Learn more about the course & register at the button below.

Go to Course!

Check out my new course at IPAK-EDU! It’s called The Cold War: Lingering Questions.

We’ll relook the Cold War & perhaps challenge some long held ideas. We’ll review how the Cold War started, the strategic objectives of each side, the “hot” wars, the intelligence operations conducted in the shadows, & much more. As we explore the relevant source material, we’ll also seek to distinguish between documented fact, evidence-supported inference, & speculation. Come join us! Check out the button below to see more details, review the course description, & register. Use the code brad50 for a 50% discount.

Go to Course

With the recent release of the the Duty to Disobey documentary, I wanted to share some of my thoughts on the military’s covid shot mandate, particularly as it pertained to those in command positions at the time.1

The last few years have been highly revelatory for those paying attention. Since 2020, observant Americans have learned much about how the federal government operates. Concerned individuals have witnessed oppressive policies wielded under the guise of “covid response.” Abuses of power that many Americans would have previously considered unfathomable here in the “land of the free” became routine actions. If there is an overarching lesson that concerned citizens should take from this recent period in history, it is that our freedoms are not nearly as secure as perhaps many assumed them to be. Constant vigilance by an ever-watchful public is required to safeguard our liberties from continued government encroachment.

This is particularly important when we consider the role of the institution that many regard as our primary guardian of liberty: the U.S. Armed Forces.

Despite the prominence the Department of Defense (DoD) has long held in the minds and hearts of many Americans, it became one of the foremost objects of criticism due to its own covid response measures.2 The military became a particularly egregious enforcer of tyrannical policies. The most notable of these policies was the mandate for all service members to receive the covid shots.

The Unlawful Mandate

The covid shot mandate, which went into effect on August 24, 2021, was not only unwarranted but also unlawful. In fact, shortly after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) licensed Pfizer’s Comirnaty product, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed a lawsuit for the “allegedly deceptive, rushed licensure of Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine.”3

CHD characterized the FDA’s actions as “a classic ‘bait and switch,’ allowing Pfizer, the Biden administration, the U.S. military and employers to exhort people to take ‘licensed’ vaccines when in fact the vaccines available and being administered continued to be the Pfizer-BioNTech Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) vaccines.”4 This is significant because Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s covid injection mandate required fully licensed products: “Mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 will only use COVID-19 vaccines that receive full licensure from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in accordance with FDA-approved labeling and guidance.”5 Notably, DoD’s mandate went into effect just one day after the FDA licensed the Comirnaty product.6

Let us attempt to make sense of this series of facts and their implications. On August 23, 2021, the FDA licensed the Comirnaty product. The next day, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin implemented the covid shot mandate which required a fully licensed product. This is where the earlier mentioned “bait and switch” comes into play.7 On the day the mandate went into effect, Kennedy and Nass of CHD pointed out “several bizarre aspects to the FDA approval” to include the comparative stocks of the fully licensed Comirnaty and Pfizer-BioNTech EUA products as well as the FDA’s claims of interchangeability of the two products while also explicitly maintaining that there is a clear legal distinction between the two.8 This designation of interchangeability is unfounded because the interchangeability requirements detailed in 42. U.S.C. §262 were never met.9 Additionally, the FDA’s own biologics database lists no products as “biosimilar” or “interchangeable” with Comirnaty.10

Kennedy and Nass draw attention to the legal issues this creates: “There is a huge real-world difference between products approved under EUA compared with those the FDA has fully licensed. EUA products are experimental under U.S. law. Both the Nuremberg Code and federal regulations provide that no one can force a human being to participate in this experiment.”11 Kennedy and Nass go on to conclude that the FDA’s actions seem to support the conclusion that the intent behind this scheme is to permit continued use of the Pfizer-BioNTech EUA product, for which there is a liability shield, in place of the now-licensed Comirnaty product, for which there is no liability shield.12 As Kennedy and Nass note, “EUA-approved COVID vaccines have an extraordinary liability shield under the 2005 Public Readiness and Preparedness Act” which has granted that “[v]accine manufacturers, distributors, providers and government planners are immune from liability.”13

Though referring specifically to possible school mandates, Kennedy and Nass make the following point which also applies to the military mandate: “Americans, told that the Pfizer COVID vaccine is now licensed, will understandably assume COVID vaccine mandates are lawful. But only EUA-authorized vaccines, for which no one has any real liability, will be available during the next few weeks when many school mandate deadlines occur.”14 They go on to state that “[t]he FDA appears to be purposefully tricking American citizens into giving up their right to refuse an experimental product.”15

DoD directly supported the FDA’s deceptive practices. On September 14, 2021, DoD published a memorandum relying on the FDA’s claim of interchangeability between the two products, stating that “DoD health care providers will use both the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and the Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine interchangeably for the purpose of vaccinating Service members in accordance with the Secretary of Defense [mandate].”16 As mentioned above, the claims of interchangeability are baseless. In essence, this meant that DoD effectively mandated EUA products, a violation of 21 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) §360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), which requires that potential recipients be informed of “the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.”17

This prohibition against mandating experimental products, absent a presidential waiver, was upheld in Doe v. Rumsfeld (2003), which declared the DoD’s anthrax program to be illegal.18 There exists a statute in federal law specific to the military, 10 U.S.C. §1107a, that allows for a presidential waiver of the requirement to provide informed consent, including informing the potential recipient of the right to refuse.19 No presidential waiver of this type was ever invoked during the period in which the mandate was in effect.

Additionally, DoD’s mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), found in 42 U.S.C. §2000bb-1, which only permits limitations on religious freedoms when there is “compelling governmental interest,” and the limitations of these freedoms must be carried out via the “least restrictive means.”20 An overwhelming percentage of requests for religious accommodations, such as exemptions on grounds of religious objections, were denied without due consideration, an issue highlighted in U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden.21

The grand irony is that the unlawful implementation and enforcement of these policies were far more destructive to the military’s readiness posture than the purported health threats they were ostensibly implemented to mitigate.

This wholesale departure by our military from both the law and common sense leaves us with some serious questions. What are the lingering impacts of these policies on the military? How did this happen in the first place? Why did military leaders get this so wrong at all levels? Why did virtually all of them go along with such flagrantly abusive and illegal conduct?

I will address a few of those points by keying in on one factor that is critically important for all military endeavors: the role of the commander.

What we witnessed across the military during the covid response period was only possible because of large scale abandonment by military commanders of their command-specific duties and responsibilities. I would like to share my perspective, informed by my own nineteen years of service as an Army officer, culminating in service as the commander of a battalion at the time the covid shot mandate went into effect. I have written about this topic before but want to share some of these ideas here because their importance is so often underappreciated.22

Many people may not yet realize the full extent of the damage the covid response policies have had on our military. Additionally, many Americans might be surprised to know the lasting effects suffered by these policies continue to be largely ignored by current senior Department officials. Though DoD now admits the mandate was “unlawful as implemented,” there has been no accountability to date for the Department-wide legal violations.23 Only very minor adjustments have been made to rectify the corresponding injustices.24

Another point for consideration is understanding why this remains so important though several years have passed since the mandate was implemented. Even Americans that have not served in uniform or may not have close ties to the military should pay attention to what happens within the armed forces. Institutional policies that first appear in the military can often serve as indicators of what may be later implemented more broadly across society. Policies that would typically encounter heavy resistance among the public can first gain traction through ordered compliance in the military and then subsequently be introduced to other segments of the population.

The Proper Role of Orders

The nature of the military is unique. Its purpose and operational demands require the highest standards of order and discipline. As we might imagine, all military activities are performed with a purpose, whether it’s training, planning operations, or conducting equipment maintenance. Accomplishing these actions effectively and to standard requires strict task assignment, management, and compliance. It should come as no surprise that the military is an “orders-based” institution. In other words, tasks associated with everything from routine actions to complex operations are managed through the issuance of orders.

Orders, in and of themselves, are not a problem and constitute an essential component of achieving high levels of readiness. Prompt and dutiful compliance with issued orders is central to unit discipline and a key factor in operational success. For example, let us consult Army Regulation (AR) 600-20 Army Command Policy, which has this to say about discipline: “Commanders and other leaders will maintain discipline according to … applicable laws and regulations, and the orders of seniors.”25 Commanders require compliance from their subordinates just as they comply with the orders given by their superiors, often higher commanders.

Service members must comply with orders, even if they disagree with those orders or believe them to be unsound. Conditions permitting, an individual may have an opportunity to discuss potential reservations about an order with the issuing authority, typically a higher commander. These discussions could result in some amendment to the original order. However, these reservations in no way justify non-compliance with the given order, and if the order stands as initially given, it must be obeyed.

There is one important qualifier, however, with respect to orders compliance: orders must be legal. The Army makes this point clear in AR 600-20 when explaining the importance of compliance: “All personnel in the Army are required to strictly obey and promptly execute the legal orders of their lawful seniors” (emphasis added).26

The other services demand the same strict compliance and have similar language in their regulatory or doctrinal manuals. I cite language from the Army’s manuals only because of my own service in the Army and familiarity with its policies and regulations.

Strict obedience is a requirement for military success, but issued orders must be lawful. In fact, Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 6-22, Army Leadership and the Profession states that, “[s]oldiers are bound to obey the legal and moral orders of their superiors; but they must disobey an unlawful or immoral order” (emphasis added).27 This language is unambiguous. The inclusion of the word must in the second clause of the sentence makes it clear that disobedience is the correct, appropriate, and obligatory response to receiving an order that violates the law.

ADP 6-22 further describes how a soldier should respond in such a scenario: “If Army professionals perceive that an order is unlawful or immoral, they seek situational understanding regarding the order and its original intent. This may include asking for clarification from the person who issued the order.”28 The military teaches the idea that principled disobedience to orders is the dutiful course of action. Even its most junior service members are instructed early on that they are under no obligation to obey an unlawful order and in fact have a duty to disobey such an order. Of course, this does not imply that all orders should be unduly questioned. This point will be addressed further in greater detail.

Much of what has been said or written recently about the importance of lawful and/or moral non-compliance within the military has been from the perspective of those receiving the orders and their response to those orders. Perhaps some of this stems from our natural tendency to support the underdog. We feel inspired by those speaking truth to power. We envision the junior service members of modest rank and experience and imagine how daunting it must be for those young troops to challenge their superiors.

This emphasis on those service members standing up against the institution is correct and entirely appropriate. These stories of courage offer hope that can inspire others. However, the stories of institutional failure must also be studied for the insights they provide as well.

That is why I feel a moral obligation to share about commanders so that we might also understand this problem from that perspective. The U.S. military has a field of largely sub-standard commanders leading America’s sons and daughters. Nothing about this problem has been solved. In fact, the problem has not even been adequately addressed because it remains so poorly understood.

I witnessed DoD’s covid response policies and their impacts firsthand. At the time the covid shot mandate went into effect, I was serving as the commander of a battalion within the 101st Airborne Division stationed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. I took command of the battalion in June of 2021, about two months before the mandate was implemented on August 24, 2021.

Before I share some of my personal story, I want to first explain the role of commanders in the military.

Military Command

Commanders are important because they are leaders. More than that, they are leaders of leaders. They are in charge of their units in every sense. Commanders are unique leaders specially selected for their assignments.

AR 600-20 Army Command Policy explains the essence of command: “Command is exercised by virtue of office and the special assignment of members of the Armed Forces of the United States holding military grade who are eligible to exercise command. A commander…exercises primary command authority over a military organization or a prescribed territorial area that is recognized as a “command…”29 Army Field Manual (FM) 6-0 Commander and Staff Organization and Operations further explains the importance of the command position: “Inherent in command is the authority that a military commander lawfully exercises over subordinates, including the authority to assign tasks and the responsibility for their successful completion.”30 Of note, this “authority to enforce orders by law is one of the key elements of command and distinguishes military commanders from other leaders and managers.”31

The military selects its premium leaders for command positions. These are the most important positions an officer can hold and are therefore the most highly coveted. Commanders are vested with significant authority to ensure they can dynamically lead their units amid the toughest conditions imaginable to deliver the results the nation requires and deserves. The U.S. military is a commander-driven force. This is necessary, proper, and wholly appropriate. The problem is not the magnitude of the role that commanders fill. However, the quality of commanders, good or bad, will create enduring effects on military readiness. The answer is not necessarily to give commanders less authority but to ensure the quality of the commanders is commensurate with the role they are selected to fulfill.

With respect to authority and responsibility, FM 6-0 states: “Commanders may delegate authority, but delegation does not absolve commanders of their responsibility to the higher echelon commander.”32 A commander retains responsibility at all times, and as AR 600-20 makes crystal clear, “[c]ommanders are responsible for everything their command does or fails to do.”33 The essence of command is summed up in that charge.

Army Field Manual (FM) 3-0 Operations explains the importance of leadership by commanders. It states that “[c]ommanders communicate their will to their formations through leadership.”34 The manual then expounds upon the importance of this leadership: “Sound leadership manifests as an unrelenting will to accomplish the mission, the ability to understand and adapt to changing conditions, and the motivation to persevere through hardship. Leadership inspires individuals to push past their perceived breaking point, and to fight for their unit and fellow Soldiers under the most difficult circumstances. It provides the intangible qualitative difference in how much combat power a formation can generate against enemy forces.”35

Notwithstanding this clear admonition, few commanders seemed prepared to adapt to the “changing conditions” the covid policies caused, and were thus unable to “persevere through [the] hardship” produced by the unlawful mandate.

My Command Experience

I had questioned the narratives offered about covid since early 2020 and did not believe the covid shot to be safe, effective, or necessary. Though I took command before the mandate, I knew that it was only a matter of time until it went into effect. The proverbial writing was on the wall, and I had informed my higher commanders that I would not take the shot. Personally, I did not trust the intent behind the mandate’s implementation and believed that much of what we were being told about the supposed covid health threat was untrue. I was prepared to refuse the covid shot and accept the corresponding personal consequences.

As a commander, I knew my actions would impact more than just me. I did not want to compel anyone in my unit to take the covid shot against their personal wishes. Shortly ahead of the announcement of the mandate, but knowing that it could come at any time, I met with the unvaccinated soldiers from each of the companies in my battalion. Though my own personal vaccination status was no secret in the battalion, I made it clear that my objective in meeting was not because I, too, was unvaccinated. I was performing what I saw as my due diligence as a commander by ensuring that my subordinates understood the significance of what was unfolding. I explained that at any time DoD was likely to implement a mandate and they needed to prepare for this eventuality. I explained that they needed to understand the ultimate impact their decision could have on their careers and lives. I also made it explicitly clear that I would not seek to influence anyone in any way as to what decision they should make. Though the mandate was not yet in effect at the time of these meetings, I knew that these soldiers had faced heavy coercion to take the shot before I had assumed command of the battalion. I wanted them to know that they would face zero coercion from me to either take the shot or refuse the shot. I also let them know that I was always available to speak with any of them one-on-one if they wanted to discuss their specific concerns with me personally. A few young soldiers took me up on that offer and later came to my office to discuss their circumstances with me.

Those with an overly caricatured view of the military may assume that the relationship between commanders and their subordinates is standoffish at best and adversarial at worst. This is, of course, untrue. Often, the commander is a soldier’s most important advocate. That said, it is still no small feat for a young, junior enlisted soldier to willingly visit his battalion commander’s office, regardless of how approachable the commander may be. And yet in this case, several did. As I listened intently to these young soldiers, some with tears in their eyes, I felt somewhat powerless to help. Despite how much I may have wished to, I could not absolve my soldiers of the consequences of whatever decision they would opt to make regarding the mandate. I could not even absolve myself of the impacts of my own decision to refuse the covid shot.

The one thing I could do was provide an example. I could demonstrate through my own personal actions that there is another way. Non-compliance with tyranny is an option, but it will come with consequences. As I had shared with the key leaders in my battalion upon my arrival, I believed in doing the right thing because it’s the right thing…consequences be damned.

To me, this is what every commander at my level should have been doing regardless of their personal views toward the shot. Even if they were true believers in the safety and efficacy of the shot, and supported the mandate as necessary, they still should have recognized the impact this policy was having on their troops. They should have supported those service members that did not want to take it. A small fraction of commanders who took the covid shots themselves did offer support to their subordinates that wanted to abstain, but the overwhelming majority did not.

Ultimately, I was relieved of command in late October, about four and a half months after initially taking command. Being relieved of command put me into a tiny minority; at the lieutenant colonel level and above, only two commanders in the active-duty Army were relieved for their refusal to comply with the covid shot mandate. The mandate violated the law, but that did not stop its unlawful implementation because commanders across the military failed in their duty to oppose the unlawful orders associated with the misguided policy. My peers and I could have stopped the mandate if enough commanders had exhibited the courage to say no to tyranny. Instead, the vast majority of commanders willingly, or in some cases begrudgingly, went along with unlawful policies that wrought physical and moral destruction on our forces. It was a wholesale rejection of what it means to command.

Most commanders simply complied with an order ultimately based on fraud between the FDA and DoD. Perhaps they were deceived into thinking the shots were safe and effective because they lacked the discernment to know they were being lied to. Or perhaps they felt uncomfortable taking the injections but lacked the initiative to resist. This latter description probably applies to many. Maybe they did not necessarily want to take the shot, and perhaps they felt appalled at having to order others to take the shots against their will, but they did not speak up and challenge the mandate either because they lacked the courage to do so or because they felt an obligation to support the policy. It may be hard to imagine how so many commanders could get things so wrong.

The Stewardship of Command

Command is difficult. It can be hard to appropriately balance the myriad demands a commander faces. I have been highly critical in the past of our military commanders.36 This is not now some attempt to excuse the inexcusable or defend those whose actions cannot be defended. This is, however, an attempt to further contextualize the situation by providing some insight into the environment in which commanders operate and provide some counsel to current or future commanders that may find themselves in similar situations. Those commanders owe it to themselves, their units, and this country to fully understand their role and the environment in which they command. DoD has not only operated outside the law but has punished those who failed to support its destructive policies while promoting those who chose loyalty to the institution at the expense of the law, the health of service members, or the trust of the American people.

Commanders are the true stewards of the institution, but sometimes they can misunderstand how best to manage the competing equities at play. Commanders are expected to be “on the team” and to demonstrate full support for their higher commanders and the institution. In general, this is admirable. Higher commanders do need support. The armed forces as a whole need commanders who uphold high standards. However, this support must not come at the expense of the principles we as Americans hold most dear. ADP 6-22 succinctly explains the concept of honorable service: “Honorable service is support and defense of the Constitution, the American people, and the national interest…Army professionals serve honorably by obeying the laws of the Nation and all legal orders. Army forces reject and report illegal, unethical, or immoral orders or actions.”37 Above all, commanders should embody this admonition to serve honorably thus inspiring others to do the same. Yet many commanders do not fully understand their role. They may have a moderate knowledge of their assigned duties but fail to adequately grasp the entirety of their charter or the true mantle of command.

Commanders know they are ultimately “responsible for all aspects of unit readiness.”38 Generally, a commander’s actions that enhance his unit’s readiness posture would be appropriate just as, in the general sense, compliance with orders is appropriate and necessary. However, orders must be consonant with the law, and where orders and law ever come into tension, a commander must fulfill his obligation to sustain the law even if it means disobeying the order. In much the same way, a commander’s focus must not be so oriented toward the reporting of readiness metrics that he tolerates breaches of integrity or violations of the law just to achieve high marks in the eyes of his higher commander. FM 6-0 drives home this essential point: “Commanders are legally and ethically responsible for their decisions and for the actions, accomplishments, and failures of their subordinates.”39 Those who are incapable of negotiating these challenges are unfit for command. They put their units at risk, destroy trust, and serve as poor examples to their subordinates.

To properly reject an unlawful order, one must first understand that it is unlawful. After all, many leaders, including commanders, did not understand the legal complications connected to the mandate. This claim of initial ignorance holds some validity though that validity has dropped precipitously as more time has passed. Due to the complicated legal machinations performed across various government organizations such as the FDA and DoD, it is completely understandable that military leaders would not have been aware of the full extent of the mandate’s legal problems. Higher commanders, senior leaders, and the military’s legal advisors – with very few exceptions – claimed the mandate was legal. Additionally, many commanders naturally assume the legal sufficiency of the orders they receive. However, over time – now more than four years since the implementation of the mandate – as more information has surfaced with respect to the problems associated with the mandate, any current ignorance has become willful and the continued failure to challenge the mandate and its enduring effects now implies support.

Let us return to this assumption that many commanders have that the orders they receive are lawful.

There is indeed an underlying expectation that orders issued will be legal. This “inference of lawfulness” is codified in the military’s Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), Part IV, 16: “An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful, and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime” (emphasis added).40

Let us recall a point emphasized earlier. ADP 6-22 explains that “[u]nder normal circumstances, Soldiers and Army civilians trust their superior’s orders and execute them to the best of their ability” (emphasis added).41 After witnessing DoD openly violate the law with the support of virtually all senior leaders and commanders at every level, we must not delude ourselves by still believing the military is operating under the “normal circumstances” mentioned in the cited text. We may be justified in asking ourselves if conditions within the military have changed such that the “trust” mentioned in the included text above is no longer operative to the same degree it was prior to the military’s covid response policies.

Let us consider this further.

For the aforementioned “inference of lawfulness” mentioned in the MCM to be acceptable, the field of commanders must be of an exceptionally high ethical caliber. This inference has a built-in premise that unlawful orders in the military are so rare an occurrence that, absent overwhelming evidence to the contrary, orders should be considered lawful and carried out accordingly. This presumption, though bold, is not necessarily the problem. The lack of commanders capable of meeting the requirements to justify such a lofty inference is the problem. In other words, the solution is not to lower the standard by erasing the inference of lawfulness, but to elevate the quality of commanders that such a standard is truly applicable.

Trust

As mentioned in the text cited above from ADP 6-22, trust is an indispensable quality in military organizations. Trust, however, cannot be called into existence by decree. It can only be earned. If trust within a unit has been eroded due to unlawful or otherwise unethical behavior by the commander, then service members are less likely to operate on the assumption that subsequent orders are lawful or that the commander is acting in good faith. Organizations that don’t fully trust their commanders are unlikely to be high-performing units.

That there has been zero accountability for perhaps the most destructive policy the military has ever implemented does not do much to instill trust among service members, either with their leaders at the unit level or with senior Pentagon officials. The lack of accountability sends the message that the military is not bound by the laws of the nation it purports to defend. It calls into question the oaths military leaders have taken to support and defend the Constitution while acting in open defiance to that chief governing document. The idea that the armed forces are above the law is so dangerous that it should never enter the minds of either the troops or the minds of the American citizens that rely on the military to defend the country.

There is another reason that continued ignorance of the mandate’s legal problems is unacceptable after four years. ADP 6-22 offers important guidance into issuing clear orders and the responsibility to ensure the legality of orders received: “Leaders should not issue vague or ambiguous orders or instructions to avoid responsibility.”42 In other words, leaders should not issue intentionally vague orders that would permit the leader an element of plausible deniability should subordinates, in complying with the order, commit unacceptable actions that could be traced back to the leader who issued it. The manual continues: “Leaders have a responsibility to research relevant orders, rules, and regulations and to demand clarification of orders that could lead to criminal misinterpretation or abuse. Ultimately, Army leaders must accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions and the subordinates who execute the leader’s orders.”43 Ignorance is no excuse and is unbecoming a commander. At the first hint of a potential problem with the mandate, its implementation, or enforcement mechanisms, commanders should have researched the order and its background. They should have challenged the orders associated with the mandate. The widespread failure to do so led to the exact type of “criminal misinterpretation and abuse” that ADP 6-22 describes.

While mistakes do happen, even serious ones, the issuance of an unlawful order by a commander in the U.S. military should be incredibly rare. For it to happen at all, the commander giving the order must have a significant deficiency either in his legal understanding as it relates to his authorities or in his moral character. Neither type of deficiency is acceptable. Commanders do not operate in isolation. They have higher commanders, staff advisors, and even legal counsel that they can consult.

The Command Ethos

Our commanders have not adequately risen to the challenges the force has faced over the last few years. The collective weakness of those in command has resulted in serious physical and moral degradation of military readiness. Without a bold transformation of the command ethos, these problems will persist and may even be exacerbated should the military experience any potential tensions with the law in the future.

Commanders must understand the environment they are working in. Under the guise of covid response, the military violated the law, deprived its service members of their constitutionally protected rights, and punished those who resisted the tyrannical policies. More than four years later, there still has been no accountability for these crimes. Instead, the institution has rewarded compliance with its unlawful actions.

That is the current state of the military.

This means that the “inference of lawfulness” codified in the Manual for Courts-Martial is an unsound operating framework. It promotes passivity on the part of those receiving orders and is no longer relevant to the current environment. Rather than simply assuming that orders are legal unless obviously illegal, commanders should assume that at some point they may likely receive orders that conflict with the law. DoD’s oppressive covid response policies demonstrate the validity of this assumption. Commanders must exercise prudent scrutiny in evaluating the orders they receive. That does not necessarily mean that every order must be overly analyzed before complying, but it does mean that commanders must no longer assume the orders they receive are legal simply because the military hierarchy says they are. The majority of orders deal with rather routine tasks that don’t require a sustained, in-depth legal analysis. However, where complex constitutional or statutory factors may be at play, commanders must become comfortable ensuring legal sufficiency before simply obeying orders or passing down the orders to their own subordinates. To effectively lead their units, commanders must have a basic understanding of the law as it relates to their authorities. They must also exhibit the willingness to guard against unlawful activity. This does not mean that commanders must become legal experts; such an expectation would be as unrealistic as it is unnecessary. It is merely an acknowledgement that the same command mentality that has caused the current problems in the military is incapable of also offering appropriate solutions.

Moral courage is as important as physical courage. It is an indispensable requirement for leadership. Commanders are not just the face of their units, but also their first advocate. If a higher commander, or even DoD, issues an order or policy that violates the law, commanders should challenge the order rather than issuing the same order to their subordinates. True commanders shield their units from the ethical leadership failures from above rather than compounding those failures by simply passing them down to their own units.

If there is a single personal quality that the military seeks to build, it is leadership. That should come as no surprise. The desire for strong leadership is not even unique to military units. All types of organizations from corporate entities to sports teams have identified the need for inspirational leaders that can positively influence those around them.

This need for leadership is of paramount importance in military units given the nature of their duties. There is a fundamental reason the military focuses so heavily on developing leadership within its personnel at all levels. Throughout history, militaries have long recognized the difference in unit effectiveness that strong, dynamic leadership can accomplish. For example, FM 3-0 Operations states that “[l]eadership is the most essential dynamic of combat power…It is the multiplying and unifying dynamic of combat power, and it represents the qualitative difference between units.”44 Commanders are the foremost leaders of their respective units, but they cannot lead without the courage to do the right thing.

Commanders are the ultimate stewards of and within the profession of arms. It is up to the commanders to ensure that the military as an institution serves honorably and faithfully. As ADP 6-22 states, “[s]tewardship requires that Army professionals understand their duty represents a trust–it is an office. This responsibility is explicit in the oaths taken by Army officers…”45 Commanders are responsible for the culture they foster within their units. Commanders earn trust by setting high standards, leading by example, and advocating for their subordinates. Discipline is not just top-down but is instead a two-way street that requires effort up and down the chain of command.

Commanders are the prime movers within the military at all levels. Until they take their role more seriously, enduring change will be difficult. ADP 6-22 acknowledges the reality of the situations in which questionable orders may be given. Orders are often given amid extremely stressful conditions with limited information. The manual states that “[t]here is a risk when disobeying what is perceived to be an unlawful or immoral order–and it may be the most courageous decision an Army professional ever makes.”46 The military needs commanders with the moral courage to make the right decision regardless of the consequences for doing so.

There must be a full restoration of a true command ethos within the military. Given the current disregard for the law across the military, such a shift is unlikely to be directed from the top. Commanders must reshape the ethos through their personal actions. They must take it upon themselves to rebuild the culture of lawfulness and moral rectitude. In so doing, they will influence not only their subordinates, but also their peers and even their superiors to do the same.

As I have written previously elsewhere:

No commander should expect command to be easy. Candidates are not selected for command because of their ability to make the right decision when it’s obvious what to do. Commanders are necessary because it’s not always obvious what the right answer is. Commanders are expected to weigh competing requirements and make decisions amid limited resources. Commanders are expected to fully understand risk and balance that against opportunity. Commanders are expected to operate under time constraints and with complete information. They are expected to exercise sound judgment.

A commander who is only capable of making the right decision when it’s easy to do so is no commander at all.47

If you appreciate this content, please consider subscription and/or a tip. Any support is highly appreciated.

Tip Jar

If you appreciate this content, please consider subscription and/or a tip. Any support is highly appreciated.

Tip Jar

The text below is the speech I gave at the Duty to Disobey viewing held in Independence, OH on June 30, 2026. This text appears exactly the way I wrote it, but may deviate slightly from the way it was delivered. There were a few additional statements I inserted in the speech in the moment that are not reflected below. The speech originally had no title. I chose the title in order to post it here.

One of the themes central to this speech is moral injury. I was glad that moral injury was mentioned in the documentary by Dr. Crisanna Shackelford, who was the first individual that I heard adequately describe this phenomenon as it relates to the military’s covid shot mandate and other response measures.

If you missed the viewing of the documentary, you may still purchase DVDs at dutytodisobeyfilm.com.

Full text of speech below:

July 4th starts tonight!!

Good evening, everyone. Thanks so much for coming out tonight. It’s so good to see all of you. And a special thanks to Jen for hosting tonight.

If you would, please stand up if you are currently serving in the military. Please stand up if you are a military veteran. Please stand up if you are the spouse of a service member or veteran. Please stand up if you have evet met anyone in the military. If you have ever watched a military movie, please stand up. If you have ever heard of the U.S. military, please stand up. Okay, is everyone standing? If you are standing, tonight’s message is for you.

This message is about the military but it is not just for the military. It is for all Americans because it affects us all. And dare I say, it even impacts others around the world. Just yesterday I was interviewed by a gentleman from the UK, a former British Army officer himself, who was interested in my story as it relates to the issues discussed tonight. We even briefly discussed the documentary. Our message resonates with many people, even those who don’t necessarily live here because they have undergone similar circumstances in many cases.

One of the major reasons that it remains important for us to still talk about, and call attention to, the covid shot mandate is because its effects still persist. How so? Well, physically there are service members that likely died from the shots (How many? We may never know). Many service members are permanently injured from the shots. Service members lost their jobs, careers, their livelihood. Others remained in the service, but their careers were permanently altered. These are the harms that we know about, even if we don’t necessarily know the full extent. We can acknowledge the physical and financial effects. We can even acknowledge the psychological or mental impacts.

Let’s talk about the moral effects. What is moral injury?

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs tells us from their own website that when under “traumatic or unusually stressful circumstances, people may perpetrate, fail to prevent, or witness events that contradict deeply held moral beliefs and expectations.” This then leads to moral injury, which is the “distressing psychological, behavioral, social, and sometimes spiritual aftermath of exposure to such events.”

Here’s what this means. It means that if you are directly or indirectly a part of acts that conflict with your moral code, it may cause a type of disjuncture, or disconnect. This can be especially acute if you are part of an organization or institution that has a well-established moral code, ethos, or set of principles that it purports to uphold. The profession of arms is such an institution. So imagine the disconnect that may occur when we witness the leaders of the institution act in open and defiant opposition to the very virtues and values that are said to be at the core of everything the institution represents.

That disconnect is moral injury. We can all recognize what it may feel like. It’s also important to know that it has a name: moral injury.

What does moral injury look like? I’m citing from something I wrote on my own Substack back in May of 2023. I said:

To truly see this, we must understand that there is a large portion of the currently serving military population, as well as many veterans who have recently departed from service, who are surely suffering moral injury in some capacity that falls within the definition provided above from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The website explains that these suffering individuals likely fall into the following groups:

1. Those who participated in some action that goes against their own moral code. These would be those individuals who were uncomfortable with the policies implemented by DoD but went along with them, perhaps to save their careers. This group could also include those who were initially “true believers” in the injection policies, but have since learned the reality of the objectives behind the mandates and now find it difficult to reconcile their own previous actions with what they now know.

2. Those who witnessed an action that violates their own personal moral code. These are the individuals that did not directly participate in the harmful actions that were part of the covid-19 response policies. They may have even openly opposed them and perhaps were even harmed in some way by the policies (such as loss of promotion, loss of desired duty assignments, or loss of one’s career entirely). This can be difficult for individuals to accept because they likely feel a strong sense of identity and professional kinship with an organization (the military) that has betrayed their trust and has instead turned against what it purportedly stands for (such as the Constitution).

3. Often individuals can fall into both of the above categories. One can participate in bad actions as part of a group or organization that also pushes the bad action. In this type of case, the participating individual perhaps feels that they were trapped and coerced into doing what they did. In turn, they feel both like a perpetrator and a victim.

How does this moral injury manifest itself?

Again, we will consult the Department of Veterans Affairs website for their entry on the topic of moral injury. First, for those who committed acts that violate their own moral code (Group #1 above), they will feel guilt. This guilt is act-oriented, which means that the person’s guilt is directly tied to whatever action is deemed to be in direct opposition to the person’s moral code. The feelings of guilt will manifest themselves as something like: “I committed a bad act and I feel guilty about the act.”

Specifically, there are leaders all across the military that feel guilty for pushing the covid shots on their subordinates when now it is abundantly clear that the shots were harmful. They may also feel guilty about marginalizing the individuals who resisted the injections. Whether or not these individuals have the courage to admit their guilt and do anything about it remains to be seen, but the guilt is undoubtedly there.

Another way in which moral injury affects those in Group #1 is through shame. The shame goes further than guilt. Rather than being about what one has done (the act), shame is about who one is (the actor). This shame is expressed in terms such as: “I am a bad person because of what I did.” It is immediately clear how destructive this type of shame could be. It can be prejudicial to one’s self-esteem, professional output, and relationships with others in both a personal and professional setting.

There are leaders across our Armed Forces who feel uncomfortable with themselves as a result of the policies they carried out. They are having a hard time looking themselves in the mirror. Some of them have a hard time wearing the uniform because they question whether or not they deserve to wear it. They are now unsure of their own character. They question whether or not they are the type of person who should be serving in the military or whether or not they should be serving in a leadership or command capacity. Again, perhaps they lack the courage to speak up but that does not mean that they are not internally conflicted.

It doesn’t end there. The entry on the Veterans Affairs page tells us that disgust is another potential effect of moral injury. Disgust primarily affects the moral injury victims in Group #2. This is a massive problem. This means that there are currently serving troops who feel disgusted with their leaders and with their organizations. They may actively resent both their local leaders at the unit level (these would be the leaders they interact with daily) and also the senior level leaders in the Pentagon that service members see as holding overall responsibility for the harmful policies.

Truthfully, we must admit that many individuals will feel more than one of these sentiments, particularly if they see themselves as both a perpetrator and victim of the harmful covid-19 injection policies.

Now let’s take this one step further. Let’s look at identity. Think about how important our identity is. Think about the importance of your name, your family’s name, or the name of any group you freely associate with. Think of the symbols connected to groups you are a part of. National symbols, faith symbols, etc. Think about how names and symbols are related to identity. Then think about how culture and values are associated with identity.

So how does moral injury potentially impact identity? America, as a nation, also is said to have begun according to a set of principles and ideals. In fact, much of that is infused into the ideals that have formed part of the military ethos. After all, we are a nation born of war. The principles of faith, truth, self-determinism, and protected rights lie at the heart of what it means to be American. We often contemplate this every year around this time. Hopefully July 4th means more to us than hot dogs and fireworks (not that those things are bad- they aren’t). So how do we explain how our own leaders, military or otherwise, seem to act in ways totally oppositional to what we have all been taught that our country is, does, and represents?

Increasingly, it seems that Americans don’t know what their country stands for. As we approach July 4th, particularly on the 250th anniversary of that date, we should know what our country stands for. And yet, many of our leaders do not know, or do not care what our country stands for. They stand in direct opposition to the truth and freedom that we as Americans want to believe that our country is the grand champion of.

What happens when there appears to be a gap between what we believe our nation to be and what we observe that it is? Ladies and gentlemen, I tell you that this disconnect is moral injury. Over time, we as a country have suffered deep moral injuries. When what we believe about ourselves is attacked, it is an affront to our identity because what we believe about ourselves is such an integral pillar of our identity. And our identity is a core component of our very personhood. An attack on our identity is an attack on our personhood. An attack on the collective identity of a group is an attack on each person in that group.

This attack on our ability to readily identify who or what we are is, in large part, caused by moral injury. And as much as we may look and say that others have perpetrated this great wrong against us—and that may certainly be true—we have also perpetrated it against ourselves. And when I say that, I do not imply that people here have committed some great injustice against this country that has then caused us to lose our identity.

But I do say that many of the injustices perpetrated against this country come from within. They come from individuals who, in our name, carry out the most sinister actions, often against its own citizens. How are these actions done in our name? First, they are done with our taxpayer dollars. Second, they are done through the nominal assent of our supposed representatives. In a republican form of government, we have a great responsibility on our shoulders. We are expected to act. We are the ultimate stakeholders. Under God, We the People are the subjects, not the objects, of American sovereignty.

We, as citizens, do bear some responsibility for what is happening in our country. Again, let me reiterate that I’m not laying great blame at the feet of anyone specifically in this room. Much of what has happened in this nation has happened in spite of our efforts to resist not because we have facilitated them.

However, in the collective, we all bear responsibility. So what do we do? How do we resist the evil, the lawlessness, the sheer insanity that has taken our nation?

Let me share some thoughts from a great leader of the 20th Century. Some of you may be familiar with him, and some of you may not. His name is Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. He was a Soviet dissident. He spent nine years in the gulag and was exiled from the U.S.S.R. for his criticism. The day before his exile in February of 1974, he released an essay to a tired, beat down, Soviet population that had already endured more than a half century of horrendous totalitarianism. The essay was called “Live Not by Lies,” which is a powerful call to action that anyone can follow, regardless of position, status, or social influence. Solzhenitsyn says, and I will read a few excerpts,

“We are approaching the brink; already a universal spiritual demise is upon us; a physical one is about to flare up and engulf us and our children, while we continue to smile sheepishly and babble:

‘But what can we do to stop it? We haven’t the strength.’

We have so hopelessly ceded our humanity that for the modest handouts of today we are ready to surrender up all principles, our soul, all the labors of our ancestors, all the prospects of our descendants—anything to avoid disrupting our meager existence. We have lost our strength, our pride, our passion.

We have internalized well the lessons drummed into us by the state; we are forever content and comfortable with its premise: we cannot escape the environment, the social conditions; they shape us, ‘being determines consciousness.’ What have we to do with this? We can do nothing.

But we can do—everything!—even if we comfort and lie to ourselves that it is not so. It is not ‘they; who are guilty of everything, but we ourselves, only we!

It will never come unstuck by itself…if we do not, at the least, recoil from its most vulnerable point.

From lies.

For violence has nothing to cover itself with but lies, and lies can only persist through violence…it demands of us only submission to lies, a daily participation in deceit—and this suffices as our fealty.

Our way must be: Never knowingly support lies!

And thus, overcoming our timidity, let each man choose: Will he remain a witting servant of the lies…or has the time come for him to stand straight as an honest man, worthy of the respect of his children and contemporaries?

Solzhenitsyn, a man who knew far too well the face of tyranny, explains what we can do. He does not advocate violence here. He does not advocate armed resistance. His primary approach is to withdraw consent. We must not support the lies that prop up architecture of enslavement. In many ways, direct and indirect, we become the agents of our own destruction through our consent. If there is a July 4th lesson here, do not consent to the aims of those who are bent on destroying this nation.

Let’s not consent to those who would have us forget our identity as Americans.

Many of the most American of Americans were represented in this film tonight. Some of these heroes are even in this room. Let us learn from them. How do we resist? How do we recover the dwindling American identity? We start by refusing to submit to the narratives engineered through lies. We stand for truth no matter the cost. We do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do, personal consequences be damned.

We cannot stop what is happening in this country from the couch. We must get engaged. We must get involved. We must be men and women of action. We must recognize the moral injury and seek to heal it by treating it through moral rectitude, through alignment with the very ideals we caused through abandonment. We must recover our identity as a country.

We must be true Americans. No more, no less.

If you appreciate this content, please consider subscription and/or a tip. Any support is highly appreciated.

Tip Jar

If you appreciate this content, please consider subscription and/or a tip. Any support is highly appreciated.

Tip Jar

If you appreciate this content, please consider subscription and/or a tip. Any support is highly appreciated.

Tip Jar

I discuss what I think the war is and isn’t, the legal questions surrounding the current war with Iran, historical factors such as the Bretton Woods Conference and later creation of the petrodollar, the significance of the Strait of Hormuz, and possible historical insights from previous wars such as those in Afghanistan, Iraq (1991 and 2003), and even Vietnam.

If you appreciate this content, please consider subscription and/or a tip. Any support is highly appreciated.

Tip Jar

If you appreciate this content, please consider subscription and/or a tip. Any support is highly appreciated.

Tip Jar

For those interested in exploring options to continue their education, inform themselves, and interact with other people of integrity, IPAK-EDU is the place to be. With an ever-expanding catalog of courses available, there are more opportunities than ever to be part of something great. There are various phenomenal courses at IPAK-EDU that currently have open enrollment. Go check them out and see what resonates with you.

Let me tell you about my course.

The course I’m currently offering is called Literature as Resistance: Recognizing, Unmasking, and Countering Totalitarian Tendencies. It’s a timely course that explores dystopian fiction in ways that might serve as an interpretive lens to better understand much of what is transpiring in the real world now. Some of the course description, taken from the IPAK-EDU website, is listed below:

In-Depth Analysis: Discover how literature reveals and contemplates totalitarian trends, exploring themes like technocracy, scientific dictatorship, narrative control, and how certain technological innovations such as AI could be used to increase societal control measures.

Rich Literary Exploration: Study classics like George Orwell’s 1984, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, and Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We alongside contemporary non-fiction such as David A. Hughes’s “Covid-19,” Psychological Operations, and the War for Technocracy and other relevant, supplemental material.

Critical Discussions: Engage in rich dialogues about the historical development of dystopian literature and its relevance to modern conditions.

Practical Applications: Learn to identify and challenge technocratic controls in current scenarios, drawing parallels from the literature to develop ideas for retaining personal sovereignty and integrity.

Comprehensive Study: Understand literary devices and themes used by authors to construct narratives and convey profound messages.

Throughout the course, students will use the literary texts to examine themes within technocratic/dictatorial systems such as:

• Control of information to influence behavior

• Elevation of knowledge, science, technology, and scientific class

• Promotion of materialist paradigm

• Separation of man from God or the Transcendent

• Atomization of individuals and assimilation into societal mass

• Resistance to influence from systems of control

We held the first class last night, which I have posted below. Check it out. If you like what you see and feel that you might enjoy the course, there’s still plenty of time to join us! If you want to know more about the course or sign up, hit the button below:

Literature as Resistance 2025

Here is the video recording for Literature as Resistance 2025, Lesson 1. I hope you enjoy it and consider joining us for the course. We’re just getting started and would love to have you be part of the class.

I had a conversation with Stephanie Weidle of Feds For Freedom and Dr. Sheila Furey of VAMFA to discuss the upcoming summit. We briefly discuss the themes that will be addressed, some of the speakers who will present, and why these topics remain vitally important for all of us.

These two ladies have demonstrated tremendous courage over the past few years on the front lines of freedom. The two organizations they represent are crucial in the current battles ahead. I was fortunate enough to attend the previous event co-sponsored by VAMFA and Feds for Freedom and it was spectacular! I have no doubt that this upcoming summit will be just as great.

To learn more about the summit and to purchase tickets, go here:

Medical Freedom and the Constitution

Check out our conversation about the upcoming summit:

My upcoming course "Literature as Resistance: Recognizing, Unmasking, and Countering Totalitarian Tendencies" will begin in a few weeks. In this video, I give an overview of the course, talk through the books we will read, and explain why I think you would get a lot out of joining in!

The course will be fun, informal, and discussion-oriented. It'll be a great time, and hopefully we'll all come away smarter!

To learn more about the course or to sign up, go here:

Literature as Resistance

Go check out the other courses at IPAK-EDU as well!

IPAK-EDU

Here’s the video about the course.

In our chat, Tori and I discussed her 2015 book Locus Amoenus (a term that refers to a pleasant place where nothing goes wrong). It’s a loose re-telling of Shakespeare’s Hamlet that takes place in a small upstate New York town (actually a hamlet, as it were) in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. It’s a fun novel that takes a new spin on an old tale. On her website, Tori describes the novel in the following way:

In this dark comedy, a 9/11 widow and her son, Hamlet, have retreated from Brooklyn to the idyllic rural countryside upstate, where for nearly eight years they have run a sustainable farm. Unfortunately their outrageously obese neighbors prefer the starchy products of industrial agriculture. Hamlet, who is now 18, is beginning to suspect that something is rotten in the United States of America…

There are elements within the novel that will resonate strongly with anyone who has ever questioned the rigidly held tenets of orthodox thought. By employing the framework of Shakespeare’s play Hamlet, Tori has explored creative ways to address delicate issues such as food quality, the abuse of pharmaceuticals, military adventurism, and of course, the official 9/11 narrative. It’s a great, accessible novel that I really enjoyed reading. If you have ever felt out of place because of your beliefs or have ever been disappointed by the failure to convince friends to challenge deeply held assumptions, then you will appreciate Locus Amoenus.

A sequel to this novel, Orwell 2020, will be released sometime this winter. To learn more about Tori and stay informed about the release of her sequel, visit her website. There is also an audio version of Locus Amoenus available at her website as well.

In the interview, Tori also mentions her work at IPAK-EDU and tells us a little about her upcoming course “We Are Not Machines,” about the flawed assumptions and perils inherent to transhumanism. Learn more about the upcoming course here.

Check out our conversation below:

In 1933, Butler was approached by powerful businessmen who encouraged him to participate in a coup against FDR known as the Business Plot. (There are alternate theories as to what the intended outcome of this coup was meant to be.)

If you appreciate this content, please consider subscription and/or a tip. Any support is highly appreciated.

Tip Jar

If you appreciate this content, please consider subscription and/or a tip. Any support is highly appreciated.

Tip Jar

I give an overview of the negotiations over the two preceding years that led to the eventual armistice. I also discuss some of the implementation mechanisms included in the armistice. The Korean Armistice Agreement is not well known to Americans though it still very much factors into our political and strategic framework for East Asia. Regardless of how one feels about the war, the armistice, or its seven decade permanence, these things matter.

If you appreciate this content, please consider subscription and/or a tip. Any support is highly appreciated.

Tip Jar

I go through his statement and give my thoughts on what he shared.

If you appreciate this content, please consider subscription and/or a tip. Any support is highly appreciated.

Tip Jar