"Good Soldiers Follow Orders"

I consider myself a moderately hardcore Star Wars fan (which is admittedly somewhat of an oxymoron). I grew up with the Original Trilogy in the 90s, and ravenously consumed most of the Extended Universe books depicting stories that are now non-canon. Whether it's the old defunct era or the new Disney era, I've found that I generally have a preference for material that doesn't just tell new stories - whether with new or familiar characters - but rather, those that tend to expand the universe itself. That is to say, I'm perhaps more interested in the world of Star Wars, perhaps more than the heroes and villains themselves.

One of my favorite eras to explore has been the early stages of the Empire, because it's fascinating to see how a society can fall prey to the allure of authoritarianism, and to see how an oppressed society will fight against authoritarianism in various different ways.

As such, I've enjoyed material relating to the Clone Wars a lot, because it helps place you in a relatively rare position. Most stories - even in the rest of Star Wars itself - tend to place you in the position of the heroic rebel, fighting against unambiguous evil. But the Clone Wars doesn't just place the viewer on the side of traditional heroes like the Jedi, but Clone Troopers, who as an institution eventually literally turn from heroes into villainous stormtroopers, with rare individual exceptions listening to their conscience and quitting rather than "become the bad guy". Within this framework, there are many storytelling possibilities, allowing for exploration of what compels someone to say "enough is enough" (and rise up against the Empire), or on the flip side, how one can convince themselves the atrocities they're committing are in fact righteous and justified.

A phrase "Good soldiers follow orders" originating from one of the Star Wars TV series has reached ascended meme status, and entertainment aside, it's a concept well-grounded in the real world as well. There are several reasonable arguments for why "the military" - both as an institution and at the individual level - works very hard to indoctrinate soldiers to (almost) never question orders, and places such an emphasis on obedience, even - or especially - if you have personal doubts about if it's the right thing to do. 

Reason #1: What's good for the mission might not be good for *you* as an individual

The most straightforward reason is that you as a soldier may be expected to do something that is detrimental to you as an individual, but vital for the group and larger outcome. For example, imagine you have an infantry squad that needs to enter a building. On the other side of the door, you might have your enemies waiting to attack you as soon as you enter the building. It goes without saying that your chances of getting shot are particularly high ifyou're the first person through the door. At a selfish level, the rational thing to do is have some other sucker be the first one through the door, if you're only thinking about personal survival. But of course, if everyone thought that way, then no one would break down that door, and the mission would fail. And thus, the military works very hard to create a sense of camaraderie and mission to help override your instinctive survival instincts, as you decide to take this personal risk because "it's who you are as an elite soldier", or whatever other marketing strategy is used. To be clear, I am not in fact criticizing this indoctrination per se - we really do need people to sacrifice themselves for the greater good at times, but it is important to recognize and be conscious of what it is we're doing.

Reason #2: Reducing the chances of power being misused

Another less palatable reason is one that we don't really like to talk about, but one that's definitely a real concern. As Mao Zedong famously said, "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". It's imperative that a society has established a strong precedent and taboo against military intervention in politics, because otherwise, the military could take control in a coup relatively easily, as we've seen in some countries. The message that you (as the military) should always consider yourself to the (unarmed) civilian leadership is one that absolutely needs to be internalized deeply to avoid such coups from occurring. In other words, if you're going to entrust people with violent force, you also need to brainwash them into never even thinking of using it on their own to take over their country and rule it as they personally see fit.

So we've got two very good reasons for why "Good soldiers should follow orders - (1) Pawns need to behave as needed to avoid screwing up larger plans, and perhaps paradoxically, (2) You need to obey orders because you're too powerful if you decide to wield violent force.

This system works... until it doesn't

The issue is though, that there are times where the military as an institution shouldn't follow an order. The example of an order given by a politician that doesn't have the best interests of the country in mind is easy to imagine, and the Nuremberg trials after WWII established the precedent that the excuse of "just following orders" is not a sure-fire defense if you've committed heinous crimes.

But it's a very paradoxical grey zone we find ourselves in. We indoctrinate "the military" to never question their leadership (especially the civilian leadership at the top) even if an order/strategy doesn't seem to make sense, for good reason. At the same time, there are examples where "the military" does in fact know better than their leaders, and outcomes might be better if they called the shots. The disastrous Russian invasion of Ukraine comes to mind, where President Putin probably would have thought twice about starting his war if he'd realized how badly equipped the Russian military was for the task he foisted upon them.

At the end of the day, there's no easy answer, and it still comes back to you as an individual having to use your own best moral judgment, and to have the wisdom to figure out when you should "shut up and dribble", and when you have to say "enough is enough". I hope that we primarily explore this through media and entertainment and not real life, but we live in interesting times.