Even by the pathetic standards of congressional Democrats, this is unusually idiotic.
Note what they don’t say. They say that the American military is being “pitted against” their own countrymen, and they say to service members that “you can refuse illegal orders…”
…but they don’t say, even once, even in a pretty clear hint, precisely what illegal orders Trump has issued. He’s being vaguely bad, so you don’t have to obey him. The serious version would look like this: On [date here], the president of the United States ordered [unit name] to enter [place name] for the purpose of [specific action], and that order violated [explicit citation of U.S. Code]. They mushmouth around a set of feelings-signals about Mean Orange Something, but they never quite manage to spit it out. What’s the illegal order anyone is supposed to disobey, and what makes it illegal? News reports suggest they mean to refer to the boat strikes, but click on that link if you want to see more vagueness and weak hinting.
This is exactly what the Catholic bishops just did in their own stupid virtue performance, the precise mark of an absence of seriousness in a coven of drama queens, as they declared that they’re very concerned about questions that have arisen regarding certain situations involving immigrants. More mush from the wimps. Donald Trump is very bad, because mumble mumble mumble. Be precise and clear, or be silent.
This is an age of unseriousness, and here’s another heaping plate of it. Soldiers, you don’t have to obey the orders of your military superiors if you feel that they, that they, uh, oh hey look at the time anyway I have to go. It’s passive-aggressive bad girlfriendspeak as politics. I guess if you feel like you have to obey, that’s fine. No, it’s fine! I’m not mad! Let’s just go to dinner!
We want to speak directly to members of the military, but we don’t actually have anything to say. Just, you know, disobey the president. Small thought, not a big deal.
High school drama club president Elissa Slotkin has been banging on this drum in an especially insistent way, as she holds town hall meetings with veterans who mumble their own vague slogans about Trump bein’ against the Constitution real hard and stuff.
But all of their descriptions are stupid. Sending a few hundred National Guard troops to a city of hundreds of thousands of people with narrow orders about protecting federal facilities and personnel or patrolling to deter violence isn’t military conquest of the population or the militarization of all law enforcement. The hyperbole renders the argument insane. Related, the veterans in Slotkin’s video talk about the “systematic removal” of military leaders, and the “purge of the generals.” The U.S. military has more than 800 flag officers; the Trump administration has removed about 15. There’s a desperate stupidity to all of this panic-mongering that just renders it deeply tiring.
Actual service members will be familiar with the rhetorical style of the sh-thouse lawyer, the idiot in the barracks who tells you that akshully they can’t order you to do that, it’s totally illegal.
You should just tell your drill sergeant that you refuse! He can’t even do nothin’ about it! He’ll just back right down!
If you go looking for a list of consequential moments of refusal in the armed forces, you’ll come up with… nothing much. First Lt. Ehren Watada announced that he regarded the Iraq War to be illegal, so he wouldn’t be participating. An Army dermatologist, Capt. Howard Levy, refused to obey an order to provide medical training to Green Berets because, as he is supposed to have said, “Special Forces personnel are thieves and liars, killers of peasants, and murderers of women and children.” None of the available examples end well. Levy went to prison; Watada was eventually allowed to resign, after a court-martial ended in a mistrial.
This exchange…
- Sir, I refuse to obey, because I regard this military operation as illegal!
- Well, gosh, I guess you have a point, young man
…has yet to manifest itself in American reality, especially much. Silas Soule at Sand Creek is the list I can come up with.
But finally, look carefully at the absolutely bizarre spectacle of Slotkin telling you that, as a former CIA officer, she urges service members to disobey the lawfully elected president of the United States. We’ve mainstreamed the participation of people from the intelligence agencies in our politics, as if that’s the norm in a constitutional republic. Similarly, here’s how Maggie Goodlander identifies the source of her personal authority to tell military personnel to disobey:
Fight against authoritarianism and protect our democracy — lock arms with your friends from the intelligence agencies, and comply with their political directives. The CIA is the gatekeeper of our republic, friend, so it’s best to do what they say.
The same goes for people identifying themselves as career military officers who urge disobedience to elected officials. As a soldier, I counsel soldiers to refuse the authority of the person elected to exercise the highest and final level of civilian authority over the armed forces. That’s a bold strategy, Cotton. Let’s see if it pays off for them.
It’s supposed to be illegal to attempt to cause insubordination in the military, though I doubt enforcement against these idiots would stand up to First Amendment scrutiny. But this is a ridiculous message, conveyed by ridiculous politicians in a ridiculous performance. An effort to get the military to stand against civilian authority is serious business. These are not serious people.
This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, “Tell Me How This Ends.”
