What is, or should be, the "breaking point" of the chain of command?

[daedalus_dude]

I understand that for any military to function properly, the crucial ingredient is an indisputable chain of command.
The common analogy is that orders given from the top should drop to the bottom ranks like a falling rock without any obstruction. This is essential, because any type of ambiguities that arise inevitably lead to a decreased efficiency of the military.

I understand that some DUers, especially some of those who have been or are members of the military, frown upon soldiers
who have deserted or went AWOL in face of being ordered to fight in the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. The rationale, so it is said, is that regardless of the morality of the war that is being conducted, is that

1. desertation is equal to letting down your comrades
2. it is crucial that we maintain the integrity of the chain of command, so that our military may remain efficient for
future conflicts that, perhaps, have a more solid moral base.

My question is whether there is, or should be, a "breaking point" for the chain of command. Some red line that should not be crossed.

In other words: "What is the order that should not be followed under any circumstances?" and also "Which country or countries should one refuse to march against if ordered to do so?".

I understand that in active combat, the external pressure and peer pressure can get very intense to go along with things such as shooting civilians or engaging in torture in order to protect oneself or comrades.

Are there, nevertheless, orders that should not be followed under any circumstances?

What if, for instance, we were ordered to march against one of our present allies. Let's say, today the order is given to march against France. Would a soldier be morally bound to follow these orders as to not let down their comrades or
destroy the integrity of the chain of command?

Or say the situation is more severe: The order is given to march against fellow citizens. Let's say, in order to break up a civil protest.

I just wonder how DUers see this issue. Are there, or should there be, clear definitions as to which orders one is morally bound to. Or is it all shades of gray and dependent on individual circumstances?

[AllentownJake]

1. Easy answer

When your told to break the law that you swore to uphold.

[One_Life_To_Give]

2. Follow all "Legal" orders

Simple if it's a Legal Order you follow it. Bitch, moan, and complain but follow it.

[unhappycamper]

3. "I was just following orders" no longer works.

It didn't work at Nuremberg and it won't work now.

Ask Lyndie England and Charles Grainer.

[AllentownJake]

4. Those weren't legal orders

I didn't serve, but my mother and father did and both of them were given a code of conduct and information on international law.

[One_Life_To_Give]

5. They weren't "Legal" orders

It is not always easy for a soldier to determine what is and is not a legal order. But in the cases you cited the acts were preatty obvious. And in the latter also violated standing orders from above.

[leveymg]

6. "Pushback" against White House policy is not unusual at the upper levels of the Pentagon

We saw it in the last few years of the Bush Administration against pressure to attack Iran. It's completely appropriate for the Joint Chiefs to say, "No, sir. We can't agree to do that. Not do-able" Pete Pace got fired for saying it. But, that's to his credit.

[Statistical]

8. But that wasn't an order.

Saying "we can't do this" from a logistical or geopolitical standpoint is fine. The Joint Chiefs exist to provide military counsel. On the other hand is ordered to go to war by an act of Congress those same generals are duty bound to provide the most effective means of waging war against the enemy. The time for "we can't do this, sir" is over.

[leveymg]

9. The last time Congress ordered the Generals to go to war was 1941.

Everything since has been optional.

[Statistical]

11. I agree however the point remains. The JC can provide counsel but can't legaly stop an order ...

from Congress or President.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. Congress does not order the military to war, Congress has the power to declare war

Orders come from the President (ultimately)

[leveymg]

18. I was responding in kind to a misphrased question.

The President is the Commander-In-Chief during wartime, of course. Congress can't order the military, but can void the ability the President to carry out aggressive activities by simply doing nothing. You may say, "How's that?"

There's a serious constitutional question as to whether the President can commit US forces to war without a declaration of war by Congress. The War Powers Act is the imperfect solution. Until Congress declares war, arguably, the Pentagon Brass don't have to follow the orders of the President. US military officers take their oaths of allegience to the Constitution, not the President, or the CIC.

So, that answers the original question posed by the OP.

[BanzaiBonnie]

7. Only legal orders

I trust MOST of our military to do the right thing.

However, in their rush to recruit during the Bush years, I'm concerned that we've allowed a bunch of low level criminals into our military. They may not care who they fire on. Sadly, the standards for service have been lowered.

Also, posse comitatus has been seriously eroded over the last 20 years, first for the war on drugs and then by the last president who made greater allowances for the military to be turned on US citizens in cases of civil disturbance.

I sure wish the Republicans had been so worried about our Constitution during the Bush administration when it was being seriously shredded. Now they're worried! Ahhh, but what goes around comes around.

[Statistical]

10. No shades of gray.

Military is not a democracy, it is a not a brainstorm session, it isn't a place to has out your "feelings" on a particular conflict. If someone disagrees with that then they shouldn't be part of the military.

A soldier is obligated by oath and duty to obey lawful orders. Period. Doesn't matter if they are the "best" orders? Doesn't matter if the solder feels the orders are infective. Doesn't matter if the soldier "knows" the orders will escalate the conflict. Soldiers obey orders unless they are unlawful.

Also the term unlawful requires more than a soldier's opinion. Has Congress ruled the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq to be illegal? Has the Supreme Court? A soldier who simply claims an order is "unlawful" is not sufficient burden of proof.

You can be morally right and at the same time guilty of desertion.

Via war with France..... likely any evidence against France would be fake but at the time of the invasion would a soldier know.

Against civilians ..... US military can be used to support civil leadership and Police force. National Guard units routinely train to break up violent protests.


Let me make it simpler:
American soldiers fight because if they don't their fellow soldiers will die. It is that simple. Even when you do everything you are suppose, if a comrade dies in action it hurts forever. You always wonder what else you could have done. The pain never goes away even if you did everything.

[DaveinJapan]

14. Wow.

"American soldiers fight because if they don't their fellow soldiers will die. It is that simple."

Did you really come up with that yourself?

Or are you spewing a line of propaganda.

[Statistical]

16. I lived it.

You know your fellow soldier, his kids, his wife, his life. What he likes, what he hates, his favorite football team. When you are deployed you spend more time w/ you fellow soldier than anyone else on the planet. You live together, sleep together, eat together. When you close your eyes they are the last thing you see. When you open them up again they are the first thing in sight.

On patrol in Baghdad it isn't Bush war. Nobody gives a flying shit about the geopolitical this, or the escalation of that. You have a job and if you don't do it well soldiers will die. You care about the guy in the HMMWV sitting next to you. When attack you react as a team. Many guys in our unit hated Bush but we did our job. We gave it 110% not for Bush but because doing so increased the chance we all got to come home.

If you think it is propaganda I don't give a flying fuck, it is what it is. Likely you will never understand it and that is fine. I was just trying to provide some insight on why soldiers do what they do.

[Zywiec]

17. Reminds me of the saying

For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who don't, none is possible.

Thanks for your service.

:patriot:

[DaveinJapan]

19. Sorry, but that just sounded a little too Colonel Jessup for my taste.

The discussion is about following legal or illegal orders right?

I just don't see how a tag line from a recruiting film contributes much in the way of insight.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. What is and is not a legal order is well defined

I suggest you read up on the topic. It will answer your questions

[Stinky The Clown]

15. The hard red line you seek lies at "Lawful Order"