Universally, articles that attempt to advance these views tend to be politically and morally chaotic.

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.