Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

Gen. Clark             (Supreme Allied Commander, NATO)
Gen. Hoare             (Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command)
Gen. Schwartzkopf      (Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command)
Gen. Scowcroft         (National Security Advisor)
Gen. Shalikashvili     (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff)
Gen. Shelton           (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff)
Gen. Shinseki          (Army Chief of Staff)
Gen. Jones,            (Marine Commandant)
Gen. McPeak,           (Air Force Chief of Staff)
Gen. Zinni,            (Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command

Here's the Reader's Digest version:
They knew the invasion of Iraq did not pass the commonly accepted legal test for necessity and proportionality in self-defense as first articulated by Daniel Webster in the case of the "Caroline" ... the gold standard for deciding self-defense. All the arguments against attacking Iraq can be made even more strongly against attacking Iran.

Here's the longer version:
Two issues mitigate against generals speaking out while they are active duty.  First, they take their oath seriously to protect the Constitution. That means they have to subordinate their command to civilian authority.  If you doubt that, consider this point: In any self-respecting banana republic, a dictator who made as big a miscalculation as Bush would be removed by a military coup.  

Second, men who will risk their lives are loathe to risk their careers.  Shinseki stood up and said what needed to be said using the proper institutional venue for doing that, a Congressional Hearing.  He got canned. That is why people who Rummy couldn't mess with started taking point.

The military commanders knew what they were going to be doing, and they don't like to lose.  The whole invasion of Iraq violated the Powell Doctrine in a variety of ways.  There was also the matter of international law.  In addition to violating the UN Charter, which has the force of law, here are some of the Nuremberg Principles that were violated:

Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

a. Crimes against peace: (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
b. War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

Note this particular statement regarding culpability:

Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

Sources:
Charter of the International Military Tribunal,Aug. 8,1945,59 Stat.546,546-47.

The U.N. General Assembly unanimously affirmed "the principles of international law recognized by the Charter of Nuremberg Tribunal & the judgment of the Tribunal." G.A. Res. 95(I), 188 U.N. Doc. A/64/Add.1 (1946)

International Law Commission formulation. [1950] 2 Y.B. Int'l L. Comm'n 374-78. U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/ 1950/Add 1.

=
While international law may be a topic that is fuzzy to recidivists like Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, it is crystal clear to military commanders.  In the US it is formally known as "The Law of Land Warfare".

The Principles are set forth in Dep't of the U.S. Army, Field Manual FM2710, The Law of Land Warfare sec. 498511(1956).

Purpose:
The purpose of Army Field Manual 27-10, "is to provide authoritative guidance to military personnel on the customary and treaty law applicable to the conduct of warfare on land and to relationships between belligerents and neutral States."

Source of Law:
The sources for the law of war are defined as follows (Chapter 1, Section I, para 4): "Lawmaking treaties may be compared with legislative enactments in the national law of the United States and the customary law of war with the unwritten Anglo-American common law."

Binding upon Individuals:
(Chapter 1, Sec I, para. 3b) "The law of war is binding not only upon States as such but also upon individuals and, in particular, the members of their armed forces."

Binding on Civilians:
The manual notes (Chapter 1, Sec I, para. 7b) "Under the Constitution of the United States, treaties constitute part of the "supreme Law of the Land" (art. VI, clause 2). In consequence, treaties relating to the law of war have a force equal to that of laws enacted by the Congress. Their provisions must be observed by both military and civilian personnel with the same strict regard for both the letter and spirit of the law which is required with respect to the Constitution and statutes enacted in pursuance thereof.

Applicability:
(Chapter 1, Sec I, para. 9) "... a declaration of war is not an essential condition of the application of this body of law. Similarly, treaties relating to "war" may become operative notwithstanding the absence of a formal declaration of war."  The manual also notes (Chapter 2, Sec I, paragraph 23) "The Charter of the United Nations makes illegal the threat or use of force contrary to the purpose of the United Nations ... a State which resorts to war in violation of the Charter will not render its acts of aggression or breach of the peace any the less unlawful by formally declaring war."

International crimes:
Specific crimes under international law are covered in detail (e.g., Chapter 8, Section II, paragraph 498).  The manual states "Any person, whether a member of the armed forces or a civilian, who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment. Such offenses in connection with war comprise:

a. Crimes against peace.
b. Crimes against humanity.
c. War crimes.

Nuremberg Principles:
The United States is a signatory to the Nuremberg Principles.  In 1995, the United States sponsored a General Assembly resolution that voted unanimously to reaffirm the Nuremberg principles.  The legal definition regarding the three crimes listed above, like many of the other rules stipulated in this manual are derived from the Nuremberg Principles.

Crimes against peace:
Nuremberg Principle IV defines specific crimes punishable as crimes under international law and defines "Crimes against peace" as follows:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

War Crimes Defined:
This term is explicitly defined (Chapter 8, Section II, para 499) as follows: "The term "war crime" is the technical expression for a violation of the law of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war is a war crime."

Unacceptable Defenses:
The manual is very clear in the section "Defenses Not Available" (Chapter 8, Section IV) that one cannot simply claim they were "following orders." The manual actually reserves a separate paragraph for Government Officials (Chapter 8, Section IV, para 510) which states "The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a war crime acted as the head of a State or as a responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility for his act."

Punishment:
Offenses under the Law of Land Warfare are treated seriously.  The manual clearly states (Chapter 8, Section III, para. 508) "The punishment imposed for a violation of the law of war must be proportionate to the gravity of the offense. The death penalty may be imposed for grave breaches of the law. Corporal punishment is excluded. Punishments should be deterrent, and in imposing a sentence of imprisonment it is not necessary to take into consideration the end of the war, which does not of itself limit the imprisonment to be imposed."

==
Semper Fi
That means "always faithful"...but it is not a pledge to a party, a king, or a class. It is a pledge of allegiance to one another, to the Constitution that binds The Union.   The troops who have the courage to stand up to the lunatics who took over the asylum need our support more than ever. Those who have violated their oaths to protect the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic need to be held accountable.