By Matt Underwood US troops could disobey questionable orders, a concept that’s surfacing in discussions fueled by the recent words of a Catholic Archbishop. The core of the matter, as I understand it, is whether soldiers are bound to follow *all* orders, regardless of their nature, or if they have a moral and perhaps even a legal obligation to refuse those that are considered wrong. This question is particularly pertinent in a climate where trust in leadership might be wavering. It’s not a simple question of legality; the moral compass of the individual soldier is undeniably a factor.
It’s important to remember that the Archbishop isn’t just saying troops *could* disobey; the very oath of enlistment and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ, are critical here. Soldiers swear to defend the Constitution, and that oath is paramount. But their oath is to the Constitution, not necessarily to every single order issued, especially if those orders are questionable or violate the spirit of that Constitution. The question of what is “morally acceptable” adds another layer of complexity. Personal morality, and what constitutes a “questionable order” is subjective. However, this raises another crucial point: there is a distinction between what is *morally* acceptable and what is *legally* acceptable. These two things are not always aligned.
For many veterans, the stakes are very high. Imagine a young person enlisting for college or healthcare, facing a military prison if they question an order. Can they be expected to disobey, given the consequences? This speaks to a deeper concern about the kind of leadership being exercised, and whether soldiers will have their backs. The Archbishop’s worries about morally questionable orders resonate strongly with those who believe in ethical conduct. However, it’s also worth noting that the oath of enlistment is a two-way street. Soldiers are obligated to follow orders, but that obligation isn’t absolute if the order is unlawful.
The focus on the legality versus morality of an order is critical. The UCMJ does provide the framework to determine the lawfulness of an order. Soldiers are obligated to obey lawful orders, but are not obligated to obey unlawful orders. This is a very important distinction that is often overlooked in conversations around this topic. Also, it’s not only the soldiers who could be on the wrong end of these orders. Law enforcement, firefighters, and medical professionals can also have the right to refuse the implementation of these orders.
One must also consider the potential repercussions of disobedience. As the old saying goes, “Don’t fuck with the military.” The consequences of disobeying an order, especially in wartime, can be severe. This is what makes the whole discussion so weighty and the situation, with leadership at the top, even more troubling. When the entire chain of command is questionable, it’s difficult for the soldier on the ground.
The legal dimension must be carefully examined. The Enlistment Oath, the Officer’s Oath, and similar oaths all emphasize the support and defense of the Constitution. Therefore, the very foundation of the US military is rooted in upholding the law of the land. The question remains: Who decides what is a legitimate order? The Archbishop’s concerns highlight a fundamental responsibility for military personnel to grapple with their conscience and the law. This raises very difficult questions about where the line is drawn. It also brings into focus the roles of leaders.
The importance of the individual soldier’s moral compass is crucial. But, there is also the practical reality of being a “band of brothers”. In the face of a questionable order, what happens when one soldier disobeys? While others may be obeying? It is easy to say “disobey” but the ramifications are great. There are consequences. There is also the matter of what qualifies as an unlawful order. And it is quite difficult to refuse an order when the commander in chief is involved and most of the people around you are following. The circumstances of the order are secret.
The bottom line is that while it is clear that soldiers are not robots, and that they must have a moral compass, the practical realities of military life cannot be ignored. The potential for conflict between individual conscience and orders, particularly in an environment of questionable leadership, is undeniable. Ultimately, it’s a high-stakes scenario. The ability to disobey is there, but what are the consequences?