- Joined
- Jun 15, 2014
- Messages
- 36,274
- Reaction score
- 13,419
- Location
- Florida The Armband State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
A USMC active duty Colonel argues in the official journal of the National Defense University that officers have the moral duty and the obligation by their commission and their oath to disobey a legal order from the President/Commander in Chief.
USMC Special Operations Commander Colonel Andrew L. Milburn argued in the journal that...
A survey conducted among students at the Marine Corps War College (MCWAR) in January 2010 represents a cross section of 20 senior field-grade officers from all Services and two foreign countries. Without exception, they agreed that there are circumstances under which they would disobey a lawful order. Their criteria vary little, as these excerpts illustrate:
* "If the officer cannot live with obeying the order, then he must disobey and accept the consequences."
* "When I cannot look at myself in the mirror afterwards."
* "When I deem the order to be immoral."
* "When it is going to lead to mission failure."
* "When it will get someone injured or killed needlessly."
* "When it will cause military or institutional disaster."
These comments reflect the view that the military professional has moral obligations more fundamental than obedience and loyalty to their leaders, civilian or military. Myers and Kohn imply that the term moral is too subjective to be defendable. However, I argue that the military profession is founded on clearly defined moral principles.
I use the term military professional to apply to military officers. I make this distinction based on the nature of the officer's professional military education, which focuses on developing an abstract body of knowledge; his code of ethics, which reflect the "special trust and confidence" conferred on him by the President and Congress in his commission; and his oath of office, which differs in an important aspect from the enlisted oath. These defining characteristics of the military profession impose on him obligations beyond obedience.
https://www.army.mil/article/47175/breaking-ranks-dissent-and-the-military-professional/
Colonel Milburn earned a B.A. in Philosophy from London University and a law degree from Polytechnic of Central London. He enlisted in USMC in 1987.
Colonel Milurn's philosophy of civilian-military relations would indicate the U.S. military would be justified to refuse an order by Potus Trump to initiate "first use" of nuclear weapons. While the U.S. does maintain its policy of executing a first use ("all options are on the table"), it likely would be a bad idea for a Potus Trump to be the first to implement the first use policy (since 1945).
Ne c'est pas?
USMC Special Operations Commander Colonel Andrew L. Milburn argued in the journal that...
A survey conducted among students at the Marine Corps War College (MCWAR) in January 2010 represents a cross section of 20 senior field-grade officers from all Services and two foreign countries. Without exception, they agreed that there are circumstances under which they would disobey a lawful order. Their criteria vary little, as these excerpts illustrate:
* "If the officer cannot live with obeying the order, then he must disobey and accept the consequences."
* "When I cannot look at myself in the mirror afterwards."
* "When I deem the order to be immoral."
* "When it is going to lead to mission failure."
* "When it will get someone injured or killed needlessly."
* "When it will cause military or institutional disaster."
These comments reflect the view that the military professional has moral obligations more fundamental than obedience and loyalty to their leaders, civilian or military. Myers and Kohn imply that the term moral is too subjective to be defendable. However, I argue that the military profession is founded on clearly defined moral principles.
I use the term military professional to apply to military officers. I make this distinction based on the nature of the officer's professional military education, which focuses on developing an abstract body of knowledge; his code of ethics, which reflect the "special trust and confidence" conferred on him by the President and Congress in his commission; and his oath of office, which differs in an important aspect from the enlisted oath. These defining characteristics of the military profession impose on him obligations beyond obedience.
https://www.army.mil/article/47175/breaking-ranks-dissent-and-the-military-professional/
Colonel Milburn earned a B.A. in Philosophy from London University and a law degree from Polytechnic of Central London. He enlisted in USMC in 1987.
Colonel Milurn's philosophy of civilian-military relations would indicate the U.S. military would be justified to refuse an order by Potus Trump to initiate "first use" of nuclear weapons. While the U.S. does maintain its policy of executing a first use ("all options are on the table"), it likely would be a bad idea for a Potus Trump to be the first to implement the first use policy (since 1945).
Ne c'est pas?
Last edited: