I remember studying military coups, and wondering whether that might ever happen in the U.S., or whether our Constitutional traditions are strong enough to preserve civilian control. I don't recall wondering whether the opposite might occur: that civilian leaders would override the military; it almost doesn't make logical sense to ask the question that way. After all, civilians are supposed to be in control, right? And the military is presumed to be more likely to want to go to war than the civilians, right? Apparently not.
I think it's fair to say the Bush-Cheney neo-con regime has staged a coup against the military. The decision to invade Iraq, and all that entails, was made in opposition to senior military advice. A February 25, 2007, report in the Times of London indicates there is continuing resistance and unrest in the highest levels of the military: "Some of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran...."
Debate on this topic is also occurring among military rank & file, as is evident in a discussion on military.com: When columnist Joseph Galloway went out of his way to criticize the Bush-Cheney regime in his commentary on the veterans' medical care scandal at Walter Reed Hospital, the discussion board lit up with remarks that included debate about the civilian command overriding military advice. While critics were not in the majority at the time I read the board, they were a strong voice.
The invasion is still going on and the Constitution is in crisis; but the increasing concern among military and civilian alike encourages me.