Today, we confront a pivotal development: the recent dismissal of the top legal officers, the Judge Advocates General (JAGs), across the Army, Navy, and Air Force. These individuals have long served as the impartial legal conscience of our military, ensuring that actions taken in defense of our nation align with both domestic and international law.

These firings were justified by leadership as necessary because the JAGs were not "well-suited" to provide recommendations when lawful orders are given. However, this rationale raises pressing questions. Were these legal officers dismissed for upholding the law, even when it meant advising against certain directives? Does this signal a shift towards valuing compliance over counsel?​

The role of a JAG is not to obstruct but to guide, to serve as a compass pointing toward lawful and ethical action. Their independence is not a hindrance; it's a safeguard. Removing them for perceived disloyalty undermines this principle and sets a concerning precedent.​

The implications are profound. Without independent legal oversight, the risk of unlawful actions increases, potentially eroding the moral high ground that our military strives to maintain. It also places remaining legal advisors in a precarious position, where offering candid advice could jeopardize their careers.

The implications are profound. Without independent legal oversight, the risk of unlawful actions increases, potentially eroding the moral high ground that our military strives to maintain. It also places remaining legal advisors in a precarious position, where offering candid advice could jeopardize their careers.