The complexity of following orders
Why it can be harder to follow orders than to give them
On November 18, 2025, six Democratic members of Congress published a video telling the US military: “You must refuse illegal orders.” The comment referred to what many consider illegal military strikes by the Trump administration against boats in the Caribbean. The Trump administration responded by calling this encouragement to refuse unlawful commands “potentially unlawful comments”.
Let’s put our opinions aside for a moment and look at this from a soldier’s perspective. Most people agree that one shouldn’t obey illegal orders—but what makes an order illegal?
Human laws are not universal truths like gravity or thermodynamics. They’re man-made and can be shaped by anything from moral principles and common sense to hatred, fear, and simple opinion.
In addition, the legality of an order will often depend on who’s in power or—in times of war—who’s winning. This means that an action can be seen as both legal and illegal at the same time. Such was the case in 2003, when military forces led by a US–UK coalition invaded Iraq. The countries involved argued the invasion was legal under existing UN Security Council resolutions. Many legal experts, world leaders on the other hand, including then–UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, argued the opposite—that the war violated international law.
So how would you, as a soldier, navigate such a situation? Below is an excerpt from Why We Follow where I discuss the Malcolm Kendall-Smith case— the British officer who refused to obey orders because he believed the Iraq intervention was illegal. As you will see, such a decision comes with great personal risk, even if your disobedience is supported at an international level.
If you’re the one giving orders, you’ll be judged by the decisions you make.
If you follow orders, you’re judged by the decisions others make.
I often find it striking that we pay managers and other decision-makers higher salaries not primarily because we expect them to make decisions, but because they’re responsible for the decisions they make. Yet in many ways, it is much harder to be a subordinate.
If you’re the one giving orders, you’re judged by the decisions you make. If you’re following orders, you’re judged by the decisions others make. This means you may be punished regardless of whether you obey an order or refuse it. So what can we do?
I believe that as subordinates, we should consider two essential questions before following an order:
Does the order conflict with any laws, rules, or regulations?
Does the order go against any of our moral values?
The first question will often be enough to guide us. However, if—as we’ve seen above—there are conflicting views (even within yourself, between what is legal and what is right), then the second becomes your compass. Because at the end of the day, you have to live with the decisions you make, whether you’re seen as a decision-maker or a subordinate, a leader or a follower.
***
The Kendall-Smith Example
Excerpt from Why We Follow
In 2006, British officer Malcolm Kendall-Smith was sentenced to eight months in prison and ordered to pay more than £20,000 (approximately $37,000 at the time) in legal fees and costs. Why? He had refused to obey his superior’s orders.
Kendall-Smith was a medical officer in the British Royal Air Force. Three years earlier, the US, Great Britain, Australia, and Poland had invaded Iraq for reasons that remain complex. The details are irrelevant, but even today, many believe the allies lacked both justification and legal right to start the war. Kendall-Smith was stationed in both Kuwait and Qatar during the initial stages of the war. It was during this time that he began to question the invasion. He believed that, as an officer, he was “required to consider each and every order.” Therefore, he spent time examining the grounds on which Britain had decided to initiate the war.
“I have satisfied myself that the actions of the armed forces in Iraq were, in fact, unlawful, as was the conflict,” he concluded. So, when ordered to Iraq a third time, Kendall-Smith refused. “I believe that the current occupation of Iraq is an illegal act,” he stated, “and for me to comply with an act which is illegal would put me in conflict with both domestic and international law.”
Let’s consider Kendall-Smith’s case. We’ve just seen that soldiers may be punished for obeying unlawful orders, but here we have a soldier who’s punished for refusing to obey orders he interpreted as illegal. In fact, during the trial, the judge turned to Kendall-Smith and said: “You have, in the view of this court, sought to make a martyr of yourself and shown a degree of arrogance which is amazing.”
Was Kendall-Smith’s questioning of the legality of the invasion unreasonable? I don’t think so. There had been international disagreements on how to deal with Iraq before the invasion in 2003. US President George W. Bush had mixed support from the American people for an armed attack, especially after no weapons of mass destruction were found. In Great Britain, on the other hand, Tony Blair faced tough national criticism. Countries like Poland, Spain, Australia, Kuwait, and Japan supported the US, while Germany, France, Sweden, Greece, Austria, Finland, Russia, and others opposed war. For Kendall-Smith, it mattered little that the world was divided on the issue.
“Obedience of orders is at the heart of any disciplined force,” the judge argued. “Those who wear the Queen’s uniform can’t pick and choose which orders they obey, and those who do so must face the consequences.”
From Why We Follow
