Defying Military Orders

Factual Questions
1

I am not currently nor ever have been in the military and I’m curious as to how this works…

What recourse do you have in the military if you don’t want to fulfill your orders? Let’s say you morally object to your orders. Or you think that they are ill-conceived and that not only will the objective remain unrealized but you (and/or the men under your command) will most certainly be killed attempting to carry them out.

Do you just say “No way, Jose” and graciously go off to jail and let the military courts figure it out later? Can you try and change your superior’s mind? Is their any give and take between the DOD, military officers, and the low men on the totem poll? What if you think you have a better idea? Do you just throw it out there? What if you think what is being asked of you is immoral? Do you raise your hand and say, “Before we do this, I have a commment…” What if you defy your orders, do something else, and that something else is wildly successful? Would they still nail you for defying orders? Before fulfilling orders can you go on official record as saying that you thought they were idiotic or immoral orders to begin with?

2

I’m in the Air Force Reserves and have had active duty time as well. If you did NOT have a “war-time” mission and an assignment came up it usually was presented to the group as, "I need a volunteer: (Hence the saying…Never volunteer for anything) Normally, someone would ante up and they would send them off. If no one volunteered, they would pick a name at random. This person would get orders and they would go. If they chose not to go, then there is the UCMJ article 85 which states
Site

But, nobody ever got out in my squadrons like that. Most people who wanted out would claim financial hardship - Easy to prove with their salary or the “I’m a homosexual” - not so easy to prove…but they take your word for it.

Successful or not…you are still in trouble for leaving without permission.

3

Any military person will tell you they routinely have to obey stupid, ill concieved and objectionable orders. You only have a recourse if the order is unlawful. That specific word is used in the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice). The lawfulness of a disobeyed order will likely have to be decided at court martial.

Good leaders will frequently take input from subordinates and act on it. The military does want good leaders, not mindless, chickenshit automitons but there is a gulf between what should be and what is.

4

In combat, the instantaneous obeyance of orders is paramount. To not do so may jeopardize the lives of all. Refusal to obey orders in combat is a mutinous or treasonable offense and can get one shot.

A smart commander of troops listens to his men, particularly his NCOs, who are often much more experienced than he. But the conversations take place in the planning stage of an operation. In the execution, there should be no hesitation. In the large picture of military operations, this has succeeded far more often than it has failed.

To allow challenges to orders or questioning of authority results in deterioration of good order and discipline, and in all probability would result in a high number of unnecessary deaths.

That said, it is incumbent upon all U.S. armed forces to disobey an order which is contrary to law. If one is not sure whether or not the order is unlawful, he/she may express doubts as to the lawfulness prior to executing said order, and may request to speak to a higher ranking officer/NCO. Failing to disobey an order simply because one disagrees or finds it to be “idiotic” will usually land the offender in a disciplinary hearing.

Doing other than what one has been told, regardless of the success of the action, will have the same consequences. However, I believe that the punishment meted out may be somewhat less harsh in that circumstance.

Hope this helps.

5

The classic answer is: it depends.

Lets take a look at simply denying to do something, The “No, sir, I ain’t gonna do it.”

  1. Is the order a Lawful Order? You are under no obligation to follow an unlawful order and, in fact, are required to resist such an order.

What is an unlawful order? Basically something that would cause you to break the Geneva convention or the UCMJ, like, “shoot those wounded prisoners” or “rape those civilians” or “light up that hospital/mosque/church” etc.

If it was a lawful order and you refused we would then go to the next question.

  1. Did this incident occur during combat operations?

If the order is unlawful and you refuse to obey it then you are pretty safe. You may still have charges brought against you, but, if the orders were indeed unlawful, you would most likely be acquited.

If you refuse to obey a lawful order in combat operations they are going to throw the book at you. More than likely you will be court martialed and spend some time in a pleasant military prison.

In a non-combat situation you will usually be given administrative justice, known as an Article 15 in the Army or Captain’s Mast in the Navy and Marine Corp. Depending on the rank of who you refused would determine whether it would be a company grade proceeding (minor punishment) or field grade (heavier punishment).

6

This part of your question hasn’t been addressed fully, so here goes:

Here’s a scenario. You’re a US Air Force fighter squadron commander at war. Your wing commander calls you into his office, points at a map and says, “Major Candlemas, I need you to take your men down this valley and strike this high-value command and control complex every morning at oh-nine-thirty hours for the next three days. This is a high priority mission. You will fly down the valley at precisely 500 knots, 800 feet off the valley floor and you must arrive over your target at nine thirty every morning no matter what.”

Sounds stupid, right? No way you’re gonna fly the same mission at the same time at the same altitude every morning so the enemy can be waiting for you. So, let’s say you decide to alter your orders to keep your men and women alive. After all, the Colonel’s gotta be smoking crack if he thinks you’re gonna let the enemy know exactly where your guys are going to be every day - they’re depending on you to get them home safely when the war’s over! The first day you do as directed, ditto on the second. The third day, however, you know the enemy is going to be waiting for you and you decide to come in from the opposite direction an hour later in the morning - you’ll justify it later by bringing your squadron home in one piece and still hitting the target.

When you get home that day, you discover that your third mission was intended as a decoy to draw enemy air power away from a deep penetration strike on a chemical weapons unit near your area of operations. You were the decoy, and you weren’t there. Because you weren’t over your target at the appointed time, the three dozen fighters the enemy had in the air waiting for you were deverted and were able to maul a strike package of B-52 and B-1 bombers despite the best efforts of the six F-15’s that were escorting them. The chemical weapons they would’ve destroyed were instead used to wipe out the 82nd Airborne Division and the Second Armored Division as well as the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards.

Suddenly, you realize that your decision to disobey the orders you saw as stupid has cost the lives of thousands of American and allied soldiers, may have shifted the course of the war, and may have strained one of your nation’s oldest and most important military alliances - after all, it was an American squadron commander who disobeyed orders and dropped the ball.

Unit commanders very rarely have access to the “big picture” - they have the orders they need for their part of the mission. Part of this is compartmentalization: if the enemy captures a platoon commander or a squadron commander, they won’t have access to the whole war plan. Part of it is simple economy of effort: why waste the resources and energy explaining the whole plan to a bunch of folks who just need to know what their job is. Part of it is morale: nobody wants to be told that they’re expendable, even if they can look at the mission and see it for themselves. And nobody wants to tell someone they’re expendable, either - you don’t want to do anything to lessen the chances of him beating the odds and making it back home regardless of how “suicidal” the mission is.

7

Been playing a few war games I C…:eek:

8

Nah…never had the patience for war games - your units aren’t smart enough to make decisions without you, and you aren’t omniscient enough to be everywhere at once so the outcome isn’t realistic. I just have a somewhat tenuous grasp of military history and some understanding of how small parts can fit into the big picture.

9

I don’t know a thing about the military, but it troubles me if men are intentionally sent on suicide missions without their knowledge and consent.

10

Members of the U.S. military (including women!) do give their consent when they take their oath of office. The oath includes the member swearing to obey [lawful] orders given them by their superiors. The oath does not say that military members need only obey those orders they agree with.

Also, whether it troubles you or not, the purpose of the U.S. Armed Forces is to defend the nation. The well-being of the individual members of the military is a lower priority, as it must be in order to have an effective fighting force. Individual sacrifice is more than a catch phrase.

Finally, how do you define “suicide mission?” Some U.S. Marine units during the assault on Iwo Jima in WWII suffered casualty rates in excess of 80%! Do you expect that each Marine in those units gave their personal consent and stamp of approval for the assault plan?

11

OK, back to that decoy mission scenario. Suppose that Major Candlemas asks his commanding officer “Are you sure that’s wise, sir? That flight plan seems likely to get us shot down. May I suggest an alternative?” (phrase that in whatever official military language would be appropriate). Would the commanding officer just say “trust me on this one”, or explain the situation further, or what? And supposing that Candlemas and his men do proceed to follow their orders, would there be any repercussions to him having questioned them?

12

Depends on the commander. Just like bosses in the civilian world, there are levels of tolerance which allows a little lee-way when in communications involve superior/subordinate. Being a non-commisioned officer myself, I learn the tell tale signs of what my commander’s boundaries are and take it from there. I think if the commander in this situation made these statements, I would hope that he asked his superior, "You mean you actually want to send MY people to the SAME site, Same time, three days in a ROW!!!

13

As for questioning the orders, then getting them reinforced by the superior, and then following them to the letter, I would not see any repercussions for the Squadron Commander for asking reasonable questions, unless this particular Squadron Commander ALWAYS questions orders, or is overly protective at the expense of the mission, but not in an isolated incident like this. And yes, the preceding was one long runon sentence.

14

The senario doesn’t work. Because the enemy will expect you at the same time/place those AA assets are already “used” by being there waiting for you. When you strike behind them (since you’re coming in from a different location) all then can do is either hope you fly over their AA placements or move them while you’re bombing the hell out of them.

A better senario is simply being ordered to make a big strike for X amount of time (say 3 hours) but decide to only make it for 1 hour because you’re getting the crap kicked out of you and you back out. Those extra 2 hours keeping the enemy busy allow the enemy to redepoy their AA assets and knock down your bombers.

BTW, as a safety, wouldn’t command want you to know of a second strike team/friendlies in the area? I mean, in war people are jittery and might shoot at anything including unknown a/c.

15

(active duty AF officer checking in)

Padeye is exactly right on both counts. You must obey lawful orders and are required to refuse unlawful orders. And leaders seek and act on input from subordinates.

And I thought Kilt-wearin’ man was very similar to a scenario they gave us in Squadron Officer School. (For a minute, I thought it was the same story.) I can’t give details of the case they gave us (partly because it might compromise teaching material and partly because I don’t remember it perfectly), but the key point was that squadron leaders decided that their very explicit orders were “stupid and risky” so they modified some details. And a coordinated plan was now uncoordinated, lives were lost and the mission was not accomplished.

True, those kind of scenarios are rare. But the military could not function if leaders at all levels are given the freedom to say, “I don’t think I like that idea. We’re gonna do our own thing.”

16

If I know one thing about war it is that it’s deadly serious business that does not lend itself well to making stuff up as you go along, gathering consensus, considering other people’s feelings and much of the other touchie feely stuff that we civilians have the luxury of taking for granted.

17

What can I say? I suppose you’re right, but I still am bothered by it. A necessary evil I suppose.

It would be nice if the marines would be told in advance that they faced a very dangerous mission and the folks in charge would ask for volunteers.

But look, I’m happy to concede that such an approach may have been unrealistic.

18

I want the beaver on top.

19

Now did the military commanders know that Iwo was going to be such a high casualty rate target? And where do the ethics of combat fall into play in that situation?

Plus, I think in this situation, one can take the stance of sacraficing himself for a cuase greater than his own. It’s one thing to listen to a crummy order that you know common sense prevails and it’s another thing to charge the “hill” becuase it must be taken to win the war.

20

I’ve only had experience with one instance of how an infantry mission planning session goes. During WWII it was common practice to send AF crews to visit the front and Infantry and Artillery officers to visit, and fly with if they wanted to, AF crews.

First thing. The objective for the mission, such as “make a show of force to draw enemy attention away from the 3rd Battalion assault” isn’t a subject for discussion at the operational level where the job is to be done. That discussion and its pros and cons was discussed and decided at the next higher echelon.

How the mission is to be accomplished is very much a subject for discussion by the unit commanders who are to carry it out. In the case I witnessed, the Battalion Commander returned from Regimental HQ with the mission, which was that mentioned above. He then had a meeting with the Company Commanders and together they hashed out just how they would do the job, which company would take the lead and which would be in support and reserve, what routes to take, etc. Several different options and suggestions were made and I noticed that the Company Commanders, in this phase of the planning, were not hesitant about expressing opinions contrary to those of the Battalion Commander, respectfully of course, but put out on the table nevertheless. This took about 1/2 of an hour and then the Battalion Commander laid out his orders based on the previous discussions. From then on discussion at that level was over.

I didn’t follow through but I assume that the Company Commanders went back and got together with their Platoon Leaders for shorter planning sessions of their own. And I strongly suspect that everyone was told that this was a “draw fire” operation and others would make the actual assault. I’ve asked ex infantrymen about this and they tell me that there is a right way to go about it to make it look like a real assault to the enemh but isn’t so at least the Squad Leaders would have to know, and in that case probably everybody does. I don’t think there is much danger of a leak. Why should anyone talk when it could increase their personal danger and jeapardize an operation which, if succesful, was another step on the way out of the war?

There was none of this, “This is the way we’re going to do it because I say so.” baloney until the Battalion Commander had assured himself that the best plan they could mutually come up with had been chosen.

This might have been an unusually well run Battalion, but I’m inclined to doubt it. I don’t think considering various inputs before you commit people to an operation where they could be killed and wounded to be at all out of line and from what I saw, neither do battlefield commanders.

Of course, once the operation actually started, on the spot changes were to be made but these were at the squad or platoon level. They were carried out as well as possible under the circumstances, as when one squad of the support company took a wrong turn and ran into some mines. They had to get themselves out of it the best way they could, plan or no plan.