I’m know little about the details around how it works in the US, but I think saying
This is just a post hoc justification for punishing regular soldiers for unlawful acts
Is a bit of an oversimplification. The point is that if a soldier will face consequences for disobeying an order, but no consequences for obeying an unlawful one, they have no dilemma (outside their own morals) when faced with an order they believe is illegal. By putting this into law, you force the soldier to face the dilemma that if they truly believe an order is illegal, they can be punished for following it. That gives a much stronger incentive to actually stand your ground when ordered to do something that makes you think “there’s no way in hell that this can be legal”.
Regarding
Soldiers don’t question orders, it’s not how they’re taught to act.
there’s probably some minor cultural differences between armies here, but by and large you’re probably mostly right. However, I don’t think it’s right in extreme (think, genocide) circumstances. A lot of these laws came in place post-WWII, and are formulated with the knowledge in mind that soldiers can and have been ordered to execute civilians and shoot at unarmed protesters. I’ve been a soldier myself, and would definitely question an order to open fire on unarmed civilians. I hope most other soldiers would do the same.
The problem is that the consequence aren’t balanced. If you disobey an order, the consequences are immediate. If you obey an illegal order, you might face consequences at some point in the future. If you disobey an order because you genuinely believe it’s illegal, there’s no protection for you if that happens to not be the case. Meaning the only way to know that you’re safe to disobey an order on the grounds that it’s illegal is to know exactly what law is being broken. Not a thing that soldiers are trained to know.
That, plus, in that moment you have to have a mountain of conviction to resist doing the thing they’ve been drilling into your head since basic, follow orders without thinking. Which is why I’m saying it amounts to nothing more than “the common soldiers aren’t supposed to follow illegal orders, this is all their fault for not stopping this” as a justification.
I’m know little about the details around how it works in the US, but I think saying
Is a bit of an oversimplification. The point is that if a soldier will face consequences for disobeying an order, but no consequences for obeying an unlawful one, they have no dilemma (outside their own morals) when faced with an order they believe is illegal. By putting this into law, you force the soldier to face the dilemma that if they truly believe an order is illegal, they can be punished for following it. That gives a much stronger incentive to actually stand your ground when ordered to do something that makes you think “there’s no way in hell that this can be legal”.
Regarding
there’s probably some minor cultural differences between armies here, but by and large you’re probably mostly right. However, I don’t think it’s right in extreme (think, genocide) circumstances. A lot of these laws came in place post-WWII, and are formulated with the knowledge in mind that soldiers can and have been ordered to execute civilians and shoot at unarmed protesters. I’ve been a soldier myself, and would definitely question an order to open fire on unarmed civilians. I hope most other soldiers would do the same.
The problem is that the consequence aren’t balanced. If you disobey an order, the consequences are immediate. If you obey an illegal order, you might face consequences at some point in the future. If you disobey an order because you genuinely believe it’s illegal, there’s no protection for you if that happens to not be the case. Meaning the only way to know that you’re safe to disobey an order on the grounds that it’s illegal is to know exactly what law is being broken. Not a thing that soldiers are trained to know.
That, plus, in that moment you have to have a mountain of conviction to resist doing the thing they’ve been drilling into your head since basic, follow orders without thinking. Which is why I’m saying it amounts to nothing more than “the common soldiers aren’t supposed to follow illegal orders, this is all their fault for not stopping this” as a justification.