Posted on 10/05/2010 6:36:46 AM PDT by markomalley
There are circumstances under which a military officer is not only justified but also obligated to disobey a legal order. In supporting this assertion, I discuss where the tipping point lies between the military officer's customary obligation to obey and his moral obligation to dissent. This topic defies black-and-white specificity but is nevertheless fundamental to an understanding of the military professional's role in the execution of policy. It involves complex issues—among them, the question of balance between strategy and policy, and between military leaders and their civilian masters.
Any member of the military has a commonly understood obligation to disobey an illegal order; such cases are not controversial and therefore do not fall within the purview of this article. Instead, the focus is on orders that present military professionals with moral dilemmas, decisions wherein the needs of the institution appear to weigh on both sides of the equation. Whether the issuer of the order is a superior officer or a civilian leader, the same principles apply. However, because issues at the strategic level of decisionmaking have greater consequences and raise wider issues, I focus on dissent at this level.
In the face of such a dilemma, the military professional must make a decision, which cannot simply owe its justification to the principle of obedience, and must take responsibility for that decision. But when and on what grounds should the officer dissent? And how should he do so? I offer three propositions:
1. The military officer belongs to a profession upon whose members are conferred great responsibility, a code of ethics, and an oath of office. These grant him moral autonomy and obligate him to disobey an order he deems immoral; that is, an order that is likely to harm the institution writ large—the Nation, military, and subordinates—in a…
(Excerpt) Read more at ndu.edu ...
A great failing by many modern military leaders has been their willingness to go along with bad policy for whatever reason - another star, membership in the club, elite life style (yes, it does exist and is too often wife-driven), desire for future political favor and position.
No one would suggest that our generals and admirals refuse to carry out the orders or policies of the legally emplaced civilian authority. But they can resign.
If some of our four stars had resigned during the Vietnam War to protest Johnson’s no-win policies, it might have had a different outcome.
If some of thsoe same four stars were to resign over Obama’s ongoing decimation of our military, the American people might wake up to the coming loss of superpower status.
Similarly, if some four stars were to resign to protest Obama’s meat grinding war without victory in Afghanistan, the public might wake up to what is a looming defeat and more 9-11s.
Agreed - it’s well reasoned. I think what too many of us senior officers fail to acknowledge is that the decision to disobey a lawful order on ethical grounds carries with it the obligation to accept the consequences of disobedience. EVERY brand new colonel thinks, for some length of time, that he or she is the next anointed one and will get a star. It takes real moral courage to disobey, knowing that the vast majority of the American public won’t ever hear the true story.
Colonel, USAFR
An excellent posting -T’anks. I was an enlisted Medic. I
have kin who recently graduated from the War College as an
Airforce Officer. (he did a lot better than I ever did.)This appears to me to affirm in application Col.Lakin’s stand I
hope it awakens the Congress to their Constitutional duty.
I just watched “Seven Days in May” with Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster. Considering the age of the movie, I thought it was very relevant. Remarkable was the weak president’s strong stand on the Constitution to save his hide, as opposed to what we have in office now.
One of the reasons I left the service after finishing all my committments was watching too many who went along to get along instead of standing firm on what was right.
I don’t think it is well reasoned at all. Take this paragraph:
“Take, for instance, the decisions by the Coalition Provisional Authority in May 2003 to disband all Iraqi security institutions and to impose a policy of de-Ba’athification without any corresponding caveats permitting reconciliation. Assume, for the sake of argument, that these were bad policies that fueled the nascent insurgency with thousands of armed, trained, and disgruntled young men with drastic consequences for American forces and U.S. efforts in Iraq. Assume, too, that these consequences can be deemed predictable by the reasonable man. With these assumptions in mind, would not the military chain of command have been justified in refusing the order? The traditional argument would deny military leaders this recourse simply because the orders reflected policy decisions.”
The traditional arguments doesn’t allow officers to disobey because the military officers are not elected. Checks and balances are provided by ELECTIONS, not by officers deciding to disobey legal orders because they do not like them.
The policy in 2003 was determined by the US government. The elected CINC approved...so who is some Colonel or Major to refuse? If he did, what recourse would the PEOPLE have?
“This means, for instance, that a military leader might be justified in insisting that Congress vote to declare war in order to ensure that the decision stems from legitimate authority. He might also be in possession of information not available to the public, indicating that the stated rationale for going to war is invalid, in which case he has an obligation to speak out.”
As for the first - the war in Kosovo was challenged, and the Supreme Court decided that in funding the operation, Congress gave its approval. It is pretty hard to claim that Congress did not approve of the war in Kosovo when it regularly voted to continue it.
In the latter case, speaking out has risks the author doesn’t acknowledge. I once strongly objected to an acquisition decision. I was ignored by higher ranking officers. Later, I was read into a program that made it clear WHY the acquisition decision had been made. I had access to TS information, but still didn’t have as much access as my bosses - I just thought I did.
That is why one is required to TRUST the higher ups. A) They are higher ups BECAUSE their experience and judgment has put them in position of higher trust than you are, and B) they often have access to information you don’t - even with a TS clearance - and they are making decisions based on information you don’t even know exists.
A very important point in the article is how Congress has shirked it’s Constitutional role. Where are the declarations of war on Afghanistan and Iraq? A vote to allow the President to conduct military operations is substantially different from declaring war. Congress doesn’t want to unfetter the military, but wants political results that gets Congress reelected. ( And this is both parties fault),
>> That is why one is required to TRUST the higher ups.<<
Thus the fear for may of us that the military will follow a tyrant against “we the people”.
No. This article discusses LEGAL orders - where the disagreement would be policy, not law or morality. It argues military leaders have the right to disobey orders they believe show bad judgment, which is banana republic time...
ping
...
Declarations of War.
I believe that the US Constitution gives authority to engage in military action short of all-out war. Marque & Reprisal were those very things in that day.
However, they were military strikes of limited duration OR military response in long-simmering, intermittent hostilities. (Actions against the Barbary Pirates, for example.)
The time frame and level of required action seemed to be the dividing line.
In that case, the US has been involved in military action in Iraq and Afghanistan for roughly 8 years. That is not “limited duration.”
Nor can the combat be described as long-simmering, intermittent hostility. It is regularly at the level of full combat.
The conclusion is that you are correct: there should, at least now after 8 years, be a Declaration of War justifying all this long-term, intense combat..
When my 18 year old son joined the Marines last year, I told him I was worried about how Obama might misuse the military. His response was “Dad, I’ll never shoot American citizens”. Now he tells me that this sentiment is fairly common in the ranks.
“That is why one is required to TRUST the higher ups. A) They are higher ups BECAUSE their experience and judgment has put them in position of higher trust than you are, and B) they often have access to information you don’t - even with a TS clearance - and they are making decisions based on information you don’t even know exists.”
I don’t think this is a disagreement with my observation (and as somebody with TS/SCI and code-word clearances for years now, I have a pretty clear sight picture of the situation you describe, and agree with your observation). My point was that there are situations (for me, the issue of open homosexuality as military policy) that may require an officer (or enlisted) to disobey a “lawful” order in order to live with himself. But the other side of the coin is that that same military member will have to accept the consequences of his disobedience.
Colonel, USAFR
“My point was that there are situations (for me, the issue of open homosexuality as military policy) that may require an officer (or enlisted) to disobey a “lawful” order in order to live with himself. But the other side of the coin is that that same military member will have to accept the consequences of his disobedience.”
Fair enough. I’d respect someone like that.
I would hope that sentiment is more than “fairly” common. I would prefer near unanimity.
Yes: but it is catch and release on Rinos
I'm waiting for [compost them and use for fertilizer] season. I want to decimate their ranks ten times in rapid succession.
“I would hope that sentiment is more than “fairly” common. I would prefer near unanimity.”
Discussions about disobeying orders, under even the most extreme circumstances, is not something professionals do casually. That was true even when I served as a conscript. More would probably do it than are willing to talk about it.
“I’m waiting for [compost them and use for fertilizer] season.”
There’s trophy hunting, then there’s vermin eradication. RINO hunting would be the latter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.