...
One point that I think I have not articulately made before is this, and it is critical to my position: My oath is to obey the Constitution and those appointed over me. Part of that, in my view, is that the military is subordinate to civilian authority, and the President, whether I like him or not or agree with his policy decisions, is the Commander in Chief appointed over me. I cannot, consistent with my responsibilities, simply decide on my own which orders I will obey or disobey unless they are specifically precluded by a higher authority. Specifically, the Constitution itself or the Geneva Conventions as made applicable through it...
Many seem to forget that salient point in the rush to applaud an officer refusing orders in what many consider an unjustified and illegal war...
...However, were this some hawkish senior officer - MacArthur comes to mind - who was, as a matter of conscience, refusing to follow the orders of both his military and civilian superiors and was seeking to broaden a war, would so many be lining up to endorse his moral clarity?
What of an officer who, again as a matter of conscience, refused to enforce the don't-ask-don't-tell rule on homosexuality and actively sought to locate and expunge homosexuals? Or who refused to accept women into his command...?
At what point does a soldier's conscientious objection to an order cease to be a moral action to be appreciated and instead pose a threat to the good order of the service and to its subordination to lawful authority?
