But the Air Force has the planes with the bombs and is full of religious nuts.

We must have briefly crossed wavelengths today: I was thinking our military might think they should have at least as big a pair of testicles as the Thai military....

It's a sad day when we resort to seeing the military as some sort of savior. A people that puts up with what Bush has recently done regarding fair trials, habeas corpus, and warrantless wiretapping, however, would probably put up with anything in the name of security. Our Republic is history.

t,

I hope your comment wasn't directed my way: I do not see the military as some sort of "savior". Far from it.

I see the military as being there to uphold our Constitution and our Republic.

If that means using the might of the military to remove this disgusting regime, then stage untainted elections, ala Thailand, then Fxxxing A yes, I would support that.

You do realize, Thaksin was a Media billionaire, controlling the news? Attacking the few remaining media outlets that reported his corruption? Holding tainted elections?

I know Thailand, t.

It's why I am called farang.

I am J.D. Henderson. I appreciate your comments on my posting about national insecurity.

As for some of the comments or the words to the effect that generals "know lots of ways to nullify orders without technically disobeying them," I think you misunderstand the critical and limited role the military plays in our self-governing republic. The officers speaking out publicly are not disputing whether we should have invaded Iraq, but whether the Army was allowed to plan for success and properly staffed and equipped to win. In short, not whether we should invade, but HOW we should invade in order to accomplish the stated goal of regime change. The military takes no positions on whether we should or should not go to war. That is a decision for the People of the United States, speaking through their representatives and Senators in Congress. Only Congress has the power to declare war, and military officers must obey those orders the best they can even if they strongly disagree - and a military officer must NOT publicly disagree with a political decision. The officers speaking out now are speaking out about professional military matters - whether Phase IV planning was sufficient, whether Rumsfeld's micromanagement is harming the Army's ability to carry out successful operations, staffing levels, the lack of truthful reporting to the American people about what is occurring in Iraq and in the Army. The decision to go to war in the first place, however, is a civilian decision, one that can only be made the people. The Army stays out of it. Individuals can have opinions, but the Army does not.

That means, sadly, that if I or any of my fellow officers were ordered to invade Iran, as stupid and self-destructive as that might be, I would do my best to carry it out just as if it were my idea all along. You can not and must not rely on the military to "correct" mistakes that are made by the people. Democracies can make mistakes just like any other form of government, but the military will not and must not correct them. If it ever does we no longer have a democracy but a military dictatorship - and the republic will have ended. Army officers are sworn to obey the will of the people and to protect and defend the Constitution. That means they can not disobey lawful orders - for that would violate their oath.

Democracy is easy to support as long as you don't suffer the consequences for bad decisions made by apathetic or ignorant voters who care more about who wins American Idol than about their children sent off to war. But supporting democracy is why the US Army exists - it was founded in 1775 in order to fight the Revolution, and that Revolution continues to this day. The Army can not ignore the will of the people without betraying the very purpose of its existence - the guardian of the Republic. Thus if the people foolishly order an invasion of Iran, the generals will not seek a way to avoid that order. The Army will carry out the orders of Congress and fight to win - even if it risks the destruction of the Republic. That is because the only other alternative is killing the Republic - and it will not die at the hands of the US Army.

I can't speak for the Navy or the Air Force, but I do know there are cultural differences between the services, and that the Air Force response to the religious abuse at the Air Force Academy was, to me, shameful. I can only speak to what I was taught and believed as an infantry officer in the US Army, and that was absolute obedience to the lawful orders of the people - Vox populi, vox dei. If the people make mistakes the military, as only a tool of the people, will carry out those mistakes.

I may not have made myself clear, J.D. I wasn't suggesting that the military should have taken it on itself whether to obey or disobey orders to go to war in Iraq. I was pointing out, based on experience in bureaucracies at all levels from army basic training to the White House, that senior bureaucrats who feel that their organization is being steered over a cliff, and feel that they themselves are held in contempt by their superiors, will be, shall we say, somewhat less than prompt about driving off a whole new, and higher, cliff. The services have staunch friends on the Hill and in industry and in the community of veterans. The Iron Triangle may generally be used to protect military budgets and weapons systems, but I have no doubt that in extreme enough situations it could serve to countermand (perfectly legitimately under the Constitution) any push to further damage our military by invading Iran. I'm not saying what ought to happen in some ideal military if Bush is nuts enough to order the invasion of Iran; I'm just saying what I think will happen, in the real world. Even in my brief two years as a private in the U.S. Army, I saw plenty of idiotic orders subverted, ignored, delayed, or reinterpreted out of all recognition on their way down the chain of command. And usually it was a damned good thing, too.