"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."

Comments

[mouser.livejournal.com]

RICHARD H. KOHN is Professor of History and Adjunct Professor of Peace, War, and Defense at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has been Chief of Air Force History for the U.S. Air Force and Omar N. Bradley Professor of Strategic Leadership at Dickinson College and the Army War College.

He speaks as an arm chair general, not as someone who has ever had to make the choice between order, oath, and morality.

At the end of the day, soldiers are humans not automatons. I can come up with hypothetical and historical on both sides of the issue. "I was just following orders" and "That may be the law, but the law is WRONG!"

What it all boils down to is "Can you live with yourself in the wee hours of the morning?" and what are you willing to risk? Your life? Your fortune? Your sacred honor?

U.S. soldiers of all branches all make the same oath:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (National Guard is different and mentions the states, and the last sentence is optional.)

The order is intentional, as is the phrase "True Faith". It's not "I'll blindly follow orders" it's "I'll do the best I can for the country and the people."

You do also risk courts-martial, of course.

(Former Enlisted, U.S.A.F)

[ionotter.livejournal.com]

That is the enlisted oath, not the officers oath. It does not contain the passage about obeying. To wit:

While enlisted Servicemembers take an oath in which they promise to "obey the orders of the officers appointed over me," officers do not undertake any such obligation to obey, but rather to support and defend the Constitution. This difference is significant because it confers on the officer a weighty responsibility to, as Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold put it, "give voice to those who can't—or don't have the opportunity—to speak."6 The obligation to nation and subordinates cannot conceivably be interpreted as meaning blind obedience to civilian masters. This obligation is given legal codification in the United States Code, Title 10, Armed Forces, which charges commanding officers to "safeguard the morale, the physical well being, and the general welfare of the officers and enlisted persons under their command or charge.7

The military professional's core values and oath of office demand the exercise of moral autonomy in carrying out orders. He has sworn to defend the Constitution and safeguard the welfare of his subordinates. Implicit is the obligation to challenge orders whose consequences threaten either without apparent good reason.