Military Disobedience and Legal Liability: Implications for Natural Security and Governance.

 Military Disobedience and Legal Liability: Implications for National Security and Governance. By Ralph L Myers

An Analytical Review of Law, Duty, and Leadership in the U.S. Armed Forces

Introduction

Recent debates have questioned U.S. military personnel's responsibilities when faced with orders they consider illegal, especially when following the advice of elected leaders. The military chain of command is a foundational element of American defense and governance, ensuring operational effectiveness and accountability. When this structure is challenged by calls for disobedience, complex legal and ethical issues arise, with potential consequences for individual service members, the officials involved, and the nation's security.

Obligation to Obey Orders: Foundations in Military Law

The duty to obey lawful orders is a cornerstone of military discipline, codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Article 92 of the UCMJ makes it a criminal offense for service members to disobey a lawful order willfully. This obligation ensures the chain of command functions smoothly, allowing the military to act decisively and cohesively. Obedience is not absolute, however; it is limited by the requirement that orders be lawful. The expectation is that service members will follow orders unless they are manifestly illegal.

Disobeying Illegal Orders: Legal Standards and Historical Precedents

Military law recognizes an exception for illegal orders. Service members are not required to obey commands that violate the Constitution, federal law, or the laws of war. This principle was notably affirmed during the Nuremberg Trials, which established that "just following orders" is not a defense for committing war crimes. In practice, however, determining whether an order is illegal can be complex and fraught with risk. The burden is on the service member to reasonably believe the order is unlawful—a standard that requires both subjective belief and objective evidence. Historical cases, such as those involving My Lai and Abu Ghraib, illustrate both the moral imperative and the legal peril in refusing unlawful commands.

Legal Processes: Courts-Martial, Investigations, and Rights of the Accused

When a service member disobeys an order on the grounds of illegality, the matter is typically adjudicated through a court-martial or military tribunal. The legal process involves an investigation into the circumstances of the disobedience, evaluation of the lawfulness of the order, and assessment of the accused's belief and intent. The government bears the burden of proving the lawfulness of the order and the willfulness of the disobedience. Service members have rights to counsel, due process, and appeals. The outcomes can range from acquittal (if the refusal is justified) to conviction and punishment (if the order is found to be lawful or the belief unreasonable).

Liability of Elected Officials Advising Disobedience

Senators and elected officials occupy influential positions but generally lack direct authority in military command decisions. When they advise or encourage military personnel to disobey orders, they may face legal and ethical scrutiny. While the First Amendment protects free speech, officials may be liable if their advice incites insubordination, undermines military discipline, or encourages unlawful conduct. The boundaries of such liability are ambiguous and would depend on the specifics of the case, including intent, context, and the nature of the advice. Ethically, such interventions risk politicizing the armed forces and compromising the impartiality of military service.

Potential Harm to America: Risks of Undermining Command Structure and National Security

Undermining the principle of military obedience carries significant risks. If military personnel routinely question or refuse orders based on external advice or on grounds of ambiguity, the chain of command could collapse, leading to operational paralysis and loss of cohesion. Prolonged legal disputes over orders—especially if politicized—could delay critical missions, erode morale, and create uncertainty in crisis situations. The resulting instability poses threats to national security, as adversaries may exploit perceived divisions or weaknesses. Ultimately, the integrity of military governance depends on clear, consistent leadership and respect for established legal processes.

Conclusion

The intersection of military obedience, legal liability, and political influence is delicate, with far-reaching implications for individual rights, institutional stability, and national security. Service members must balance their duty to obey lawful orders with their responsibility to refuse illegal ones, guided by both law and conscience. Elected officials, meanwhile, must exercise caution and responsibility when commenting on military matters, avoiding actions that could undermine discipline or politicize the armed forces. Ensuring a robust, lawful, and effective military requires clear legal standards, responsible leadership, and unwavering respect for the rule of law.

Ralph L. Myers is a United States Army veteran and a supporter of the President Trump Administration and Defense Secretary Hegseth.

 

Ralph L Myers

The Dolchstoss Myth and the Democratic Party in 2025: Parallels in Political .

 The Dolchstoss Myth and the Democratic Party in 2025: Parallels in Political Betrayal, Historical Lessons, and Contemporary Reflections on Internal Party Divisions. By Ralph L Myers. Introduction:  The “Dolchstoss" or "stab-in-the-back" myth stands as one of the most potent examples of how narratives of betrayal can reshape political landscapes. Propagated by German nationalists after World War I, this myth fueled resentment and radicalization, ultimately contributing to the rise of Nazism and fascism in Germany. In 2025, a similar dynamic is observable within the Democratic Party, where leftist extremists accuse moderates of betraying core values by capitulating to Donald Trump and the Republican right wing. This article offers a comparative analysis of these phenomena, exploring their origins, impacts, and implications, particularly those driven by perceived betrayal. The Dolchstoss Myth: Origins and Impact. The Dolchstoss myth emerged in the aftermath of Germany's defeat in World War I. Faced with national humiliation and economic hardship, many Germans found it difficult to accept that the military, once the pride of the nation, had been bested on the battlefield. Seeking a scapegoat, right-wing politicians and nationalist groups promoted the narrative that Germany had been “stabbed in the back" by internal enemies—socialists, communists, and Jews—who allegedly undermined the war effort from within. This myth spread rapidly, fueled by propaganda and the frustrations of a populace grappling with the Treaty of Versailles and economic collapse. The Dolchstoss narrative was not merely a reflection of disappointment; it was a deliberate political tool. By shifting blame away from military leaders and the realities of war, it fostered a sense of victimhood and justified calls for radical change. The myth delegitimized the Weimar Republic and its leaders, painting them as traitors to the nation. In doing so, it set the stage for extremist movements to gain traction among those disillusioned with moderate governance. Rise of Nazism and Fascism: The Power of Betrayal Narratives.  The Dolchstoss myth's impact on Germany's political trajectory was profound. By sowing distrust in democratic institutions and painting moderates as complicit in national decline, it created fertile ground for the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. The Nazis capitalized on widespread resentment, promising to restore Germany's honor and punish the alleged traitors. This narrative, coupled with economic instability and fear of communism, propelled fascism to dominance. The myth's power lay in its simplicity and emotional resonance. It provided a clear explanation for complex problems and mobilized support for radical solutions. It marginalized moderate voices and stoked polarization, ultimately leading to the collapse of democratic norms and the ascent of authoritarianism. Contemporary Democratic Party Dynamics: Divisions and Extremism in 2025. Fast forward to 2025, and the Democratic Party in the United States faces its own internal divisions. While the stakes differ, the parallels are worth examining. The party is split between moderates—who often advocate pragmatic compromise—and leftist extremists, who demand an uncompromising progressive agenda. In recent years, some on the left have accused Democratic moderates of betraying foundational principles by engaging with or capitulating to Donald Trump and the Republican right. This perception of betrayal is driven by frustration over stalled reforms, perceived concessions on issues like climate policy, healthcare, and voting rights, and a broader sense that the party's leadership is too willing to prioritize electability over progressive change. Leftist factions argue that moderates, by seeking common ground with the right, undermine the party's moral authority and weaken its ability to confront what they see as existential threats to democracy. Parallels and Contrasts: Comparing the Dolchstoss Myth and Modern Party Divisions The comparison between the Dolchstoss myth and current Democratic Party dynamics reveals both striking similarities and essential differences. In both cases, narratives of betrayal have served as rallying points for radicalization. Just as German nationalists used the myth to delegitimize moderates and fuel the rise of extremism, some leftist extremists today accuse Democratic moderates of abandoning the party's values for short-term political gain. However, key contrasts must be acknowledged. The historical context of post-WWI Germany was defined by catastrophic defeat, economic devastation, and societal upheaval—conditions far more dire than those facing contemporary American politics. The Dolchstoss myth was weaponized to justify authoritarianism and violence, whereas current leftist critiques, while polarizing, remain largely within the bounds of democratic discourse. Still, the underlying pattern is clear: when a political movement fractures over questions of loyalty and principle, it risks empowering extremists and weakening its collective ability to address broader challenges. Narratives of betrayal, whether founded or not, can erode trust and undermine unity. Implications for Political Movements: The Consequences of Internal Division. The lessons of history suggest that internal divisions and narratives of betrayal can have far-reaching consequences. For the Democratic Party, the challenge is to balance the demands of its progressive base with the pragmatic realities of governance. If the perception of betrayal deepens, moderates may find themselves marginalized, while extremists gain influence. This could lead to further polarization, reduced effectiveness, and diminished public trust. On the other hand, healthy debate and dissent are essential components of democratic politics. The key is to prevent legitimate disagreements from devolving into destructive accusations and zero-sum thinking. Political movements must strive to maintain cohesion and shared purpose—even in the face of internal conflict—to avoid the fate of movements undone by their own divisions. Conclusion:  The Dolchstoss myth stands as a cautionary tale about the dangers of internal betrayal narratives and their ability to reshape political destinies. While the context and consequences differ, the Democratic Party's current divisions echo the same dynamics: frustration, radicalization, and the risk of seeing moderates as traitors to the cause. By reflecting on history, contemporary political actors can better understand the risks and responsibilities inherent in managing internal discord. Ultimately, the challenge lies in fostering unity without suppressing dissent—a lesson as relevant today as it was a century ago.