Videos
I am sure most people here are familiar with the unfolding controversy over Mark Kelly's recent video stating that soldiers can disobey illegal orders, with Hegseth having just ordered an investigation of the issue: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/nov/25/us-politics-pam-bondi-appeal-james-comey-letitia-james-cases-donald-trump-venezuela-latest-updates
What I want to understand is what reason anyone has why this kind of statement is wrong or unreasonable to make, when the Secretary of Defense, Hegseth himself, just recently stated his intent to not follow rules of engagement.
You can read his full speech here: https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4318689/secretary-of-war-pete-hegseth-addresses-general-and-flag-officers-at-quantico-v/
But I am referring to this excerpt:
>War is something you do sparingly on our own terms and with clear aims. We fight to win. We unleash overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy.
We also don't fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country.
The US Marine Corps describes the Rules of Engagement as "those directives that delineate the circumstances and limitations under which United States (US) forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement." It is a subset of the law of war. See here: https://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Portals/207/Docs/TBS/B130936%20Law%20of%20War%20and%20Rules%20Of%20Engagement.pdf
He does not say he's going to change the rules of engagement. He simply says they're not going to fight with them. So it seems this is an unambiguous announcement of intent to issue illegal orders. Why then would it be wrong, let alone illegal, for a representative to say that soldiers can and should disobey illegal orders?