What Unlawful Orders ?

The Democrats recently trotted out six members of Congress with military or intelligence community experience to encourage soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and intelligence officials to disobey orders. Part of the oath we take is to obey the lawful orders of those appointed over us. These Dems talk about disobeying “unlawful” orders. What orders are they talking about? The military does a good job in training of explaining that if you are in combat and ordered to line up a bunch of civilians and execute them, you have a responsibility to disobey. I am unaware of any recent orders along those lines.

Are the Dems saying the B-2 pilots should have refused to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities? The refuelers should have refused to fly? The Patriot battery should have refused to shoot down Iranian missiles aimed at Israel? Those conducting attacks on drug boats should disobey? CIA analysts who discover the launch of drug boats should conceal their discoveries from superiors?

Actually, there is an historical example that could highlight this issue. During the Vietnam war Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara recommended and President Lyndon Johnson approved changing our strategic goal from win to tie. The decision occurred on November 5, 1966 and based on domestic political calculations relating to the 1968 election. The mechanism to achieve the new goal was to stop the open-ended commitment to victory and establish a troop ceiling beyond which we would not go. The administration wished to avoid mobilization or calling up the reserve and set the ceiling accordingly. The American commander in Vietnam, General William Westmoreland, advised that while we would not be defeated with the proposed force, neither would we win and it would be a prescription for an unreasonably protracted conflict. That was good enough for the Johnson administration.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff protested the decision in a series of bureaucratic exchanges with McNamara over the months required to reach the ceiling. Finally, in August 1967, having adjusted the ceiling slightly, McNamara informed the Joint Chiefs that the discussion was over. But the Johnson administration was being criticized by Republicans for its handling of the war, and Johnson wanted to create the (false) impression that he was doing everything possible to support the commander in the field. In other words, he wanted to create a public narrative that was the exact opposite of the truth.

Having just told the Joint Chiefs that the debate concerning a troop ceiling was over, McNamara pressed the military to speed up deployments to reach the troop ceiling, without revealing to the public that there was a troop ceiling. The objective was to create the public impression that all was being done to support Westmoreland. In early September 1967, the administration asked the Joint Chiefs (a) what could be done prior to Christmas? and (b) what could be done prior to the March 12, 1968, New Hampshire presidential primary election?

One result was to accelerate the deployment of the 101st Airborne Division. In October it was determined that the division could be deployed by Christmas and, with some additional training, be employed in January. The original plan had been to deploy the division in March 1968.

Here is where I argue that there is potential for an unlawful order. It also would have been impossible for the soldiers receiving the order to know it was unlawful, though the Joint Chiefs should have known. And the administration disrupted the situation for them by coming up with a desire to increase pressure in the Northern Provinces. Let’s take a married Staff Sergeant in the 101st with two children. In the fall of 1967 he expects to go to Vietnam in March of 1968. He makes plans for his family. Where to live, schools, the car, the bank, etc. In October he discovers he is going to Vietnam before Christmas. Have his plans just been dealt a blow? Yes, but he is an Airborne soldier and is ready because his country needs him. But if we change that to, he is ready so he can help Lyndon Johnson in the New Hampshire primary, is the answer the same? Should that have been a lawful order?

Johnson and McNamara were despicable. It was clear that these military decisions were being taken for crass political reasons. The fact that they put the New Hampshire primary reasoning in writing perhaps would have given cause for formal objection, but even then it was confounded with the Northern Provinces gambit. Even this disgusting example is difficult, and we only know about it because of the Pentagon Papers.

Encouraging disobedience in the military and intelligence community is a dangerous path to follow. If these six Dems had a specific order in mind, they should have said what it was. They did not and they have undermined the good order and discipline that is necessary in conflict.

Chuck Parker, American Thinker

hese Companies May Be Overcharging You for Auto Insurance (Check Zip Code)Experts In Savings

Rheumatologist: I Beg You! Don’t Eat This if You Have Arthritis!Instaflex

If You’re Over 65, Try This Instead of Gutter Cleaning (It’s Genius)LeafFilter Partner

If You Have Hip or Knee Pain, Write Down The RecipeInstaflex

Image: National Archives

null

Related Topics: Government, Military, Justice

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.2f70fb173b9000da126c79afe2098f02.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-1&lang=en&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com%2Fblog%2F2025%2F11%2Fwhat_unlawful_orders.html&size=m&text=What%20unlawful%20orders%3F%20-%20American%20Thinker&time=1763644515140&type=share&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com%2Fblog%2F2025%2F11%2Fwhat_unlawful_orders.html

https://www.facebook.com/v17.0/plugins/share_button.php?app_id=575558257870641&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fx%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2F%3Fversion%3D46%23cb%3Dfba0631d595d19489%26domain%3Dwww.americanthinker.com%26is_canvas%3Dfalse%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.americanthinker.com%252Ffa58c0e5679dfd9af%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=14&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com%2Fblog%2F2025%2F11%2Fwhat_unlawful_orders.html&layout=button&locale=en_US&sdk=joey

https://www.facebook.com/v17.0/plugins/like.php?app_id=575558257870641&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fx%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2F%3Fversion%3D46%23cb%3Dfc258ab243829713c%26domain%3Dwww.americanthinker.com%26is_canvas%3Dfalse%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.americanthinker.com%252Ffa58c0e5679dfd9af%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=5&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com%2Fblog%2F2025%2F11%2Fwhat_unlawful_orders.html&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&share=false&width=25

SUPPORT AMERICAN THINKER

Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish. If what you see on American Thinker resonates with you, please consider supporting our work with a donation of as much or as little as you can give. Every dollar contributed helps us pay our staff and keep our ideas heard and our voices strong.

Thank you.$5$10$50Other

Here’s What Gutter Guards Should Cost if You Qualify for Senior RebatesLeafFilter Partner

Neuropathy is Not From Low Vitamin B. Meet The Real Enemy of NeuropathyFootRenew

View & Add Comments (10)