Military 'Deliberative Friction': A Duty for Lawful Orders — SkimNews
Get the Geopolitics newsletter
Daily geopolitics — wars, elections, sanctions, the diplomatic moves that move markets. Free.
- The essay proposes 'deliberative friction' — a duty requiring officers to submit constitutional objections in writing to the commander with a copy to an inspector general, while the authorized decision-maker retains control of execution
- Military doctrine gives officers a clear rule to refuse manifestly unlawful orders, rooted in the My Lai massacre and Lt. William Calley's conviction, but offers no comparable rule when lawful action appears to threaten constitutional structure
- The article defines 'constitutional corrosion' as using lawful discretion to disable or bypass an institution's independent constitutional function or convert constitutional fidelity into personal or partisan allegiance — citing Kim Lane Scheppele's 'autocratic legalism'
- Competing scholars frame the dilemma: Rachel VanLandingham warns Congress's reluctance to use war powers leaves the military as 'a firewall made of parchment,' while Risa Brooks, Jim Golby, and Heidi Urben caution against officers increasingly picking and choosing among lawful orders
- Peter Feaver's concept of 'shirking' — the military substituting its preferences for civilian leadership through inflated cost estimates or outreach to sympathetic politicians — is invoked to argue compliant execution of bad policy serves the republic better than principled evasion
- Section 1034 already protects lawful officer communications to Congress and inspectors general, and the DoD maintains reprisal-complaint procedures, but the essay argues officers lack a defined standard for when to raise constitutional concerns about lawful action
- The proposed standard requires a written causal claim identifying how an action could disable institutional constitutional function, creates no presumption of merit, gives officers no appellate role, and ends their involvement after an authorized disposition unless new facts arise
Why it matters: The essay fills a documented doctrinal gap: military ethics tells officers to refuse manifestly unlawful orders but says nothing about lawful orders that cumulatively erode constitutional structure. By codifying a written-record process routed through inspectors general and Congress — rather than encouraging refusal or resignation — it preserves civilian control while creating institutional memory of patterns no single officer can see.
Ask SkimNews
