AlohaChris wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:The alternative, of course, is a military Junta. "We'll decide what's legal and what's not, just don't worry your pretty little civilian heads about it." Sod that shit!

I disagree,that's not the only alternative. More transparency in government and sticking to the laws you already have is a better alternative. If your doctrine is "no wars of aggression", then you don't attack a country that hasn't attacked you and isn't massing troops on your border. The military (ideally) should be more free to challenge bad decision making/violation of policy, without fear of payback.

While I agree with that doctrine loosely, I think this is breaking down in where, precisely, in the military this sort of challenge should come from. Lt. Joe Blow is certainly not in a position to even affect policy making. This is the duty of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Field grade officers simply do not get to pick and choose their assignments. Nor should they.

The_Metatron wrote:

AlohaChris wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:The alternative, of course, is a military Junta. "We'll decide what's legal and what's not, just don't worry your pretty little civilian heads about it." Sod that shit!

I disagree,that's not the only alternative. More transparency in government and sticking to the laws you already have is a better alternative. If your doctrine is "no wars of aggression", then you don't attack a country that hasn't attacked you and isn't massing troops on your border. The military (ideally) should be more free to challenge bad decision making/violation of policy, without fear of payback.

While I agree with that doctrine loosely, I think this is breaking down in where, precisely, in the military this sort of challenge should come from. Lt. Joe Blow is certainly not in a position to even affect policy making. This is the duty of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Field grade officers simply do not get to pick and choose their assignments. Nor should they.

Wasn't it already established though that every soldier is required to disobey every illegal order? If so, field grade officers should opt out if they consider an assignment illegal, no?

Zwaarddijk wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:

AlohaChris wrote:
I disagree,that's not the only alternative. More transparency in government and sticking to the laws you already have is a better alternative. If your doctrine is "no wars of aggression", then you don't attack a country that hasn't attacked you and isn't massing troops on your border. The military (ideally) should be more free to challenge bad decision making/violation of policy, without fear of payback.

While I agree with that doctrine loosely, I think this is breaking down in where, precisely, in the military this sort of challenge should come from. Lt. Joe Blow is certainly not in a position to even affect policy making. This is the duty of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Field grade officers simply do not get to pick and choose their assignments. Nor should they.

Wasn't it already established though that every soldier is required to disobey every illegal order? If so, field grade officers should opt out if they consider an assignment illegal, no?

No. An assignment, or orders to move, are not unlawful orders. This particular liutenant wasn't ordered to do anything unlawful at all. He was ordered to move with his unit. A lawful order which he refused.

The_Metatron wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:
While I agree with that doctrine loosely, I think this is breaking down in where, precisely, in the military this sort of challenge should come from. Lt. Joe Blow is certainly not in a position to even affect policy making. This is the duty of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Field grade officers simply do not get to pick and choose their assignments. Nor should they.

Wasn't it already established though that every soldier is required to disobey every illegal order? If so, field grade officers should opt out if they consider an assignment illegal, no?

No. An assignment, or orders to move, are not unlawful orders. This particular liutenant wasn't ordered to do anything unlawful at all. He was ordered to move with his unit. A lawful order which he refused.

Uhm, by international law, it's quite possible it's illegal for him to move to that place. (As most countries don't grant personnel of other countries' armed forces visas or anything like that just like that!) It's not clear that moving there was lawful.

One of the sub-plots of a movie, By Dawn's Early Light, addressed this very issue. It concerned the B-52 enroute to Irkutsk, I think. The co-pilot Captain Moreau, portrayed by the extremely lovely Rebecca Demornay, decided she will not cooperate with the mission and convinced the pilot, Major Cassidy [Powers Boothe], to abort the mission in defiance of valid attack odrers.

There was a scene in the cockpit where Major Cassidy was explaining that it won't matter. He said that someone else will do it. And, that is an important point to note, because he was correct. Someone else would be assigned that combat mission. Which is one of the major reasons military men don't take kindly to their colleagues who break the faith and leave it to someone else to take their risk.

One of the flight crew tried to kill the pilot unsuccessfully, but ejected from the aircraft and the tail gunner operator was sucked out of the cabin after him, leaving only Moreau and Cassidy alive in the aircraft. National command authority discovered that their aircraft had turned off of its attack, and ordered its destruction by a Navy carrier group, who scrambled to either escort the B-52 to a water landing, or destroy it. When their carrier was torpedoed and sunk, the abandoned the attack on the B-52, in favor of flying to a better ditching location.

It was quite dramatic. But it did highlight the concept. Captain Moreau didn't have the authority to determine legality of the orders her aircraft was given. She made a personal choice, got others to agree with that choice, and nearly got them all killed for it. Only lucky circumstance prevented it.

The movie ended with that B-52 heading for Bora Bora, flying off into the sunset. I have no doubt that in the real world, the surviving military would eventually look for that aircraft, and probably find it. If those pilots survived, they would be captured, and almost certainly court martialled for fleeing in the face of the enemy. They'd likely be shot.

But, back to Lt I-don't-want-to-go-to-Iraq. Similar concept. He defied a valid order that certainly included some risk. Some other bastard had to go in his place. What happened to that replacement, I wonder? How'd things turn out for him and his men?