By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Retired Lieutenant General Mark Hertling asserts that senior military commanders are grappling with the lawfulness of potential orders, emphasizing their primary allegiance to the Constitution, followed by lawful orders from superiors, and then their troops. This internal conflict is highlighted by recent threats to destroy civilian infrastructure in Iran, which experts deem war crimes. Hertling’s concerns are amplified by recent dismissals of senior military leaders and legal advisors, potentially undermining the checks and balances designed to ensure lawful conduct.
Read the original article here
The assertion that US military leaders are duty-bound to reject illegal orders, particularly from a president like Trump, raises profound questions about loyalty, the Constitution, and the very integrity of the nation. The oath taken by service members is to the Constitution, not to any individual, and this fundamental principle is at the heart of the discussion. The idea of a retired general voicing such a strong stance suggests a deep concern for potential abuses of power and a belief that the military has a moral and legal obligation to uphold constitutional law, even if it means defying a direct order.
When contemplating the implications of such a stance, especially concerning actions like deploying nuclear weapons or engaging in wars without proper congressional approval, the gravity of the situation becomes apparent. The notion that an order to deploy nuclear weapons, for instance, should be ignored highlights the extreme scenarios that could arise and the ultimate responsibility of military personnel to prevent catastrophic outcomes. The debate then shifts to what constitutes an “illegal order” and who has the authority to make that determination, particularly when the commander-in-chief is the one issuing it.
The discussion about whether veterans or active-duty military personnel should speak out on these matters is also significant. While active-duty members are constrained by their oaths and the chain of command, retired personnel often feel a greater freedom to express their concerns based on their past experiences and continued commitment to the nation’s principles. This dynamic can create a fascinating interplay of voices, with retired leaders providing a more direct critique while current service members navigate a more complex reality.
The question of whether military leaders would actually revolt or refuse orders, however, is met with a significant degree of skepticism. Many believe that the military is inherently trained to obey, and that the idea of a widespread refusal of orders, even illegal ones, is a naive fantasy. This perspective suggests that the ingrained discipline and structure of the armed forces would likely prevent any form of organized dissent, regardless of the ethical or legal implications of the orders given.
Furthermore, some argue that the US military has a history that doesn’t necessarily support the idea of a strong moral compass when it comes to obeying orders, pointing to past conflicts and actions that resulted in significant civilian casualties. This viewpoint suggests that a belief in the military’s inherent integrity or a willingness to prioritize a theoretical “greater good” over direct orders is misplaced, and that the reality is far more complex and potentially grim.
The concern that the leadership might have intentionally purged military leaders who would adhere to their constitutional duty in favor of those more loyal to a particular political agenda adds another layer of complexity. If this is indeed the case, then the safeguards designed to prevent illegal actions could be significantly weakened, leaving the nation more vulnerable to potential abuses of power.
Ultimately, the idea of a military revolt in response to presidential orders, particularly those deemed illegal, is a highly contentious one. While the principles of constitutional loyalty and the duty to disobey unlawful orders are fundamental, the practical application of these principles in high-stakes situations remains a subject of intense debate and concern. The very possibility of such a scenario, however remote, forces a critical examination of the checks and balances within the US system of government and the ultimate responsibility of those entrusted with the nation’s security.