The increasing scrutiny over military operations has brought the issue of unlawful orders to the forefront. Brig. Gen. Eric Widmar, the top lawyer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently provided critical guidance on how military commanders should respond to such orders. His advice included recommending retirement rather than retirement or resignation in protest.
Unlawful Orders: Guidance from Military Leadership
In November, Gen. Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, sought advice from Widmar after viewing a controversial video featuring six Democratic lawmakers. These lawmakers urged U.S. troops to disobey illegal orders. Caine’s inquiry focused on how a commander could identify lawful orders and how to respond if an order is deemed illegal.
Understanding Unlawful Orders
- Commanders should consult legal advisers when uncertain about an order’s legality.
- If convinced an order is unlawful, they should consider retiring.
This guidance comes amid heightened debates over the legality of U.S. military operations in the Caribbean and Pacific, particularly a “double-tap” strike that killed survivors in early September. Widmar emphasized that an order can be classified as unlawful if it is “patently illegal” or recognizable as a violation of law.
Impacts on Military Personnel
Several senior officers, including former Southern Command chief Adm. Alvin Holsey and Lt. Gen. Joe McGee, have chosen early retirement following concerns over military operations. This reflects a broader trend of turnover within military ranks since the Trump administration began, with over a dozen senior officials leaving or being dismissed.
Response to Guidance
Critics have voiced concerns that promoting retirement as a response could foster a culture of silence regarding ethical issues. Former military officials state that officers should feel empowered to voice dissent instead of quietly stepping back. Legal experts like Dan Maurer argue that retiring in response to an unlawful order could undermine the responsibility to disobey such commands.
Legal Framework and Accountability
The Pentagon’s legal stance, shaped by the Office of Legal Counsel, asserts that the president holds authority to authorize strikes unless Congress declares war. However, ambiguity around the legality of recent strikes raises concerns. Critics point out the need for accountability and highlight that suspected narcotics traffickers should ideally be arrested rather than targeted for lethal action.
Current Military Operations and Legislative Scrutiny
- Since September 2, military operations in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific resulted in 99 reported deaths.
- These operations target individuals deemed “narcoterrorists” posing threats to U.S. security.
- Congressional leaders question the military’s justification for such strikes without clear evidence.
As military leadership navigates the complexities of command and legality, the conversation surrounding unlawful orders and their consequences continues to evolve. It underscores the critical need for clarity and ethical conduct within the ranks of the U.S. Armed Forces.
