Chain of Command, American Values Guide US Military Profession

Lt. Gen. James M. Dubik,

Source Link

Lately, there’s been talk about soldiers not being bound to follow illegal orders. The talk mostly is among some academicians, media personalities and political leaders. It’s usually associated with one side of the political aisle trying to score points against the other. I don’t want to use this essay to engage in that kind of partisan political discussion. Rather, I’d like to point out two of the enduring and foundational aspects of our profession that are relevant to the current discussion.

First, military commanders in the chain of command, with advice from staff judge advocates, are responsible for ensuring their orders are legal. Putting the primary focus on soldiers, or any other service members for that matter, misses this essential point. Those lower along the chain of command must be able to trust that those at higher levels have done their jobs. And “higher levels” is a relative term. To some, “higher” may mean a company, battalion or brigade commander. To others, a division, corps or joint task force commander. And to still others, “higher levels” may mean a geographic combatant or service component commander.

Inherent Responsibility

Commanders at each level have inherent responsibilities for those they command. Some of these responsibilities are tactical and operational—to place their units, and the men and women in them, in the best position relative to the enemy to increase the probability of success. Other responsibilities are logistical—to ensure the arms, ammunition, supplies and equipment needed for mission success either are on hand or within supporting distance to units in the fight. Still others are protective—to make certain both the battle and campaign areas, as well as lines of communication, are protected from enemy interference.