that generals stood up to Bush--the article in the oped section of todays' WaPo about Rumsfeld indicated that too many generals, more interested in thier next star, did not voice their opposition to Rummy's plans--too bad when those in power fail to speak truth to the more powerful. 

has been my observation; certainly, once you get your second star, politics reigns absolutely supreme in the promotion derby. I speak as an Army brat from pre-World War II time. Always will be that way, folks. And, maybe it should be. But that still doesn't relieve the professionals from an obligation to give professional advice.

During my short times in both the federal government and in private enterprise, and, come to think of it, even as volunteer leader in a trade association, since I was both female and the newest hire or the youngest one (and was therefore expendable)I myself usually got the short straw when it came time to tell the boss what he did not want to hear. That is, I had to go in and tell the head chimp his idea stank, his program wasn't working, or we had a scandal brewing and he had to do something about it.

A well-managed outfit always manages to come up with some way to tell the top dog he's wrong on occasion. It speaks volumes about the poor management in this Administration that no one would do that, and not just at the Pentagon. The head of the fish stinks first, which explains the universal brown-nosing going on. It has not changed, and isn't going to change until Bush is gone.

Look, I'm posting here because I'm a Dem. I don't like the administration, and I don't like the war in Iraq, and I don't like the thought of a war in Iran, but...

We have a civilian administration that decides what the military does and doesn't do. The military doesn't decide that. When they decide what to do or not do independently of the administration, it's called a coup.

Now I know that's an overdramatization, and a few generals quitting doesn't amount to a coup. Still, it's a disturbing trend, and I don't care for it.

I'm with "code" on this. I suppose these guys are allowed to retire, if they want to retire, but they certainly shouldn't be talking about it beforehand as a way of trying to influence policy. These military officials may be asked for their views on military affairs by their civilian superiors, but their job is to execute. That's the way it works in this country.

of the military has always been the hallmark of true democracy, and my father, a general officer, always said that was the glory of the American system; he never ever expressed political opinions while on active duty, and often did not even vote because he said that way led to coups. He had opinions however, believe me.

I therefore find the idea that flag officers might resign if given a politically motivated task they cannot stomach to be quite in keeping with the tradition of civilian control. It does not bother me, but in fact is rather heartening. As for politicization of the military, this Administration has been relentless in doing so--- remember how they flew in planeloads of absentee ballots to Florida in 2000 and 2004? How they gave talking points to briefing officers, actually hired journalists to provide biased reports and embedded them among our overseas soldiers, and staged phony publicity events (pulling down Saddam's statue, for example)... I find that far more disturbing than the resignation of some fedup and frustrated generals.

We absolutely have civilian control over the military.  I believe that military officers have the right to resign if they feel it necessary, maybe even the DUTY to resign if they find something morally repugnant, but the bottom line in this country is that the military is FIRMLY under civilian control.  Even if we don't like the civilian leadership.

I agree that it is a disturbing trend, but the implications of the resignation are unlikely to have structural implications (they will undoubtedly have policy and political implications).

I also find it ironic, that in 2005 when some retired military officers started questioning the conduct of the Iraq War that some conservative hawks essentially said if they REALLY believed that the war was wrong that they should have resigned before the war was launched (thinking in particular of criticisms of Batiste, Oden, and Keane).  It seems like this is exactly what the generals are considering doing in the case of Iran.

On the other hand, launching an unprovoked war against Iran WOULD have serious repercussions for American democracy--especially in a case where the Executive branch does without explicit authorization from Congress.  I suspect the generals may be counterbalancing these considerations in their decision.