hunterbishop.com

Former state Senator Anson Chong e-mailed with good questions about the current military (newspaper) uprising against President George Bush:

Isn't it unconstitutional for active duty military leadership to publicly call for the ousting of the civilian leadership?  I thought that the constitution was set up specifically to place the military under the direction of elected civilian leadership. (Much as I agree with the idea to dump Rumsfeld -- and Bush for that matter -- this greater principle, it seems to me, needs closer examination and debate before, say, a bunch of Generals decides to take over the government).

Although the military newspapers are technically produced by civilians, the funding is out of the DOD budget, I believe, and overall policies are determined by the military, so what goes in as an op-ed can be construed as coming directly from the military active duty leadership.

Anson wanted input so I'm posting his comments for wider discussion.

My immediate thought is that it's a remarkable sense of patriotism that leads a person to reject a strongly desired result -- removal of Donald Rumsfeld -- if it involves all the dangers inherent in a government takeover by the military. Of course Donald Rumsfeld is only the symptom of what's wrong in government, not the disease itself. Citizens who agree with the generals need to rise up especially at ballot booths -- beginning Tuesday -- to effect the cure for this disease. Bush is stubborn and he'll keep Rummy on just for spite, all the while easily able to find a replacement no better if not worse than the current Secretary of Defense. That's the price we are paying for electing Bush. While to my dismay he's still the president, it is still a civilian government. I'd prefer it stay that way.

(That headline quote from Al Haig above is from 1981 when President Reagan was shot and chaos ensued at the White House. Haig, then Secretary of State, made the statement to the media. While it's illustrative for this post, try reading it in full context here before renewing your judgement. The general, I think,  may have been clumsy and wrong, but not necessarily evil.)