Congressman urges generals to quit in protest (from:Syria Superthread)

[cupper]

You have to love the GOP and how they are playing this out.

Congress essentially abdicates its constitutional responsibility to wage whatever the hell we are calling this conflict. But the House Republicans are now playing the Big Bad Boogieman card by claiming they are the only ones who can keep the homeland safe from ISIS / ISIL.

The optics of cutting the congressional legislative schedule off after 7 days (after already cutting it short prior to the summer recess) without voting on a resolution to fund the operations on ISIS / ISI and the airstrikes expanding to Syria were bad enough to get them to come back for a few more days.

Now they are calling for Generals to resign in protest over Obama's failed policies.

GOP Congressman Urges U.S. Generals To Resign In Protest Of Obama's Foreign Policy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/26/obama-generals-resign_n_5888434.html

As U.S.-led airstrikes continue Friday near the Syrian border with Iraq, it's hard to imagine what would make the situation worse than the military suddenly losing all its generals.

But that is exactly what Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) told a group of voters he wants to see happen, the Colorado Independent reported.

"A lot of us are talking to the generals behind the scenes, saying, 'Hey, if you disagree with the policy that the White House has given you, let's have a resignation,'" Lamborn said Tuesday, adding that if generals resigned en masse in protest of President Barack Obama's Middle East policy, they would "go out in a blaze of glory."

Since Obama launched military operations against the Islamic State in mid-September, several reports have suggested that he may have a less than perfect relationship with his generals. Several high-ranking military officers and Pentagon officials have publicly voiced their disagreement with Obama's airstrikes-only approach in Syria. Former defense secretary Robert Gates said, "There will be boots on the ground if there's to be any hope of success."

Lamborn, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, has been an outspoken critic of Obama's military actions and his foreign policy as a whole. "After watching President Obama's rudderless foreign policy for the past five years, I have lost confidence in the president's ability to lead," Lamborn said in a statement earlier this month.

But military generals are unlikely to heed Lamborn's call to resign. When Gen. David Petraeus, then the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, openly criticized the administration's policies there, the White House reacted strongly, and some suggested Petraeus should resign. Petraeus decided against it, saying a resignation would hurt American interests. "Our troopers don't get to quit, and I don't think commanders should contemplate that, again, as any kind of idle action," Petraeus said.

Irv Halter, Lamborn's Democratic opponent, is himself a retired Air Force general. Halter objected to Lamborn's stance in an email to the Colorado Independent.

“It is inappropriate for Congressman Lamborn to politicize our military for his own gain," he said. “Our elected officials should not be encouraging our military leaders to resign when they have a disagreement over policy. Congressman Lamborn’s statement shows his immaturity and lack of understanding of the American armed forces. Someone who serves on the House Armed Services Committee should know better.”

Lamborn's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

[Hisoyaki]

I wonder what's the US military's official stance on its senior leaders' airing controversial views in public. It seems almost ingrained in their culture. Historically, Billy Mitchell and Douglas Macarthur immediately come to mind.

In any case, the left gleefully exploited the rift between Donald Rumsfeld and the US military when it was convenient to do so. They have also pretty much encouraged or excused draft dodging or desertion. What goes around...

 

[tomahawk6]

Quite a few officers through history have been fired for criticizing the civilian leadership.Whether the criticism is valid or not its prohibited.The revolt of the admirals was one such event.

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/docs/98-166.pdf

The “revolt of the admirals” is a subject that has intrigued military officers for some
time. The revolt was actually an intense inter-service debate between the Navy and the
Air Force ostensibly over the B-36 bomber program. The conflict grew; however, to
encompass not only the B-36 and the proposed carrier United States, but also it became a
struggle over unification and roles and missions. Additionally, the revolt is of particular
interest to military officers of today. Living in the politically charged environment in
which we are forced to survive, it is refreshing to study the sincere and poignant
arguments of some of the greatest military officers in American history engaged in debate
over doctrine. Names like Halsey, Nimitz, Spruance, Burke, Eaker, Spaatz, Vandenberg,
Eisenhower, and Bradley all had direct influence in the controversy, and we are obliged
as military officers to take note of their arguments and concerns of nearly fifty years ago.