what you think is more effective than the so-far ineffective calls, letters, emails, blogging and so forth.

While I certainly agree that the above tactics have not resorted in the sort of dramatic responses from the Democratic leadership we'd all like to see, I don't think it fair to label these efforts totally ineffective. If that is so, then why (for example) do O'Hanlon, Zelikow and others feel the need to address Glenn directly in attempts at refutation? My feeling is that they do so because they fear that Glenn's exposure of their methods will result in changes to their effectiveness.

I think there is a place for all the methods of protest mentioned, and I think they have degrees of impact that largely depend upon the ways that individual members of Congress interact with, or pay attention to, the public.

The larger point that Glenn, and many others here stress, is that change is an incremental creature and it does not happen overnight, but it does happen. And any means used to implement it is a means that has not been wasted. We each need to contribute in whatever way we can, and we need to keep at it, until we see the changes that we seek happen.

I got the same DSCC email. When I tried to unsubscribe in disgust here is what I got:

The requested URL could not be retrieved

I think I'll send them an email to tell them the requested funds could not be sent due to lack of performance.

Thanks for the suggestion. I think I'll join you. ;->

The speculation that the US will have no allies when it attacks Iran are false. It is now clear that the Albanian military will fight alongside US troops. The Albanian navy will blockade Iran with our navy. With our military stretched to its limit in Iraq it would've been impossible to launch a conventional attack on Iran, but our great ally Albania solved that problem. I had been worried for a while that Bush would declare war on Iran and no one would come, but now I'm at peace, because there's always Albania.-- pantanal

Can you say co-a-li-shun?

An attack on Iran would be bad news, but in the long run a millitary that does not obey the civilian, elected leadership would be far worse.-- JBinMO

...a military that understands that it has a constitutional duty to refuse an order that violates international law, the laws of the United States and, not least, all the laws of common human decency.

They do not take an oath to obey the civilian elected leadership. They do take an oath to defend the Constitution. It's long past time for them to remember this basic fact.

Something I love about this messageboard...

Whenever I make a crazy statement that I think will elicit a strong response like "I think Al Gore cost Ralph Nader the 2000 election", I get nothing. Make a statement like "the millitary should continue to take orders from elected officials", someone freaks out.-- JBinMO

And I definitely understand your larger point that there are good (and Constitutional) reasons why the military doesn't make it's own decisions. Just pointing out that it goes a bit beyond that, in that it's also important to understand that there exist situations under which the military is not obliged to follow orders and that it would be all to the good if they started to understand that very soon.

I love this comment section too for too many reasons to list...you all know who you are. ;->

This president defends all his actions as legal, what general should we allow to interperate the laws?

I wouldn't expect otherwise from him. And I believe that pig feces will fly out of W's mouth every time he opens it, but there's plenty of objective evidence out there that both are wrong.

I am not advocating a military overthrow of the civilian government. I am saying that there are legitimate actions that military personnel can take, indeed are obligated by their oath to the Constitution to take, when they are given illegitimate orders by their civilian leadership.

There are already examples of this happening out there.

http://www.thankyoult.org/

If the low-rung guys are the only ones rising to the occasion, then I have to ask what has happened to the courage of their superiors whose actions and words would be of much greater consequence?

(though calling Israel a "client" of the US is probably stretching things)

Chicken or egg?

Good post Shaun. These are all points I bring up when I am having the 'should we/ shouldn't we' argument with one of the various and sundry republicans in my life. It's pretty much useless, like I'm throwing pebbles that are bouncing off their foreheads. But I feel compelled to keep pitching.

Not because the forgot their oath, but because the white house has done everything it could to blur the lines. What is legal or illegal is now very confusing to a lot of people. If this most fundamental right (habius corpus) can be blured, what can't?

I agree that the lines have been blurred and that the administration has done everything in its power to push all lines in a direction favorable to them. But the idea that our military should not understand the difference between a legal and an illegal order, and how they should respond to such orders, is not true unless Bush has managed to shitcan all ethics courses in all of our military academies (Karl's "hobby" for the weekends?).

That the majority of those protesting orders in this fashion so far seem to be lower on the ladder tells me that soldiers are entering the service already understanding their obligations.

There haven't been many yet, so your position is understandable, but the numbers are growing, and so my hope should be equally understandable.