When Not to Obey Orders (2019)
warontherocks.com
warontherocks.com
Of course population level passivity in the end allows the adversary to win but it's hard to be the first to stand on the front line.
The gov will burn itself down to fight you in court. They generally don't like to settle because losing just means they may have to raise taxes or insurance premiums. No gov attorney is likely to actually lose their job because they fought too long or hard and lost.
For instance, my settlement had to go through the financial committee of the county. Which means the lawsuit was scheduled as a line item in a televised public debate. Also, you could at least FOIA the bank records to a degree and reverse-engineer any payouts.
They've been clearing out people who might resist before they get a chance to, and have made it clear that your life's gonna be messed up (your career's over, if nothing else, which is a pretty big deal for normal non-billionaires) if you rock the boat.
The only major, public resistance has been over dropping the prosecution of NY's mayor, and the first of the prosecutors to resign received a letter promising retaliation against other members of her office and that she'd have an investigation launched against her, which, even if it goes nowhere, is basically promising to make someone's life hell for the next year or so. They're looking to hurt people who don't play along, so others just shut up and do what they're told.
We haven't seen them going after political opponents (Democrats or Republicans who don't nod along to every single thing—and business leaders, this isn't limited to politicians) but nearly everyone in DC and in big business is a bit dirty and I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing very selective investigations and prosecutions of things that everyone had kinda agreed to overlook up until now (and that may be far from the most-severe corruption going on), that they don't even pretend aren't aimed at getting everyone else to stay in line and go along with the agenda, legality be damned. They've got the access to do it and there are some indications DOGE and pals are starting to poke around in things like tax records.
In the US, there are just 3 branches. Unless you work for congress or the courts, you work for the executive branch.
These folks:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspector_General_Act_of_197...
Also some not-quite-just-serving-at-the-president’s-pleasure folks (according to the law, anyway) directors & other positions, notably the director of OGE.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_Gove...
Lasting change for the better could happen only if it was possible to prosecute actual crimes that happen. As long as these are immune (which they are), things will only get worst.
And as long as half of Americans are determined to euphemism away and both side away and twist themselves into pretzels to enable and excuse, things wont get better. And then it will take massive amount of reforms to make things good again. And pretty much all the totally not pro-Trump people full off infinite benefit of the doubt towards him will suddenly loose it.
I'm guessing the answer is tech companies, esp. the modern version of such. Modern military officers tend to give a lot of leeway & empowerment to subordinates so that mission-building can be more opportunistic and adjustable. Tech companies tend to eviscerate anyone who dares contradict someone of higher rank.
In the military it is a privilege to be given responsibility over a group of men and women. At least for me, I was very aware of these issues. I was a believer in the “God” camp. There is a noticeable contingent of US military who wear their religious beliefs on their sleeves. It is complicated but at least for me, morality occupied my mind all the time.
Even in peacetime, the Navy will launch 25 jets off an aircraft carrier off the coast of San Diego. They will be expected to go practice an opposed strike on a target in a range complex east of Reno, including multiple aerial refuelings and navigating the civilian airspace system. They will be expected to hit their target within seconds of the planned time. And they will be expected to come back and land on an aircraft carrier, at night, on the first pass.
And all the details of this kind of operation, from weapons planning to fuel planning to "who talks to whom on what radio net for what purposes" to flat-out "how do we simulate combat without anyone being killed in a midair collision" take place under the aegis of a bunch of twentysomething and thirtysomething junior officers led by a few thirtysomething (or maybe fortysomething) middle managers.
Plan-Brief-Execute-Debrief. Like a Scrum shop, except the iterations are 24 hours long and the penalty for sloppiness could potentially involve flames, wreckage, and death.
https://www.routledge.com/When-Soldiers-Say-No-Selective-Con...
The Carnation Revolution in Portugal overthrew the fascist government there and ushered in an improved though not perfect political system.
https://portuguesemuseum.org/?page_id=1808&exhibit=31&event=...
https://jacobin.com/2019/04/portugal-carnation-revolution-na...
I don't really have great faith that there is a set of left leaning military officers in the U.S. though.
Anyway, interesting article. It always striking to me just how significant the military is in formulating policy. There is a strong tension there that is often not acknowledged. Good to see people wrestling with it.
In a total of 5 military coups if I'm not forgetting any...
I have a theory, that the military are only interested enough on democracy after they come back from fighting against some dictatorship. Otherwise they are bad news.
There are two kinds of expected disobedience to orders in the US military. One is disobeying an illegal order, such as one to shoot prisoners. The other is doing what needs to be done to accomplish the mission despite conflicting orders. The second is why military orders have a "Commander's Intent" section. If the situation on the ground is not what was expected when the order was give, officers are expected to adapt to the new situation and overcome problems. Here's Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley writing about that back in 2017.[1] That was not about the moral issue, but the operational issues when command is messed up.
Milley faced the moral issue when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Trump lost the election.
Here's the US officer's oath:
"I ___, 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
German military oath, before Hitler:
"I swear by God this holy oath, that I want to ever loyally and sincerely serve my people and fatherland and be prepared as a brave and obedient soldier to risk my life for this oath at any time."
After Hitler:
"I swear by God this holy oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to the Leader of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath."
[1] https://www.army.mil/article/187293/future_warfare_requires_...
> "I, _____, 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."
Note that the enlisted soldiers' oath includes "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States" which the officers' oath doesn't.
Also, that '(or affirm)' bit is interesting too. It's there because some religions prohibit swearing, most notably in US history, the Quakers. In fact, a few Quaker presidents have refused to swear during inaugurations and have chosen to affirm instead, I think.
Do you know what the current path is on Germany? (I don’t, honest question!)
(Edited typo)
I swear to serve the Federal Republic of Germany faithfully and to bravely defend the rights and freedom of the German people, so help me God.”
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43087041
[1]: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/97813155... (available on Google Scholar at https://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:H0ZxVD...)
What? Why would they change it? ;D
On a more serious note, swearing allegiance to someone who's not alive isn't really much of an issue; it's basically the same thing as the US oath to "the Constitution".
And sadly he failed the test.
Perhaps less than you think:
https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch...
But honestly, as a foreigner I was just glad the military didn't come down on the side of Trump. As I understand it the leaders of the military are appointed by the president, people in the military love guns and gun rights, and veterans are pro-Trump by a wide margin [1] even following Jan 6th.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/30/military-...
This is a caricature that is as broad-brushed and offensive as claiming gay men all flounce around in assless chaps, and I say that with 20 years active and reserve service. Even in that poll (which I am curious about their methodology), 40% of veterans supported Harris, and my experience is that the military is a cross-section of society. I'm deeply skeptical that the modern military is as skewed towards one party as this poll would indicate. I highly suspect it is being skewed by either bad methodology or else by including a bunch of older veterans from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War, who would skew Republican. The military I served in was a diverse cross-section of broadly middle-class American society.
And the leaders of the military are commissioned officers who are formally appointed by the President, but their oath is to the Constitution. And military leaders have served through bipartisan administrations . . . my own service was under W. Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden, and today's senior leaders also would have served under Clinton and possibly H. W. Bush. There is no MAGA cabal in military senior leadership; the opposite if anything.
And just because someone "loves guns and gun rights" doesn't automatically put them in the MAGA column.
I agree they are painting with a broad and inaccurate brush but to compare it to the stereotypes queer people have to endure, especially in the current social/cultural moment playing out in the US, is honestly far more offensive IMO. Those two situations are not on the same playing field. People in the armed forces (who aren't LGBT) do not know what it's like at all to be judged like the queer community.
The (yes incorrect) perception that the militarily is overwhelmingly conservative/republican doesn’t have some massively outsized (often negative) impact on your life akin to being queer in the US.
And [2] says, in an analysis of voting precincts that map closely onto military bases, "On average, Mr Trump still won these precincts, though his margin shrank by nearly half. Patrick Air Force Base—located on Florida’s Atlantic coast and since renamed Patrick Space Force Base—supported Mr Trump by a 17-point margin in 2016. By 2020, his lead there shrank to 11 points."
So it may be more even among active duty military than among veterans, but an 11 point margin is still a win. Expecting that in a brawl they'd come out swinging on the Democrat side to me seemed naive, which is why them staying out of it seemed better than nothing.
[1] https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2018/10... [2] https://archive.is/v6qOf#selection-1067.0-1069.342
Loving the constitution is all very well, but Republican voters and senators seem to manage to square that with supporting Trump. Makes no sense to me, but apparently to 50% of the American population it does.
So IMHO the military could plausibly have backed a Trump coup, if the coup had been better planned. And I was glad when they didn't!
Not at all, on a societal level the US has been increasingly constructed as a huge, intricate, Prisoner's Dilemma where everyone, allegedly, has all to lose and noone, allegedly, has a say in the matter, therefore everyone complies with whatever the system, or media, asks of them.
Everyone thinks they're the victim, everyone thinks civic duty is something the oppressor is responsible for, not them personally, therefore everyone is free to be an oppressor themselves.
This problem will be intensified whenever, as we've seen elsewhere, the military starts being transformed from within and sycophants are put in positions of power.
It is fine and encouraged to say "Trump is an idiot" or "Harris is an idiot", but better think twice before engaging with actual issues like whistleblowing or disobeying an unlawful order.
Just watch how topics of poor white MAGA voters who are being sold out are avoided and flagged on all sides. No one wants to hear about that. People like Bannon (a millionaire) can make some performative speeches, but nothing will happen.
What are you talking about here? Please share more about this.
Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the sole power to declare war, it does not, on its own, prohibit any other action than "declaring war" to any other actor.
The War Powers Act (or Resolution) attempts to put some additional rules around this (note that it is widely seen as being either an unconstitutional intrusion on Presidential authority or an unconstitutional delegation of Congressional authority, and courts have so far failed to resolve it, having found lack of standing in the few cases that have been brought under it.)
But even the War Powers Act doesn't purport to prohibit the President from using force in advance of Congressional authorization.
That's why it will be a "Special Military Operation in Greenland" or "SMO in Canada".
Trump says these things to get a rise out of people. He’s fueled by reaction. You can’t tell if he’s ever being serious, and I doubt even he knows if he’s being serious most of the time. Getting enraged by his actions is his goal, and he’s very good at playing his opponents into blunders this way. Best to not play along.
"After 60 days" is very different from "first".
And, since the President can unilaterally extend the timeline by 30 days, its actually 90 days, even if the War Powers Act is valid (an unresolved Constitutional question.)
And, in practice, it doesn't even require that if you don't have active majorities in Congress opposing the action; see the NATO-Yugoslavia war and the failure of legal challenges by members of Congress against it predicated on the War Powers Act limitations, because of lack of standing.
If invading Greenland was an actual real goal, something like this would definitely "happen", to manufacture the necessary pretext. Way cheaper than the alternatives.
In democracy government is for the country/people and not the other way round.
That's the thing, everyone who disobeys thinks they're doing the right thing.
Translation: "I am the state"
History is a fascinating subject, you should read up on how his reign played out.
Actually, yes he has. The courts have ordered funds released, he has not complied.
And he has publicly attacked the courts for trying to stop him.
You may believe that he is right to disobey the court, and I'd be much happier if his defenders were honest enough to actually look at facts
Here are some stories on Fox News showing that trump isn't complying. Note the source. Fox isn't known as a haven of liberals.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-administration-appeal... https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-100-disagrees-federal...
Trautman: Men, Goddamn it! Men... who fought for their country!
Murdock: That's enough! Trautman, I'm gonna forget this conversation ever took place.
Trautman: You bastard!
Murdock: And if I were you... I'd never make the mistake of bringing this subject up again.
Trautman: Oh you're the one who's making the mistake.
Murdock: Yeah? What mistake?
Trautman: Rambo.
https://theoutline.com/post/7984/rambo-last-blood-vietnam-bo...
The other tiny detail I liked was the real life POW-rescuing Rambo-type figure was used as the basis of the Hannibal character in the A-team show.
If the US and Russia negotiate a treaty in Ukraine without Ukraine or the EUs agreement, we could end up in a situation with US troops squaring off against EU/Ukraine military in order to enforce the treaty. Feels like everyone loses except maybe Russia.
[0] https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/13/politics/trump-military-enemy...
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/10/24/trump-mi...
[2] https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/01/27/here-are-all-...
The threatened immigration sweeps and the talk of removing birthright citizenship tie into this. If the troops are reluctant to be deployed against US citizens, simply make the people you want to deploy them against not US citizens any more.
The whole point of birthright citizenship is to create a clear, unambiguous means of testing if someone is a citizen so that people cannot be disenfranchised easily even by a hostile executive. If you can produce a birth certificate, you are a citizen end of discussion. As someone who disagrees with what is happening, my biggest fear is that myself, my son, or my family could be declared "not a citizen" and forcibly removed to some other country where we are also not citizens under a new system. This is not a good thing for the US.
https://warontherocks.com/2020/10/let-the-generals-speak-ret...
> In May 2020, protests emerged in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd by a white police officer, as well as other incidents of police brutality against African Americans. In these protests there was in some cases significant property destruction and looting. In response, more than 20 states and the District of Columbia activated the National Guard to assist in stabilizing the situation.
> By June 1 Trump was reportedly ready to send 10,000 regular military troops to the streets — forces usually used in external conflict. He threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, which would have allowed him to deploy the troops without the governors’ permission. Active-duty troops were brought to the Washington, D.C., area, including some from the immediate response force brigade of the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division. For a few days it looked like Trump might send in the troops, precipitating the retired officer commentary detailed below. Ultimately the president did not invoke the Insurrection Act and the troops were sent home.
It wasn't just Trump: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protes...
https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2020/10/helicopters-over-d...
https://media.defense.gov/2021/May/27/2002730396/-1/-1/1/DOD...
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/soldiers-disciplined-helicop...
https://web.archive.org/web/20230607212142/https://casebook....
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2020-06-0...
Which explains why the tech bros are currently trying to install what's effectively a monarchy in the US federal government. Companies are inherently non democratic, so it's kind of bad that they're trying to install the same thing federally.
Their recommendations are always vague and therefore open to political exploitation. Ignored or amplified when expedient and when someone with an actual stake has something on the line.
Cowardly.
Question: in a public bureaucracy that is always naturally intent on protecting itself but which also has rules and a judiciary, who is responsible for ignoring or amplifying intentionally vague external standards of morality? Political actors, perhaps?
The sum effects seem to be the desire to leave lower level ranks politically vulnerable and threatened by non-military political actors. And therefore perhaps to undermine the military hierarchy in general, with implied threats.
I agree that there are likely times to not follow orders, but the rules surrounding when that is to be the case cannot be vague whatsoever. Those times can not be subject to significant interpretation if we are to see such critiques as honest and not underhanded.
You cannot capture all possible scenarios with full nuance in a rule-book. And even if you somehow could, you cannot expect people to memorize all of it. The world is just too complex.
By nature it has to be vague because reality is vague.
With regards to movies, remember prior to the modern era many soldiers and seaman were forced to serve against their will. Discipline was brutal. In the British American War of 1812, one of the reasons for war was the forced impressment of American sailors into the British Navy. British Admiral Horatio Nelson acknowledged the critical role of impressment in maintaining the British Navy’s manpower. In 1803, he reported that over 42,000 sailors had deserted since 1793, highlighting the challenges of crew retention. He stated, “Without a press, I have no idea how our Fleet can be manned.” https://www.nps.gov/articles/impressment.htm
It was Prussia’s Moltke the Elder who recognized the complexity of modern war and the need for officers to think independently. “Subordinates would have to use initiative and independent judgment for the forces to be effective in battle. Campaign and battle plans should encourage and take advantage of the decentralization that would be necessary in any case. In this new concept, commanders of distant detachments were required to exercise initiative in their decision-making and Moltke emphasized the benefits of developing officers who could do this within the limits of the senior commander's intent.”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elder
With all that said, it all comes down to personal conscience. Of deciding what is right and wrong.