Losing the military?

If one looks throughout history at dictatorships, political movements, whatever, there is one common factor: control of the military. In some cases, such as the Mexican Revolution, loyalties get divided, reducing the effectiveness. In the case of the Nazis, it is quite clear that the SS would not have been as effective without the military solidly behind Hitler. My point is, without solid support of the military, it is next to impossible over time to stay in power. I know, a no-brainer (any historians out there with good examples to refute this - please, by all means, post something in the comments).

There's been a lot of buzz about Sy Hersh's latest article in the New Yorker about how the Bush regime is planning on possibly using nuclear arms against Iran. I know, crazy. One of the things Hersh mentions is how many top-level people in the military are vehemently opposed to this, as they well should be.

Now, since this whole Iraq fiasco started, a common element seems to be the wanton disregard of experienced military opinions that don't fit in with the Bush plan. Former Central Command chiefs such as Anthony Zinni and Joe Hoar had their warnings about the folly of Iraq disregarded. Now a third has come to the fold. In an article in the Time magazine, retired Marine Lt. General Greg Newbold (another military brass-type whose warnings went unheeded - which also led him to retire) lets it all loose about the mistakes and the zealots who continue to push them He's no fan of Rumsfeld, either. A sampling:

"What we are living with now is the consequences of successive policy failures. Some of the missteps include: the distortion of intelligence in the buildup to the war, McNamara-like micromanagement that kept our forces from having enough resources to do the job, the failure to retain and reconstitute the Iraqi military in time to help quell civil disorder, the initial denial that an insurgency was the heart of the opposition to occupation, alienation of allies who could have helped in a more robust way to rebuild Iraq, and the continuing failure of the other agencies of our government to commit assets to the same degree as the Defense Department. My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions—or bury the results."

Hear hear. He also encourages those officers still in the military to stand up and speak out:

" With the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership, I offer a challenge to those still in uniform: a leader's responsibility is to give voice to those who can't—or don't have the opportunity to—speak. Enlisted members of the armed forces swear their oath to those appointed over them; an officer swears an oath not to a person but to the Constitution. The distinction is important."

In an recent interview, Sy Hersh also pointed out that:

"[O]ne thing about our military, they’re very loyal to the president, but they’re getting to the edge. They’re getting to the edge with not only Rumsfeld, but with Cheney and the President."

And that makes me wonder: could there ever be a point where, although not a full-fledged military coup, that the military leaders and large groups of soldiers say 'Enough!" and resign or desert? It' s really tough for me to gauge military opinion, because although I know a lot of veterans, I don't know anyone currently serving in Iraq or a family member of someone who is. A quick dip on the web sends mixed messages. Here's something screwy... Zogby has a poll that shows that almost 90% of the troops think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11. The poll also states that just 1 in 5 want to heed Bush's call 'to stay as long as needed'.
Is it cognitive dissonance? Are they still feeding the troops a line of shit? Who knows?
If you peruse the Stars and Stripes military paper, you see a wide range of opinions in there. Expectedly, many are in support of the war. Unflinching, unquestioning. Yet every now and then you see a soldier who's had it. My question is, is the U.S. military capable, through insurrection or whatever, able to put an end to this lunacy? Hersh's article even says that if nuking Iran stays on the tables, there are many military brass ready to resign.
I asked my dad if there was anything similar to this in 'Nam. He said it was quite a different ballgame back then. Plus he was over there in '65, before public opinion had shifted against it. What do you think?