Commentary: US soldiers face big ethical issues when asked to occupy cities

ANNAPOLIS, Maryland: US President Donald Trump has announced he was considering sending the federal military into the streets of numerous American cities – above and beyond those sent to Washington DC – in an effort to control the protests and violence that have emerged in the wake of the May 25 killing of George Floyd.

He has since ordered the military to be withdrawn from the capital, but has not ruled out the possibility of using troops in similar situations in the future.



Those actions have led to widespread objections – including an apology from the countrys top military official for taking part in Trumps walk across Lafayette Square on Jun 1.

Trumps own former defence secretary, retired Marine General James Mattis, went farther, urging Americans to “reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.”

For most Americans, that kind of response could take a variety of forms, including protesting, voting and contacting elected representatives.

But members of the US armed forces have an additional option: They could refuse to follow the orders of their commander-in-chief if they believed those orders were contrary to their oath to the Constitution.



READ: Commentary: Is Facebook cosying up to US President Donald Trump?

READ: Commentary: Twitter may have just helped Trump get re-elected


Many have argued that the Insurrection Act of 1807 gives the president the legal authority to deploy the military within the United States to restore civil order.

And because of the citys unique constitutional status as a federal district, the president has already put federal troops on the streets of the District of Columbia without invoking that act.

Military members are not, however, absolved of moral responsibility simply because orders are within the limits of the law, for they also take an oath to “support and defend” and to “bear true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution.

Demonstrators protest against racial inequality in the aftermath of the death in Minneapolis police custody of George Floyd, in New York City, New York, U.S. June 9, 2020. Picture taken June 9, 2020. (Photo: REUTERS/Idris Solomon)

On Jun 2, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – the highest-ranking uniformed officer in the US military – went so far as to issue a service-wide memo reminding troops of that oath, one that may well be at odds with what the president may order them to do if he were to send them back into US cities.


Of course, the mere fact that a military member worries about the constitutionality of an order cannot be a decisive reason to disobey. It is usually the role of those higher up the chain of command – often civilian leadership – to determine whether an order is constitutional.

That kind of concern may well have been on display in recent days when senior civilian and military officials reportedly resisted Trumps desire for active-duty troops to get even more involved.

The US military has long been dedicated to the principle of civilian control. The countrys founders wrote the Constitution requiring that the president, a civilian, would be the commander-in-chief of the military. In the wake of World War II, Congress went even further, restructuring the military and requiring that the secretary of defense ought to be a civilian as well.

Yet the underlying moral reasons that generally speak in favour of deferring to civilian leadership may not be so straightforward when it comes to federal troops on US streets.

READ: Commentary: Why George Floyd's death could tilt the US election – in Trump's favour

READ: Commentary: Could Donald Trump not run for re-election?

Consider, for example, the fact that former US presidents John Adams and Thomas Jefferson worried about a military that would be loyal to a particular leader rather than to a form of government. Madison was concerned soldiers might be used by those in power as instruments of oppression against the citizenry.

We see the founders fears realised when President Trump refers to the military as “my generals.” We see it again when a largely peaceful demonstration was violently ended by authorities to create a moment of political theater, rather than out of public safety concerns.

By refusing to follow orders to deploy to US cities, members of the armed forces could actually be respecting, rather than undermining, the very reasons that ultimately ground the principle of civilian control in the first place.


The reasons for disobedience in this kind of case, however, would have to be even stronger, for there is also a long and important tradition of the US military remaining separate from politics.

Political action by the military reduces public confidence in the militarys truthfulness, competence and trustworthiness.

National Guard soldiers prepare to enter the Cobble Hill Health Center nursing home during the ongoing outbreak of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in the Brooklyn borough of New York, U.S., April 17, 2020. (Photo: REUTERS/Lucas Jackson)

Disobeying orders certainly brings with it that risk, because many of the presidents supporters would likely decry any soldiers refusal to obey as a partisan stain on a non-partisan institution.

Yet its not clear that theres any way to avoid that stain if members of the US armed forces were ordered back into US cities. Not after National Guardsmen wearing camouflage and carrying loaded automatic weapons have drawn those weapons on obviously peaceful citizens.

Not after a photo of soldiers guarding the Lincoln Memorial has raised questions about what or whom they are protecting. Not after citizens primarily engaged in peaceful protest have been subject to gas canisters and grenades containing rubber pelRead More – Source