When officers (and while at Leavenworth) get to the point where a number of them not only criticize both generals and politicians openly, but both raise the spectre of refusing to obey the orders of their superior officers and the civilian leadership, and then other officers not only debate, but begin to think about it, then it is clear that something is gravely wrong, not just a major problem. And when much the same thing has been going on over in Britain, with all ranks from Private straight up to the Chief of the Defence Staff criticizing their civilian leadership publicly, it is also clear that this is not an isolated case. This a critical issue that has been left fester for soem time now within the civilian-military relationship in the English-speaking world.

The stresses, strains, and overstretch of the military forces of much of the English-speaking world while both the civilian political and senior military leaderships are reaching, or have now reached, a perhaps critical point. The one officer who responded to strong suggestions that generals should have said "No" to the politicians by calling that a "coup d'etat" is taking it a little too far. A coup d'etat is when the troops physically overthrow or eject the lawful government or elements thereof. That is not what is going on here, or even being suggested. If a general resigns in protest against what are immoral, unlawful orders, that is not bucking the supremacy of the civil authority. It may even not be unlawfully defying civil authority for the generals to say "No" to an war that they believe to be immoral and unlawful.

The problem here though, is twofold. First of all, in concrete cases, where is the dividing line between moral, lawful rejection of an immoral, unlawful order, and insubordination and even mutiny? Second, and this is particualry pertinent in the present situation, is when civilian leaderships not only reject the military advice of the generals, but are seen to effectively expell those whose advice they reject, the civilian-military relationship is put under stress; when that already stressed relationship is subjected to the strains of an over-stretched military engaged in a prolonged and difficult war, and serious political divisions back home exacerbate the situation at almost every turn, it should not come as a surprise that a breach is developing between much of the officer corps on one side and the civilian leadership together with the generals who have acquiesced to that leadership on the other.

The civilian leadership and elements of the general officer ranks have brought this upon themselves and the rest of the military. But now the officer corps to an extent that it has probably never been, is politicized, angry, and many of them are no longer afraid to show it. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out over coming years.