SUMMARY
Politicians are manufacturing panic – warning troops about "illegal orders" that don't exist to score political points. Real illegal orders are rare and obvious – torture, executing civilians, suspending the Constitution. Troops don't need Congress to identify war crimes. This politicizes the ranks – encouraging soldiers to second-guess orders based on party loyalty poisons unit cohesion. Hesitation costs lives – normalizing insubordination means troops will audit every order instead of executing the mission. The military serves the Constitution, not a party – the chain of command isn't optional, and using troops as political weapons is reckless.
Manufacturing Panic
If you have been scrolling through the news lately, you've most likely seen the video. A group of politicians looking at the camera and telling the U.S. military to prepare to "refuse illegal orders."
Sounds crazy, doesn't it? It sounds like we are on the brink of war and this is our final stand. But let's pause and take a deep breath and see what is actually happening. They are not giving us a public service announcement; this is a classic control playbook move – fear mongering.
Creating this shadow of a doubt on the chain of command without pointing to an actual single thing. These "leaders" are taking the most disciplined organization in the world and trying to inject the disgusting antics of D.C. politics into the barracks. That is absolutely ridiculous.
The Problem: Inventing the Crisis
Usually, when someone warns you about a danger they point to the threat. They say "look, spiders!" In this case, these irresponsible Congress members are screaming "Watch out, Spiders!" at an arachnophobia group therapy meeting. They are warning soldiers about "illegal orders" that have not been written, signed, or issued.
They are inventing a problem so they can argue about it. And naturally it got a reaction out of the administration and the influencer army that follows it. They build up a fake, scary version of the future just so they can be the fake hero nobody needed. Now there's a reckless precedent being set here.
Imagine someone refusing an order, defying their chain of command. Will they face UCMJ and lose all they earned? Yep. Their defense of "But the congress person said to do it" will not hold up in court. Now, imagine refusing a deployment because of "tyrannical authority" and then saying that a congressman said you could on Instagram. This is absolutely abhorrent and they should be ashamed.
Real Illegal Orders: UCMJ & The Law
Just to be clear: There absolutely is such a thing as an illegal order. The military has dealt with this for decades and they certainly don't need a politician's help on the matter.
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), a soldier has a duty to disobey an order that is "manifestly unlawful." This is not about disagreeing with a president's policy; this is about crimes against humanity.
Actual Examples:
- Ordering to torture prisoners of war
- Orders to execute civilians or unarmed non-combatants (My Lai Massacre)
- Orders to suspend the Constitution and stage a coup
There are some arguments to be made about what is currently happening across America. National Guard troops are being deployed across the country. America has been shooting cartel drug boats, which is raising alarms about if it's a war-crime or not.
And to be honest I am not here to tell you it's right or wrong. The courts will decide and public opinion will eventually determine the fate. But as it stands there are no laws being broken.
What Are Lawful Orders?
- The "Presumption of Legality" – under military law, all orders from superiors are deemed lawful.
- The Soldier's Dilemma – For a soldier to disobey lawfully, the order must be manifestly unlawful. This means that the everyday average person would immediately know it was wrong.
- The "Grey Zone" – The order to sink a boat designated as a terrorist vessel by the President is not considered "manifestly unlawful" – even if it later turned out to be a violation of international law. Therefore, the soldiers that follow these orders are generally protected but the soldiers who refuse would be at risk of court-martial for mutiny.
Why This Is Dangerous
Maybe you're sitting there thinking "So what's the harm in being ready?" The harm is potentially massive. The military is not a political debating society; it is a fighting force that relies on speed, trust, and discipline.
Politicizing the Ranks
The military should never be part of a political campaign against a sitting Commander in Chief. When elected officials encourage this sort of behavior they are telling soldiers that they need to pick a side. That is poison to a unit. In a foxhole, it doesn't matter who you voted for, it matters that you trust your leadership and the soldier next to you. Inserting partisan politics into that dynamic is unnecessary and irresponsible.
Normalizing Insubordination
This is the scary part to me. When you validate the idea that a soldier should disobey orders that they perceive as illegal you are normalizing insubordination. That doesn't mend well with the military.
If a Sergeant receives an order to deploy to a riot and maintain a perimeter, he shouldn't be paralyzed wondering if the order is ethically right or not. Hesitation costs lives on a battlefield. We cannot have a military where every soldier and sailor has to audit their orders based on the chain of command's voting history.
The Chain of Command is Not Optional
The military is built on a sacred trust. We trust our leaders to make the hard decisions, and we trust our troops to execute them. Following orders is not optional – it's your job.
If a truly illegal order, like "kill those innocent villagers", ever came down, American soldiers have the training and the moral compass to refuse it. They don't need a viral video of their elected leaders to tell them right from wrong.
Those congress people should be ashamed. They are taking their dislike of the president and trying to weaponize the military against him. They are suggesting mutiny as a legitimate way to express political dissatisfaction. That's reckless, it's unpatriotic, and it puts every single person in uniform at risk.
The military defends the Constitution, not a political party.
