Should the Military Always Obey Orders?

Lt. Colonel Denny Gillem (Ret)

Military Service and Responsibilities

I graduated from West Point in 1964 and dedicated 22 years to active duty as an airborne, ranger, and infantryman.  My military career included two years of combat service in Vietnam.  During my time on active duty, I received compensation for my service.  Upon my retirement in 1986, I began receiving retired pay, which was significantly less than my active-duty salary.  This payment is a result of my continued status in the retired reserves.

As a member of the retired reserves, I can be called back to active duty whenever the nation requires. Those whose military service combines time in the reserves or national guard may retire after 20 years but generally do not start receiving retired pay until reaching the age of 60, although they remain in the retired reserves.  Individuals who serve but do not reach retirement eligibility receive no retired pay and are not included in the retired reserves.

Current Political Statements and Military Obedience

Recently, six currently serving US Senators, all Democrats, including retired Navy Captain Mark Kelly from Arizona, released a video addressing the military community.  In the video, they emphasized that service members should not obey any illegal orders from their leaders.  This principle is universally understood—illegal orders should never be obeyed. However, it is worth noting that those who refused to comply with the order to receive untested COVID shots faced punishment.

The video, shared by Slotkin, featured Mark Kelly along with US Representatives Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, Chrissy Houlahan, and Jason Crow.  Their message to troops to refuse unlawful orders comes during heightened tensions between the Trump administration and the Venezuelan government, as well as opposition from Democrat-led cities to President Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops in those areas.

Political Motivations and Military Culture

While reiterating a basic truth should not be controversial, the wording and timing of the statement were clearly intended as an attack on President Trump’s authority as Commander in Chief.  Politicians often engage in political combat through questionable or incorrect remarks, but military personnel have never been permitted to do so, which is necessary for maintaining a strong and effective military.  Respect for leadership and prompt, proper obedience to orders is fundamental to military effectiveness.

Senator Mark Kelly, also retired Navy Captain Mark Kelly, continues to receive retired pay and remains a part of the military by virtue of being in the retired reserves.  The Pentagon’s consideration of holding Kelly accountable for his statements is being portrayed by Slotkin and Kelly as a grave abuse of power.

However, they have clearly encouraged military personnel to question the legitimacy of national leadership, which is a matter worthy of investigation.  The military is only now recovering from what is described as poor leadership in recent years, with signs of improvement such as the decline of "wokeness" and increased recruitment.

Military leadership must safeguard the culture and effectiveness of the force, which includes addressing members who undermine leadership culture, as Mark Kelly did.  The appropriate response to his actions depends on how he reacts to being held accountable.

Senator Slotkin’s Remarks and Recent Events

Amid these developments, Senator Elissa Slotkin recently claimed that the National Guard would begin randomly shooting at Americans.  This statement is regarded as foolish and offensive, likely stemming from her opposition to President Trump’s use of National Guard troops to protect the nation’s capital, which has experienced severe violent crime.  The President has also suggested extending such support to other cities facing similar violence.

Coincidentally, or perhaps not, the day before Thanksgiving an Afghan refugee, who had previously worked with US military forces in Afghanistan, appeared in Washington, DC, armed with a handgun.  He shot two National Guard soldiers—one fatally, and the other left in critical condition.  This individual had come to the United States as a refugee due to his assistance to US forces and likely had connections with the CIA.

Senator Slotkin herself served overseas with the CIA.  While there is no suggestion that Slotkin orchestrated the shooting, it is possible that her inappropriate comments may have influenced the event.  Ultimately, everyone is responsible for the consequences of their words and actions.

# # #