Replies

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.

“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