"There are circumstances under which a military officer is justified to disobey a legal order."

[elfs]

So, it has come to this:

There are circumstances under which a military officer is not only justified but also obligated to disobey a legal order.

...

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 manner not clearly outweighed by its likely benefits.

This obligation is not confined to effects purely military against those related to policy: the complex nature of contemporary operations no longer permits a clear distinction between the two. Indeed, the military professional's obligation to disobey is an important check and balance in the execution of policy.

Joint Forces Quarterly, Issue 59. Everyone got that? Lt. Col. Andrew Milburn is arguing that it is his duty as an officer to decide if national policy, as consequented to him by his civilian commander, and is apparently legal, is moral enough for him to obey. This is the hubris of "military wisdom" that leads to military overthrows of government and the imposition of juntas.

What's particularly scary is that at least one of the previously mentioned "Oath Keepers" quoted Milburn. To be fair, he dissents from Milburn, boiling Milburn's argument down to "In effect, Lt. Col. Milburn’s dissenting officer assumes emergency powers and inherits veto power from his moral and strategic righteousness." He also linked to several excellent takedowns of Milburn, but finished by stating that the civilians in this country are "slovenly, self-absorbed, preoccupied with excess and welfare, and altogether ignorant of the two wars we've been fighting for the better part of a decade."