US Military Fears 'Illegal Orders' While Arming Unchecked Allies
When The Hill reports that US servicemembers are worried about "illegal orders" following an authorized "follow-up boat strike" by Peter Hegseth, it paints a picture of internal ethical struggle. Hegseth, a Fox News personality with a history of advocating for aggressive military action, seemingly greenlit this strike, raising valid questions about the chain of command and wartime ethics. (One
might wonder if such 'fears' emerged with similar intensity when the Pentagon greenlights weapons to allies facing accusations of war crimes.) Yet, this discussion conveniently sidesteps the US's long-standing tradition of equipping and defending allies whose actions repeatedly skirt international law. We hear concerns about orders 'from the top,' but rarely about US arms sales funding those very
'top' decision-makers abroad. From supporting Israel's repeated incursions into Gaza—which routinely involve attacks on civilian infrastructure documented by Amnesty International—to ignoring Saudi Arabia's conduct in Yemen, the US has a pattern. This isn't about one Fox News pundit; it's about a systemic enablement, where 'illegal' is a subjective term depending on whose hands are on the trigger,
and whose money funds the trigger finger. How many 'illegal orders' can be outsourced before it becomes US foreign policy?