts...but to a point I get the feeling these are used more often as a way for lazy reporters with a bias to 'make stuff up' because it is probably true in their mind. Not saying this is the case here...but I'm not a high ranking official, so I couldnt prove or disprove this article to any reasonable degree.

[gstelmack]

I don't know 100% how it works, but I believe that an officer's commission is voluntary after they have served any mandatory time required on initial enlistment.

It hasn't been for the stop-loss orders for Iraq...

[st.cronin]

I think there's a key difference between: launch a war against country X and capture city Y, once the country is already at war with Country X. Generals need some willingness to follow orders they disagree with. The launching of a war, however, seems like an order they should be entitled to resign over.

I think this idea is historically obsolete. Its no longer unusual for the US to run military operations without being at war, and the grey zone between WAR and NOT WAR is sufficiently large that it doesn't make sense to use that as the criteria.

I believe the reality is that if a general officer offered his resignation to the CinC, the CinC would be obligated (morally and politically, if not legally) to accept it. I don't know the legal status of such a move. I can't imagine it has come up very often in our history.

[Warhammer]

There is a lot of gray area in this.

First, I think that a general has a right to resign, but that seriously impacts the rest of the military. All militaries are based upon one single concept, the requirement that subordinates must follow the orders of their superiors. The fact that a general can disagree with their orders and resign, as opposed to enlisted men who must follow orders or be subject to court-marshal hurts morale.

Second, much of it depends on the scenario. If the President orders an attack against the opposing power bloc in the US, that is one thing. A general can ignore that order because it is endangering the US, and their oath is to the flag and country, not to the President. However, in the case of a foreign country, I feel that if the President orders an attack, it should be carried out. Unless, the general has a very good reason to disobey.

Coincidentally, I think this is precisely why we are in the mess we are in Iraq right now. I think the first batch of generals in charge of the occupation were too concerned about political ramifications and did not ask for additional troops. I know that can be debated, but generals should stick to military matters and leave the political items to the politicians.

[Klinglerware]

Coincidentally, I think this is precisely why we are in the mess we are in Iraq right now. I think the first batch of generals in charge of the occupation were too concerned about political ramifications and did not ask for additional troops. I know that can be debated, but generals should stick to military matters and leave the political items to the politicians.

But for better or worse, the military leadership cannot avoid entanglement with politics both foreign and domestic. The decentralization of the branches of service and the competitive nature of procurement forces them to shill in front of the elected civilian leadership, with the immediate goal of turf protection. Regarding foreign policy, modern militaries don't have a strictly war-fighting function. In the US case--the military is often the face of America abroad. Not only does the behavior of the military impact relations, the military is often asked to provide services that one would expect to be undertaken by NGOs or even the State Department.

As for why the generals did not ask for additional troops--perhaps the memory of the virtual evisceration of Erik Shinseki was still fresh on their minds as a lesson on career advancement in the (then) current environment. Shinseki was interesting as an example in the political wars (again procurement, r&d, and turf protection) waged between the military and the civilian leadership--in this case Rumsfield and Shinseki had vastly different visions for the 21st century US military, so there was probably pre-existing bad blood. Ultimately, the 300K troop requirement comment that ended Shinseki's career is illustrative of the reality that the military leadership is not immune from political machination either.

[vex]

Bush should reject their resignation and dishonorably discharge them.

[RendeR]

Bush should reject their resignation and dishonorably discharge them.


Lucky for our Officers the president doesn't have this authority. While the President may be the CIC he is not, specifically a military member and has no authority over individual personnel decisions within the 5 branches of the service.

Any Officer may resign his or her commission who has passed their obligatory point, however the processing of that resignation can be delayed at the behest of the service as a "needs of the service" comes first over individual member's wishes.

Officers who have not fulfilled their commisioning obligations (terms from 2-6 years depending on the conditions of their joining the Officer's ranks) are just as trapped as enlisted personnel. They have no resign my commission clause yet within their records.

The Generals who threaten to resign their commissions are stating that instead of retiring and collecting all their benefits , which would take time to process and clarify, they would resign their commissions and leave 20-30 years of service time empty handed to avoid committing another ignorant war under their watch.

Hope this helps.

[PSUColonel]

There's really no incentive to attack Iran.

I disagree with this. Iran has been a big part of the problem in Iraq. Iran is sending weapons and troops to Iraq to fight the USA. This is somewhat similar to the situation in Vietnam. In this case Iraq is Vietnam, while Iran is what Cambodia was. Iran is also attempting to gain nuclear capability, and have theatened to "wipe out" one of our allies.

[flere-imsaho]

This is somewhat similar to the situation in Vietnam. In this case Iraq is Vietnam, while Iran is what Cambodia was.

And 30 years after we pulled out, they're all happy capitalists and good allies. Good to know you support troop withdrawal, then.

Iran is also attempting to gain nuclear capability, and have theatened to "wipe out" one of our allies.

We've sold F-14s to a regime that rules a country in which both the Taliban base their current operations and Osama bin Laden is reported to be living under the protection of local tribal leaders. What's your point, exactly?

[14ers]

I didn't realize it was already time for the monthly OMG WE'RE ABOUT TO ATTACK IRAN thread.

We are not going to attack Iran.
I agree. Since there is no way Bush and his friends can get richer from attacking Iran why would Bush want to?

[JonInMiddleGA]

... however the processing of that resignation can be delayed at the behest of the service as a "needs of the service" comes first over individual member's wishes.

And which point they would remain subject to the UCMJ, which includes provision for court-martial of those who refuse to follow a lawful order.

[RendeR]

And which point they would remain subject to the UCMJ, which includes provision for court-martial of those who refuse to follow a lawful order.


Officers who are processing for detachement from the military are removed from positions of authority. As soon as the Generals formally file a resignation they'd be removed from duty. There is nothing they can charge them with.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Officers who are processing for detachement from the military are removed from positions of authority. As soon as the Generals formally file a resignation they'd be removed from duty.

But presumably they would be returned to duty if their resignation is refused/denied, AFAIK there's nothing that leaves them in limbo forever ... at which point they would either follow orders or be subject to charges.

[Barkeep49]

I think this idea is historically obsolete. Its no longer unusual for the US to run military operations without being at war, and the grey zone between WAR and NOT WAR is sufficiently large that it doesn't make sense to use that as the criteria.

I believe the reality is that if a general officer offered his resignation to the CinC, the CinC would be obligated (morally and politically, if not legally) to accept it. I don't know the legal status of such a move. I can't imagine it has come up very often in our history.
I'm not talking about a declaration of war, I'm talking about going to war. We clearly went to war in Iraq, formal declaration or not. Presumably, we'd act in a similar manner against Iran, whatever it was that we called it.

[RendeR]

But presumably they would be returned to duty if their resignation is refused/denied, AFAIK there's nothing that leaves them in limbo forever ... at which point they would either follow orders or be subject to charges.

A General's retirement might be refused/denied/delayed, but if he resigns his commission he's done, he becomes a security risk. They can't deny or delay on this because to do so leaves an unhappy employee in charge of your war.

Does that clarify it better Jon?

[Rizon]

There is a 0% chance Bush will attack Iran. I just put down $4000 in Vegas on that.

[Glengoyne]

I didn't realize it was already time for the monthly OMG WE'RE ABOUT TO ATTACK IRAN thread.

We are not going to attack Iran.

What he said.

[JonInMiddleGA]

They can't deny or delay on this because to do so leaves an unhappy employee in charge of your war. Does that clarify it better Jon?

And my point was/is that they can, your quote above seems to be about why they don't. I think we were answering two different questions.