The lower ranks of soldiers, through actions of rebellion, played a key role in preventing an undemocratic power takeover. This has lessons to take to the rest of South Korea.
Impeaching South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol was recently approved by the South Korea’s Constitutional Court. Yoon was impeached following a controversial move in December 2024, when he declared martial law, accusing opposition parties of committing anti-state actions. In the end, however, South Korea’s National Assembly quickly overturned the decision, causing Yoon to rescind the order after just a few hours. The sudden decision caused anger from the public and a ferocious reaction, with critics claiming it a misuse of power as well as a step towards the rule of law.
The public, along with the opposition groups and a few people from the ruling party and some members of the ruling party, have criticized that, should it be successful, the actions of Yoon would have destroyed South Korea’s democratic process and create a model for over-reaching by the executive. Yoon allegedly ordered the arrest of important politicians, and planned to place the suspects in a military bunker. Special Forces were sent for at the National Assembly – reportedly to block its power to end martial law and other units targeted the National Election Commission as an independent entity outside the authority of martial law, which raised other legal concerns.
After the impeachment case of Yoon is finally resolved It is important to reexamine the situation with a military eye. While much has been written about the legality of this chain of events and its implications for East Asian geopolitics. This incident also serves as a crucial lessons for military. In particular, it shows how the plan to seize the National Assembly failed – and how soldiers of lower rank, in defiance were instrumental in preventing the undemocratic power capture. This highlights the significance of moral resisting within the military and offers lessons that are applicable across South Korea.
A military response to the Yoon’s martial law enforcement order was met with internal disagreement and a lack of discipline that led to a lack of the execution of command.
An important example was the inability to synchronize the movements of special forces. The United States, official military doctrine insists on the necessity of simultaneity to maintain the momentum of a mission, which requires coordinated execution across all domains. In the brief days that the martial law was in force in Seoul, a lack of communication with the air controller resulted in an act of disobedience that was justified that delayed the helicopters of the special forces to Seoul’s airport.
The day before the declaration of martial law A colonel of the Capital Defense Command repeatedly denied the entry of helicopters with military law enforcement personnel into Seoul’s airspace, in reference to a absence of clear mission goals. The entry was denied 3 times slowing the helicopters’ arrival at Seoul’s National Assembly by over 40 minutes, and allowing resistance to plan their actions. This disobedience to the rules of the colonel eventually shook up the operation.
U.S. military doctrine insists that the intent of a commander must be clearly communicated to subordinates. In this particular incident the orders were vague and lacking in specificity. Generals who retired noted that commanders in the field received general instructions like “occupy the National Assembly” without specific mission orders that covered the logistics as well as rules of engagement or any operational guidance. If the orders are unclear field commanders of lower echelons must be able to evaluate the situation and decide the best course of action, rather than simply following orders.
A notable instance is a commanding officer from the 1st Airborne Brigade, who was able to assess the conditions on the ground, decided to hold off the distribution of live ammunition, putting the ammunition at his disposal. The commander instructed his troops not to come into contact with civilians in order to avoid any conflict.
This underscores the necessity for military personnel to scrutinize orders and ensure they are in line with the constitutional guidelines in addition to ethical norms. Although it is true that the army thrives off discipline strict obedience to orders might not always be the best way to achieve the success you expect. The modern military doctrine, defined by the notion of mission command acknowledges that field officers need to exercise judgement when executing instructions.
Military officers must swear loyalty to constitutional principles, not to political leaders and ensure that their actions reflect democratic values over political partisan interests. Their obligation extends beyond obedience. They must defend the interests of the nation with and ethical integrity.
Nuremberg Trials further solidified this concept by disproving”just following orders” as a defense “just following orders” defense and holding Nazi officials accountable for their war crimes, and declaring that military personnel must defy illegal or untruthful orders.
In addition, U.S. General Mark Milley’s demand to “disciplined disobedience” indicates the requirement for officers to consider higher strategic objectives rather than blindly executing harmful orders in the near future. Future warfare, which will see conflict becomes more complex and decentralized will require leaders to analyze situations and take action in accordance to the constitutional and strategic guidelines.
To encourage responsible decision-making in army, a disciplined method must be created that combines obedience with an ability to think critically.
In the course of military training officers must get exposed to actual scenarios of disobedience under discipline, and are trained to assess situations where obeying an order could be in conflict with moral principles or the strategic goals. Regular war-gaming exercises must include situations where soldiers are required to make difficult decisions under stress.
After-action reviews must evaluate not just the mission’s success, but also the process of making decisions. Feedback loops, in which lessons learned from previous conflicts guide future decisions, allows for continuous improvement and promotes an environment that promotes responsible action and ethical accountability.
In fostering a culture which is awash in integrity and moral decisions, military organizations can manage the complexity of modern warfare, while retaining the trust of the public and ensuring their legitimacy. This strategy helps to maintain an equilibrium between power and thinking critically, which are both crucial to be successful.
The recent incident of martial law that occurred in South Korea serves as a reminder that bad orders may come from higher-ups even in advanced nations. It highlights the importance of ethical judgement in military operations, highlighting the importance of operational integrity not only on obeying commands like automatons, but also on the moral judgment of soldiers.
