Whether we like or not, we are in a war. Granted, it's a war in the air and not on the ground, but it's a war nevertheless.
In times of war it's perfectly fine to protest it, refuse to support it, vote against it, and speak out against it. But it is not perfectly fine to be an elected representative encouraging active-duty generals to resign to undermine the President's foreign policy. That's what Steve Lamborn claims he and others are doing:
"A lot of us are talking to the generals behind the scenes, saying, 'Hey, if you disagree with the policy that the White House has given you, let's have a resignation,'" Lamborn said Tuesday, adding that if generals resigned en masse in protest of President Barack Obama's Middle East policy, they would "go out in a blaze of glory."
There's a difference between "I disagree with the President's actions against ISIS" (which is perfectly reasonable dissent and an absolutely vital and necessary component in a representative democracy) and being an elected member of Congress, freely admitting to going over the chain of command to directly influence foreign policy (by advocating for military personnel to resign and/or disobey the orders of the Commander-in-Chief). This is pretty much the textbook definition of treason as Karoli points out.
Indeed, because that would be full-scale treason, which those same insurrectionists like Lamborn and whatever crew he's hanging out with hope would result in a coup or utter failure of our foreign policy in the Middle East. Which would, in turn, lead to more deaths of Americans here and abroad.
So again I ask you what other President has had to put up with House or Senate members from the opposite party bragging about how they've met in secret with generals, during wartime, and that they tried to talk them into rebelling?
Makes a person think, yes?