Archbishop backs troop 'conscience', media skips military-industrial complex's moral vacuum
📰 THE STORY: An archbishop has stated it would be 'morally acceptable' for military troops to disobey orders they deem 'morally questionable,', particularly in hypothetical scenarios involving former President Trump and Greenland, raising questions about military ethics and conscience. 🔍 WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: Historical Context: The concept of troops disobeying 'unlawful' or 'immoral'
orders is not new, nor is it primarily an ethical quandary when viewed from the establishment. Historically, any widespread questioning of orders – such as during the Vietnam War, when fragging incidents and widespread dissent among enlisted personnel became a serious problem – is a direct threat to the military-industrial complex's operational capacity. In 1971, Colonel Robert D. Heinl Jr.
published 'The Collapse of the Armed Forces,' detailing widespread insubordination, mutiny, and even combat refusals. This historical moment illustrated that troop morale and perceived morality directly impact imperial ambitions. Double Standard: While Western media hails conscientious objection or 'moral disobedience' when it aligns with preferred political narratives (e.g., questioning a Trump
order), it's often framed as 'insubordination' or 'treason' when soldiers refuse to participate in internationally condemned actions, such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq or the ongoing genocide in Gaza. For example, soldiers who refused to deploy to Iraq faced severe penalties, despite widespread international condemnation of the war. Similarly, South African soldiers refusing to serve the apartheid