I’m a young soldier hanging out in Afghanistan. I’m ordered to defend my post and not permit any local nationals to enter the area. They even give me a little card that explains the ‘Escalation of Force’ procedures. The preferred sequence is ‘Shout, Show, Shove, Shoot.’
So some Afghan approaches holding a pointed stick. TBH, I don’t really care whether the stick is pointed or even if he has a stick at all. (He might have suicide vest or something.) So I hold up a hand and order him to halt. He keeps coming. I look for my nonlethal devices such as pen flares or lasers to get his attention. He keeps coming. I brandish my weapon, so he knows I mean business. He keeps coming.
Well before the target comes within pointed-stick range, I have a decision to make. The preference is that I use physical force to push him back before I open fire, but I’m allowed to skip a step if the situation warrants it. So - for example - if he was unarmed and I was feeling generous, I might give him the benefit of the doubt and give him a shove. But if he has a stick and looks ready to strike me with it, there’s no reason for me to break out my kung fu. He is a threat to me.
At that point, I switch the selector lever from ‘Safe’ to ‘Semi’ and let nature take it’s course.
Does your calculation change when the rock throwers are refugees, highly unlikely to have grenades, and you are not alone (or few) but have several thousand troops with you?
I was in the Air Force for 23 years and I can think of at least 5 times that I refused orders that I thought unlawful. Of course, I was an avionics tech, so none of them were huge deals. Since four of those five were orders to violate tech data, I literally had the book in front of me.
Of course, I was really never in a life or death, “we have to take that hill” kind of situation. I may have behaved differently under those circumstances.
I did, however, get to witness a few people (senior NCOs) ruin their careers by giving such orders, and something bad happened as a result.
Well, to answer that, let’s look back at the post which YOU cited.
Emphasis added.
See, when people write things like, “It depends on the situation” that is intended to communicate that it is a conditional statement which… Wait for it… depends on the situation. English is amazing!
Which is why I asked you if your calculation changes in this circumstance (it could remain the same) with a hope you would also provide some explanation of how troops might approach this situation.
English is amazing. It even allows people to ask questions! Snarky responses are optional.
I’ve never been in the military myself, but when I was in ROTC in high school and considering a career in the Navy I was assigned to do the correspondence training that you must complete (or did at one time, anyway) to make E-3. Asking for the order in writing was the specific instruction the book gave if you think an order may be unlawful - I suppose to make the order-giver think twice.
In any event, I can’t imagine that the president would be giving direct orders to field commanders any way - that sort of thing would need to go through the chain of command.
The POTUS has done a lot of things I cannot ever imagine, in my worst nightmares, a president doing.
As far as I know (I am not and never have been in the military) while it is very irregular to circumvent the chain of command, it doesn’t make an order illegal. If say, a general orders a private to stop what he’s doing and march over there right now, and the private refuses, he’ll be brought up on charges.
If you know (as you have book in front of you) that part 832-A doesn’t go in sprocket 94124-B, but you are ordered to do so. That would make that an illegal order, rather than a mistake (sorry memory lapse) that maybe the superior in question should be respectfully reminded of ?
Sorry, this isn’t totally clear to me–do you mind explaining a little further?
Were the “unlawful orders” more like “whoops my bad, I don’t know those regs as well as you” or more like “manual be damned, do it my way!”
When you refer to ruined careers, was that over the incidents you mention, or something else(s) you witnessed or heard about? If the latter, what caused the ruined careers?
ETA, my questions overlap partially with griffin1977’s.
IIRC there was a discussion here years ago about things like this. Imagine you are a private guarding the entrance to something important and a general tells you to run and get him coffee. I thought the private should refuse and not leave his post unguarded.
I may be misremembering though but basically it seemed the soldier’s first priority is to see to the task he/she was assigned by his chain of command and not jump to the whim of some random superior. Perhaps if that superior is literally in the same chain of command then maybe the soldier does whatever he was told? Not sure…(thinking out loud hoping someone who knows will clear it up).
Can the president order someone in the military to do something that violates the UCMJ? Yes, he can.
Is that a defense against being charged with crimes under the UCMJ? No, not so much.
The oath I took back in the day had the phrase ‘…all lawful orders…’. I don’t think it’s changed. Doing something illegal, even under orders, is, well, illegal.
The other part of this, from the military point of view, is these troops aren’t being sent to Afghanistan, they are being deployed to US soil.
Does the UCMJ have special considerations for that fact. Is the 3rd amendment codified in the UCMJ? (I’d assume that there are situations during a full scale invasion of another country, for example, that the US military will quarter soldiers in someones house without their permission)
Would the ‘Shout, Show, Shove, Shoot.’ rules of engagement JB99 mentions apply to someone guarding a military base in the US if they were approached by a kid with a stick?
When I started this thread I did not realize congress wrote the regulations that comprise the UCMJ.
In all my life I do not think I have ever heard a report of congress in a fight over a controversial provision they want to put in the UCMJ (or indeed anything…controversial or not). I thought the fight over gay people in the military was them sticking their nose into a process they generally had nothing to do with.
I assumed the military promulgated all their regulations on their own. Frankly I am amazed the do-nothing congress can be allowed to fuck-up the military with their usual shenanigans yet somehow…mostly…they seem to get the job done here.
I assumed that if the military made all their own regulations then the commander-in-chief is the ultimate arbiter of what those regulations say. A task he would almost never mess with and delegate to underlings but could mess with if he really wanted to.
Seems I was wrong. Not sure if I am relived or not but I guess somehow, so far, congress doesn’t play politics on this count (except gay people in the military).
Rules of engagement can change whenever situations change. There is no one RoE for overseas and one for here. RoE in Iraq constantly changed depending on the political and tactical situation. That would be no different in the states.
There are assignments in the US where deadly force is authorized. Whether they have to shout, show, shove, shot depends on the assignment.
Soldiers are not expected to be lawyers. They’re expected to carry out the orders given, and if there is a question about the legality, they have the right to question it afterwards. Refusing to follow an order can earn one a court martial or at the very least non-judicial punishment, which is why I noted before that one needs to be on really firm footing before refusing. “Just following orders” doesn’t excuse a criminal act.
In the case of your last example, the military is not a democracy. The leader of an assault force acts on the best intelligence available, but in many cases the difference between combat forces and civilians is difficult to determine. I don’t recall the numbers, but a large percentage of military guys deliberately shoot to miss.
If I recall correctly LBJ was pretty infamous for giving individual soldiers direct orders in Vietnam, how even GW Bush referenced how he wasn’t “Going to tell a Private how to take a hill like LBJ did” when talking about the Iraq War.
Have a cite for that ? (the individual soldiers bit). My understanding of that Bush quote was it was referring to the LBJ (or more specific McNamara’s) idea that you could run the war the same way McNamara had run big companies like Ford. Using the latest trendy management theories, computers and such. While this did involve micro managing the army (and was needless to say a horrendous failure) AFAIK it all happened via the traditional chain of command. From the president down through the choefs of staff, to the poor grunt who was required to collect statistics on kill counts and such to satisfy the management team running the war.
Of course Bush then fell for a different brand of bullshit from his sec of defense. That you just need a small mobile army to win wars, no need to worry about that whole “occupation” thing, well be welcomed a liberators.