Nothing in there about orders. The phrase "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice" is in the Oath of Enlistment, not Oath of Office.“I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States (branch of service), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foriegn and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Military commanders are taught to obey all legal orders -- and to question unethical ones. In fact, disobeying an immoral order is something that is covered repeatedly in Professional Military Education although students are also taught to be prepared to suffer the consequences of such disobedience.
PME case studies frequently point out the problem with not having complete information and seemingly-suicidal orders may in fact be necessary for the greater good and to save more lives than are being sacrificed so there aren't any stock answers. At this moment, I can't fathom any set of information that would justify abandoning the ambassador or other Americans under the publicly available information so far.
The problem WE have is that we don't have all the information so we don't know why the admiral was removed from command and the firing of Gen Ham is simply unsupported speculation so far. The caller in this case is providing additional information that make it more plausible (but not certain) someone may have been removed because he decided to an order to abandon US citizens was immoral and potentially illegal.
Having said all that, I'm astounded at your readiness to defend an order to abandon fellow Americans in an attack like this.






Reply With Quote
