By Matt Underwood Fears grow inside military over illegal orders after Hegseth authorized follow-up boat strike. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the authorization of a follow-up boat strike by Hegseth has cast a long shadow over the military, sparking deep concerns about the potential for illegal orders and the consequences of blindly following them. The discussions surrounding this situation highlight a serious erosion of trust and a growing sense of unease within the ranks.
The core of the problem seems to be the very nature of the actions themselves. Striking against unarmed boats, regardless of suspicions of drug smuggling, is, at its face, problematic. The core tenet of international law, the necessity of establishing clear justification before the use of force, is called into question. Why not arrest the suspected traffickers upon reaching American shores? This seems like a reasonable alternative.
The implications of this scenario are far-reaching. Every service member, before they even sign up, swears an oath and is trained on the potential real-world consequences of their actions. This oath, and the associated training, are not just formalities; they are the bedrock of military conduct and the foundation of the implied social contract that exists between soldiers and their leaders.
The unspoken agreement between the troops and their leadership is being strained. Service members operate under the assumption that they are not always privy to all of the information that their leaders might have. They trust that those higher up the chain will ensure that the orders they receive are legal and just.
There is a growing sense that leaders are not taking full responsibility for the orders they issue. The consequences of following questionable orders seem to be falling disproportionately on those at the lower levels, which is a dangerous trend. The idea of scapegoating the people doing the job is at odds with the trust that should exist.
It has become evident that the administration’s actions are raising serious concerns about the potential for abuse of power and the erosion of legal standards. The dismissiveness toward basic rule of law and the willingness to skirt the edges of legal and ethical boundaries is creating an environment of fear.
The focus on the illegality of the initial actions, coupled with the apparent disregard for international law, has created a chilling effect. The emphasis on the importance of refusing illegal orders, as outlined in the Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual, is gaining importance.
The notion of a social contract is being questioned. There is an expectation that if a service member acts in good faith, they will be protected by their superiors. Now, there is fear that immunity won’t be guaranteed if the order has been deemed as illegal. This raises questions about what constitutes a clearly illegal order, and what level of responsibility a junior member is expected to bear.
Furthermore, there is a mounting fear that the whole chain of command might not be held accountable. The failure to hold all responsible accountable might encourage further illegal actions. This raises questions about who should be held accountable, and how those in leadership positions should be brought to justice.
There is a sense that the current situation is an indication that leadership has forgotten the importance of their oaths and their constitutional duties. The idea that leadership has betrayed the trust of those under their command is gaining momentum. There is a call for accountability.
The administration has failed to address this issue adequately, which has only heightened the concerns within the military. The lack of transparency and a perceived unwillingness to punish those involved has further fueled the anxiety within the military. There is a desire to see consequences for those who violate the law.
The incident is seen by some as an example of systemic corruption within the government, specifically the Pentagon. The belief is that this administration is willing to manipulate the military for its own political gain, with little regard for the law or the welfare of its service members.
There is also a growing fear that this is the beginning of a larger pattern of abuse. The administration may be using the military to pursue its own agenda, without regard for the rule of law. The belief is that the administration is intentionally eroding the standards of conduct to allow it to be able to get what it wants.
This situation has revealed a deep divide within the military regarding the proper role of the armed forces in a democratic society. The military is meant to act as an organization of professionals that are bound by the law. The perception of an ever-growing disregard for legal protocols is causing serious doubts about the organization’s integrity.
It is clear that the current situation demands a thorough investigation. Those involved in the authorization and execution of the follow-up boat strike need to be held accountable for their actions. It is crucial to restore trust in the military and uphold the rule of law.