On Constitutional Duty and Unlawful Orders
Jim Hasset was a ruddy-faced, Ranger-qualified Army lieutenant colonel from upstate New York who served as the Battalion Commander of the Paul Revere Army ROTC Battalion at MIT in the late 1980s. He earned a right shoulder patch from the 20th Engineer Brigade from his time in Vietnam and his eyes had the world-weary look of an old soldier who had seen things he’d rather not discuss.
He stood up in front of our class of young ROTC cadets and said, “You’ll all soon be leading soldiers in some capacity. Many of you will command platoons and some of you will go on to command at higher levels. By virtue of your rank, you will all be cousins of Lieutenant Calley and we’re going to talk about the difference between lawful and unlawful orders.” He went on to describe the massacre at My Lai, the subsequent trials, and the complete failure of the chain of command. He challenged us to be leaders of moral character and integrity and to ensure that we thought before we acted. Finally he concluded, “You have both a moral and legal obligation to refuse unlawful orders.”
I am blessed. I have never heard a shot fired in anger. My time in the service was only during peacetime. Many of my ROTC classmates and the men and women with whom I served in the Army went on to long and distinguished careers and saw combat in Panama, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Some of them multiple times. Some came home wounded. All came home changed. Some, like Donny Tillar, my squad mate from airborne school and the most handsome guy I’ve ever met, didn’t come home at all.
I thought back to that class when I read about the resignation of Admiral Alvin Holsey. One doesn’t rise to be a four-star admiral commanding SOUTHCOM, the joint combatant command responsible for operations in Central and South America, by accident. This is the summit of perhaps the most intensely competitive hierarchy in the world. Resigning that command after 37 years, many of them spent at sea away from his home and family, could not have been easy. Relinquishing that command is like retiring from football as a starting quarterback on the morning of the Super Bowl.
When you become a commissioned military officer, you take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Not a sovereign. Not a king. The Constitution.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 gives Congress—and only Congress—the power to declare war. They haven’t exercised this obligation since World War II. Instead, we’ve conducted military operations under sometimes vague authorizations that lack the national resolve and accountability that a declaration of war demonstrates.
A Commander in Chief has the authority, obligation, and constitutional duty to defend the nation. But we’re inching toward a prolonged military commitment in Central America—ground forces, intelligence services, naval and air strikes—without Congressional oversight, deliberation, or debate. Before we slide further down this path, we need a clear mission, a clear definition of victory, and a defined exit strategy. We cannot, once again, commit our forces based solely on the judgment and unitary authority of one man.
Admiral Holsey followed the guidance that Colonel Hasset shared with us. He refused to obey an unlawful order. I’m certain of it.
The operations tell the story. According to Reuters, the U.S. has conducted five strikes on alleged drug boats off Venezuela, killing at least 27 people. According to The New York Times, CNN, and NPR, the U.S. has deployed 10,000 troops to the region. No declaration of war. No authorization from Congress.
The administration claims that Venezuela is a major source of narcotics into the United States. Ad hoc attacks against a single regime will not stem the flow of drugs into this country. Ending the cycle of drug addiction in this country requires a comprehensive strategy that addresses both the supply and demand of narcotics. The strategy must recognize the nature of the threat posed by multinational drug cartels. Attacking small ships in the Caribbean Sea does not meet this standard and is an indictment of inexperienced civilian leadership in the White House and the Pentagon.
The reporting confirms what happened next. According to The New York Times and CNN, Holsey raised concerns about the legality of the mission. SOUTHCOM questioned whether the strikes violated international law. Tensions with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had been simmering for weeks—Hegseth wanted more aggressive action, while Holsey questioned whether the operations were legal.
On October 6, during a meeting at the Pentagon, Holsey offered to resign. A week later, Hegseth announced his departure. Holsey will retire in December—one year into a three-year command, in the middle of the operation.
When a unified command questions the legality of an order and its commander offers to resign rather than execute the order, that’s not a disagreement about tactics or strategy. That’s a refusal to violate your oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
Congress must assert its oversight power granted by Article I of the Constitution before we move headlong into an undeclared armed conflict in South America. The Senate and House Armed Services Committees should hold joint hearings to determine the nature of the operations against the alleged drug boats off Venezuela. Congress should review the intelligence used to order the attacks and determine whether the operations had proper Constitutional and legal authorization.
Admiral Holsey did what Colonel Hasset asked me to do in 1987. He refused to carry out an unlawful order. In standing up for what he believed and in the sanctity of the Constitution, he experienced what John McCain described as that rare moment of unity between conscience, fear, and action—when we know with an almost metaphysical certainty that we are right. We should celebrate his courage.