Several callers pointed that out to the host. She and her callers appropriately hmmmm'ed and accepted the premise. But they couldn't get past their sense of "fairness". They kept returning to the proposition that a soldier might have a "bad" commanding officer who disergarded their safety. In such a circumstance, they opined, surely the soldier has a right to complain and refuse to follow orders.
They just couldn't get it through their heads that soldiers don't (and shouldn't) know all the factors in a battlefield decision or whether another unit may be relying on them. There was a total absence of understanding of a soldier's oath to follow orders and what that oath entails.
Like I said, it was depressing.