Following orders

The soldiers claimed they followed orders. Their superiors disavowed responsibility. It's a story as old as warfare itself, or at least as old as warfare between nations, where the requirements of armed combat coexist uneasily with the norms of a civilized society.

The most recent example—involving abuse of Iraqi prisoners by United States reservists—has left some people wondering whether there is, in fact, a built-in conflict between military orders and spiritually based moral standards. After all, the soldiers charged with committing "inhumane acts" against inmates at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison said they were told to do what they did by their commanding officers. Their friends and collegues back home, meanwhile, describe them as decent and honorable people who would never do the kinds of things they're accused of doing, unless they were specifically ordered to do so.

It will be up to the military courts to sort out the facts and impose penalties, as necessary. We may find out, indeed, that this was the work of a few "rogue" individuals acting of their accord. But the underlying question remains: When orders conflict with a subordinate's moral standard, is there a way to respond that doesn't warrant military discipline?

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

Following orders

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access