Revolt at the Pentagon

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

There's something inherently dangerous in Generals, retired though they may be, stepping into the public eye to demand anything of the civilian leadership of the Armed Forces. When they are calling for the Secretary of Defense to resign, the issue is potent with Constitutional issues.

Tennyson wrote of soldiers of a different country and a different war:

Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die

Still, a soldier, even if he wears stars on his shoulder, does not make policy. He conducts the policy of the President as communicated through the Secretary of Defense. President Bush has clung to Donald Rumsfeld through the Iraq WMD fiasco, Abu Ghraib, and the deepening sense in the public, and apparently also in the military, that the Iraq occupation has become an unwinnable quagmire.

What is to be done here?

Glancing at the text of the Constitution, it appears that Congress' only response is mentioned in Article 2, Section 4, which lays out the grounds for impeachment of "civil Officers", as well as the President.

Let me be clear. I'm not talking about impeaching the President here. I am wondering however if Congress has ever impeached a civil officer, such as a cabinet member, and if so, whether Donald Rumsfeld has done anything that would amount to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

I doubt that his history of stretching the English language to its furthest boundaries and engaging in a policy of strength through bravado rises to that standard. He is said to have offered his resignation on several occasions after Abu Ghraib, but the President refused it. The President's cabinet and staff serve "at the pleasure of the President", but if Rumsfeld's leadership at the Pentagon is taking us towards something like a constitutional crisis in a time of war, we have a very, very serious problem.

George Bush appears to be the only person who can solve this issue. His track record on problem-solving is not heartening. Then there's the deeper issue: what if the problem isn't really Rumsfeld, but Bush? What if Rumsfeld was replaced and communication between the White House and Pentagon completely broke down because the President can't tolerate change and can't adapt to new personalities?

We are, through an odd and often tragic series of events, at war. It is not a popular war. The commander in chief is an unpopular president, and increasingly appears to be an unpopular figure to the military. He is a man who lives to dig in his heels, clench his jaw, and swing at whatever enemy he imagines stands before him.

He went after the CIA when it appeared to have institutionally sided with John Kerry in the last election. What will he do to America's armed forces if he perceives the Pentagon to be a hotbed of dissent?

These are dangerous times that grow more so all the time. America chose wrong in 2004. How much damage will we allow George Bush to do to the institutions of our nation that sustain our freedom and power? Time will tell, but if the rest of the story goes the way it has thus far, we won't care at all for the ending.