Lawful Orders

 

I Matthew E. Robinson do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that 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. So Help Me God.

            “No Sir, we cannot do that. It will take a direct order from the MNC-I (Multi-National Corps-Iraq) Commander (CDR) for me to do that,” I replied after gulping a bit and taking a deep breath. I was the Chief of IO (Information Operations) plans serving in Baghdad.

            As I expected the Colonel, the Chief of Staff from one of our subordinate divisions, exploded in a tirade, which questioned my intelligence and general fitness for service. He’d come up to our headquarters to see me and convince me to support a plan that I felt was not only illegal, but also immoral.

            “I understand Sir. I also understand that I am not the one who can say “no” and make it stick, but the Commander is going to have to give me a direct order…and then I might have to refuse.”

            After hearing that, the Colonel stalked off hands clenched. I knew I’d not heard the last of this issue. Sure enough, later that week the division commander paid me a visit while chatting with the MNC-I CDR. The MNC-I CDR was a Lieutenant General (three stars), and the division CDR was a Major General (two stars). I was a Lieutenant Colonel…no stars. The conversation with the Division CDR was a repeat of the conversation with the Chief of Staff, except the volume was louder and my intelligence and fitness was even more suspect.

            “I’m going to talk to your commander,” roared the General as he strode away.

            “Yessir, I understand,” I replied to his rapidly disappearing back.

            Sure enough, the next day the CG (Commanding General) stopped me in the hall and asked me about the issue. “Matt, I need to know more details. Come by my office and brief me this evening.”

“Yessir,” I was stunned that he knew my name. I was just one of the minions buried deep within the command structure. But I went to his office as directed and provided the required briefing. He asked a few questions and then dismissed me, telling me that he would deal with it. I never heard of the issue again. I’ve always wished that I could have been there for the discussion; but, he was an excellent leader would not let a knuckle-dragging minion like myself witness that type of conversation.

The military life is fraught with challenges and dangers, physical, mental, and spiritual, especially when rounds are going back and forth in earnest. It is a crucible in which common citizens find themselves tested. Taken seriously, it burns away the dross, leaving a man or woman of character. The oath of enlistment, first written in 1789, despite occasional tinkering, remained largely unchanged until the Civil War. That conflict introduced language that sought to forestall going over to the Confederacy. It was changed to the more modern version in 1884, and that lasted until 1959 when it was modified slightly.

            When I was a young private, I did not expend much thought about the oath; however, as time passed and my responsibilities increased the oath became more important. Eventually upon commissioning, the oath took on greater import in my life and provided a guide as I sought to navigate the hazardous career that I had chosen. Eventually I was asked to do something that violated my conscience and, I believed, the law. Refusing took courage; but, I had been taught that a good soldier does not simply follow orders. A good soldier measures his orders first against the Constitution and then against the Uniform Code of Military Justice, more commonly referred to as the UCMJ. I survived that first refusal with no repercussions.

            As time passed and I accrued more rank and responsibility, the tests grew more stringent, and the stakes grew higher until I had to face the wrath of a Major General. I’d always been told that as an officer, I needed to have enough moral character to walk away from my career over such an issue. I was thankful that my CDR had seen things my way. It might not have turned out good for me. Fortunately, my CDR was a thoughtful man who believed that doing the right thing was the right thing.

            Soldiers, NCOs, and Officers need wise commanders who think carefully before they act, who weigh the issues and the ramifications of their orders before they issue them. There are many things we want to do in the heat of the moment, when rounds are snapping past, that may not be the best thing.

            During my first tour in Iraq, I called for illumination when taking fire while returning to the FOB. I was denied. Furious, I stormed into the TOC (Tactical Operations Center), demanding to know why I was denied only to find out the firing illumination rounds would have put innocent civilians at risk from the 155 round casing tumbling to earth. Later that same tour, I would stop a gunner from opening up with a 50 cal. in downtown Baghdad, knowing that a long burst from a heavy machine gun would send rounds through many walls of apartment blocks causing numerous innocent casualties, violating proportionality. Proportionality is the concept that you do not kill a fly with a sledgehammer. We settled that issue with small arms fires. What’s the point you might ask?

            We need thoughtful leaders who understand when subordinates question dubious orders. Sometimes the subordinate is incorrect, and the order must be followed as given. Sometimes the order is incorrect and must either be rescinded or amended. When lives, friendly, foe, and innocent civilians, are at stake, we must do our best to limit the carnage. We must be strong enough to take a deep breath and carefully examine the issues at hand. Punishing subordinates for simply asking for clarification or refusing to follow unlawful orders is not the trait of a good leader.

A Time and Land of Prosperity…for Some

 

“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.” — Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd president of the United States           

We enjoy living in a time of unprecedented prosperity. There is not a lack of resources in our land. Despite this time of abundance, we’re choosing to let some of our fellow citizens, friends and neighbors, go hungry. There is no requirement for this. There is not a lack of food. We have just chosen to be churlish and selfish. Oh, we may dress it up in some sort of budgetary crisis; but, that is only a fig leaf to cover our meanness of spirit.

               Some say that the S.N.A.P. program is rife with corruption. This is not true. Through years of careful planning and experience, we have reduced the amount of fraud to almost nothing. Others claim that we cannot afford to feed the hungry. Again, I find this hard to believe. After all, we can afford extraordinary funding for ICE, growth in the defense budget, and providing extravagant tax breaks to the wealthy and large corporations. In fact, with little public visibility, the IRS is administratively reducing the tax burden on the most wealthy and profitable corporations in our land.¹ I find this level of callousness astounding, especially when supported by my fellow Christians.

               Some will misappropriate the passage from II Thessalonians 3:10-15 which contains this little chestnut, “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.” This ignores the context, a group of Christians who, believing the Lord’s return was immanent, gathered on the hills outside the city expecting their fellow believers to feed them. It is neither directed at the poor in general nor does it blot out the mass of scripture which enjoins generosity to those less well-off.  For those of us who claim to be followers of Jesus, to so easily support policies that crush the poor reeks of the very thing that angered the Lord, see Proverbs 22. But for even the non-believer these actions raise serious concerns.

               A strong nation, a good nation, takes care to help all of its citizenry. We cannot turn away from the poor, mumbling such platitudes as, “Their own poor decisions brought them to this state.” It may very well be true that they made poor decisions along the way; but, which of us have not made poor decisions? Some of us are just fortunate enough to have recovered, and most often it is due to our family or someone else helping us not our own strength, pluck, or ability. Now that we enjoy success to turn our backs on our fellow citizens in their time of need is callous in the extreme. For a nation as well off as the U.S. to casually let the poor go hungry, says something very dark about our culture and moral state.

It shows our lack of concern regarding our fellow humans. It says that we do not care about the poor. It also says that if you are poor or of a different color, then you do not rate our compassion. Speaking of compassion, our attitude toward the poor loudly proclaims our lack of compassion. It also shows how selfish we are. We’d rather turn our backs towards those who have very little in order to keep a few measly dollars in our bank accounts. It says that we are a judgmental and prejudiced society, especially towards those who are less well off. Interestingly it also reveals that we love the rich more than the poor, since we eagerly give the rich and large businesses significant tax breaks while doing almost nothing to help those who find themselves struggling financially. Finally, it calls into question our status as a civilized nation. How can we lay claim to the status of being a civilized nation when we gladly, even eagerly, let our own citizens go hungry?   

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/08/business/trump-administration-tax-breaks-wealthy.html

A Life of Service

 

               As a young soldier in the early ‘80s, I posed this question, “First Sergeant, why do we call it ‘the service,’ when we’re in the Army?”

               My First Sergeant rolled his eyes, sighed the sigh of someone who must explain a simple basic truth to a slow child and growled, “Listen, you rock-wit-lips, being in the Army means a life of service. You serve the Constitution, you serve the nation, you serve the Army, you serve your commander, and last of all you serve me. Got it?”

               Even though I did not, I had been a soldier long enough to know that the only acceptable reply was, “Roger First Sergeant.” But over the next twenty-six years or so, I learned. Entering the Army, no matter your rank, was entering into a life of service, a life laid down to a higher cause. A life in the Army requires great sacrifice, even in peacetime. There are long hours, difficult and sometimes perilous training, frequent moves, long TDYs, deployments to uncomfortable places, and yes periodic deployments to combat. As soldiers we do those things because we understand that we serve a higher calling. We certainly do not do it for the great pay, and a difficult field-training-exercise in the winter with snow, sleet, and rain rapidly scuffs off any glamor. This is the same for all government employees. While most do not expect the dangers and rigors of military service, they all understand that they accept a calling to something more important than a paycheck or themselves. They serve their nation. Our politicians, servants of the people, need to relearn this basic truth.

               The continuing government shutdown provides fresh evidence of a group of legislators and executive branch officials who have lost sight of their true purpose in life, to serve the nation or people. Rather than take a deep breath and do the hard work of finding compromise and crafting suitable legislation which serves the nation not just their party, they would rather retreat to opposite sides of the aisle and throw soundbites at one another. Consequently, millions of needy citizens, our neighbors, will go hungry in this land and time of plenty. And we are the ones to blame, not them.

               We elected these men and women, and they are only doing our bidding. But you may say, I did not elect them to shut down the government. No, they did not run on that particular platform plank. But we did not elect them to work hard at finding compromise. We elected them to engage in slash and burn politics which suit our particular proclivities. There are numerous reasons we’ve arrived at this situation; but, I think the following are especially pertinent.

               We need to summon the moral courage to stop large donor contributions, no matter the source, to political campaigns. This practice skews politicians away from doing the hard work of crafting responsible legislation that serves the nation. Instead, they focus on appeasing the donors that contribute significant amounts to their campaigns. We must demand that congress pass stringent finance laws that close the various avenues for donors to circumvent restrictions., Freed from the shackles of large donations, legislators will find themselves freer to do actual work for the nation.

               We must abandon our love of political party and the associated disdain for those who think differently than we do. As a society, we must relearn the concept of “melting pot,” and what that really means. We must discard the selfish conceit that somehow I represent all of America and those who do not think like me must be some sort of enemy. Returning to my military example, the Army did not care one whit who I was, where I came from, what I believed, or who my parents were. All the Army really cared about was did I contribute to the ongoing completion of the mission. That mission focus forced all of us to abandon much of our personal biases and work with someone who was quite different. At the end of the day all that mattered to the Great-Green-Machine was, did we complete the mission. When we abandon our misguided desire that everyone look, feel, and think like we do, we will find that not only do we get along with each other better, but solutions to seemingly intractable problems are close at hand.

               We must hold our representatives accountable for work accomplished instead of soundbites delivered. We often punish our legislators for hammering our sensical legislation simply because it does not exactly fit our preconceived idea of good legislation. At the national level, politicians must balance competing regional wants. Successful legislation is often a matter of compromise. When we punish legislators for making a deal, we stymie the process of democracy. Sometimes we must give on one issue in order to get on another. Instead of applauding meaningless speeches and other forms of pandering to a perceived base, instead, we should expect our elected officials to reach across the aisle and craft good legislation that moves our country forward.

               As long as we embrace divisive party-oriented politics we will suffer as a nation. We must become a more literate thinking electorate. For far too long, we’ve let outside monied interests influence our thinking with half-truths, inuendo, and outright lies. Dominated by those who make large donations and other extremely wealthy, political parties have ceased to serve the public. Our legislators, like the Army, must embrace the rigors of a life of service. Of course, they serve in the marbled halls of the capitol, but true statesmen and women understand that they have undertaken a life of service to a great goal and that often entails long-hours and sacrifice…sometimes personal sacrifice for a greater good. An educated and active electorate which holds their representatives accountable may very well bring about the changes we desperately need in government, including elected officials that understand the concept of a life of service.