Key Takeaways
- The Joint Chiefs of Staff has advised military commanders to consider requesting retirement if they determine an order is unlawful, rather than resigning in protest or picking a fight to get fired.
- This guidance has sparked debate among legal experts and former military officials, who argue that it may perpetuate a culture of silence and lack of accountability.
- The issue has come to the forefront in recent weeks, with lawmakers and legal experts questioning the legality of the US military’s counternarcotics operations in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean.
- The guidance does not explicitly advise servicemembers to disobey unlawful orders, which has raised concerns among experts on civil-military relations.
- The debate highlights the complexity of determining what constitutes an unlawful order and the challenges of balancing military professionalism with civilian control.
Introduction to the Issue
The US military has been grappling with the issue of unlawful orders, particularly in the context of its counternarcotics operations in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. Recently, six Democratic lawmakers publicly urged US troops to disobey illegal orders, which sparked a heated debate across the country. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine sought guidance from Brig. Gen. Eric Widmar, the top lawyer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on how to determine whether an order is lawful and how a commander should respond if it is not. Widmar’s advice was to consult with their legal adviser if unsure, and ultimately, if they determine that an order is illegal, they should consider requesting retirement.
Guidance on Unlawful Orders
Widmar’s guidance has been met with criticism from legal experts and former military officials, who argue that it may perpetuate a culture of silence and lack of accountability. Dan Maurer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and former JAG lawyer, stated that the guidance appears to "misunderstand what a servicemember is supposed to do in the face of an unlawful order: disobey it if confident that the order is unlawful and attempt to persuade the order-giver to stop or modify it have failed, and report it through the chain of command." Maurer added that if the guidance does not explicitly advise servicemembers to disobey unlawful orders, it is not a legitimate statement of professional military ethics and the law.
Debate among Experts
The guidance has sparked a debate among experts on civil-military relations, with some arguing that retirement is a reasonable option for officers who object to a particular policy, while others argue that it comes with its own costs. Peter Feaver, a political science professor at Duke University, and Heidi Urben, a former Army intelligence officer, wrote that "quiet quitting," or opting for retirement, allows officers with professionally grounded objections to leave without posing a direct challenge to civilian control. However, they also argued that officers should "speak up" and "show moral courage" when the military’s professional values and ideals are at risk, and be willing to be fired for it.
Implications of the Guidance
The guidance has implications for the US military’s operations, particularly in the context of its counternarcotics operations. The Trump administration has authorized lethal force to protect the nation, but lawmakers and legal experts have questioned the legality of these operations. The Office of Legal Counsel has determined that it is legal for the president to order strikes on suspected drug boats, but lawmakers have argued that potential drug traffickers are civilians who should not be summarily killed but arrested. The debate highlights the complexity of determining what constitutes an unlawful order and the challenges of balancing military professionalism with civilian control.
Conclusion
The guidance provided by Brig. Gen. Eric Widmar has sparked a debate among legal experts and former military officials, highlighting the complexity of determining what constitutes an unlawful order and the challenges of balancing military professionalism with civilian control. While the guidance advises military commanders to consider requesting retirement if they determine an order is unlawful, it has raised concerns among experts on civil-military relations. The issue has come to the forefront in recent weeks, with lawmakers and legal experts questioning the legality of the US military’s counternarcotics operations in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. Ultimately, the debate highlights the need for clear guidance and a robust system of accountability to ensure that military professionalism and civilian control are balanced.