The impeachment of South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol was recently upheld by the country’s Constitutional Court. Yoon was impeached following a controversial move in December 2024, when he declared martial law, accusing opposition parties of anti-state activities. The National Assembly quickly overturned the order, pushing Yoon to retract it within hours. The abrupt decision triggered public outrage and a fierce backlash, with critics calling it an abuse of power and a step toward authoritarianism.
The public, along with the opposition parties and some members of the ruling party, criticized that, if successful, his actions would have dismantled South Korea’s democracy and set a dangerous precedent for executive overreach. Yoon allegedly ordered the arrest of key political figures, planning to detain them in a military bunker. Special Forces were deployed to the National Assembly – reportedly to obstruct its authority to revoke martial law – while other units targeted the National Election Commission, an independent institution outside martial law’s jurisdiction, raising further legal concerns.
Now that the impeachment of Yoon has been finally decided, it’s important to revisit the crisis through a military lens. While much has been written about the legality of this chain of events and its implications for East Asian geopolitics, this moment also offers a valuable lesson for the military. Specifically, it highlights why the operation to seize the National Assembly failed – and how lower-ranking soldiers, through acts of disobedience, played a crucial role in stopping an undemocratic power grab. This sheds light on the importance of ethical resistance within the armed forces, with lessons that resonate beyond South Korea.
Revisiting the Day of Operations: A Breakdown in Command
The military’s response to Yoon’s martial law implementation order faced internal dissent and disciplined disobedience, leading to a failure in command execution.
A key example was the failure to synchronize special forces movements. In the United States, official military doctrine emphasizes that simultaneity maintains mission momentum, requiring coordinated execution across domains. However, during the few hours martial law was in effect, poor communication with an air controller led to an act of justified disobedience in the delaying of the entry of special forces helicopters into Seoul’s airspace.
On the day of the martial law declaration, a colonel from the Capital Defense Command repeatedly denied the entry of helicopters carrying martial law troops to Seoul’s airspace, citing a lack of clear mission objectives. The entry was refused three times, delaying the helicopters’ arrival at the National Assembly by over 40 minutes and giving resistance time to organize. This disciplined disobedience from the colonel ultimately disrupted the flawed operation.
U.S. military doctrine also stresses that a commander’s intent must be clearly articulated to subordinates. However, in this operation, orders were vague and lacked specificity. A retired general noted that field commanders received only broad directives like “occupy the National Assembly” without detailed mission orders covering logistics, rules of engagement, or operational guidance. When orders are unclear, field commanders at lower echelons should be able to assess the situation and determine their course of action rather than blindly following commands.
One notable example was a commander of the 1st Airborne Brigade, who, after assessing the situation on the ground, withheld the distribution of live ammunition, keeping it in his possession. He ordered his troops to avoid contact with civilians to prevent potential clashes.
Lessons From the Failed Operation: Disciplined Disobedience
This highlights the necessity for military personnel to critically assess orders, ensuring they align with constitutional principles and ethical standards. While the military thrives on discipline, rigid adherence to orders may not always lead to success. Modern military doctrine, as emphasized by the concept of mission command, recognizes that field officers must exercise judgment in executing orders.
Military officers should swear allegiance to the constitution, not political leaders, ensuring their actions uphold democratic values over partisan political interests. Their duty goes beyond obedience – they must safeguard national interests with moral integrity.
The Nuremberg Trials further solidified this principle by rejecting the “just following orders” defense, holding Nazi officers accountable for war crimes and establishing that military personnel must resist unlawful or unethical commands.
Furthermore, U.S. General Mark Milley’s call for “disciplined disobedience” reflects the increasing need for officers to interpret higher strategic goals rather than blindly execute harmful orders in the future. Future warfare, where conflicts become more decentralized and technologically advanced, will demand leaders to assess situations and act in accordance with constitutional and strategic imperatives.
Building a Culture of Responsible Decision-Making for Future
To foster responsible decision-making within the military, a structured approach needs to be developed that balances obedience with critical thinking.
In military training, officers should be exposed to real-world case studies of disciplined disobedience and trained to analyze situations where following an order may conflict with ethical principles or strategic success. Regular war-gaming exercises should include scenarios where soldiers must make difficult judgment calls under pressure.
After-action reviews should assess not only mission success but also the decision-making process. A feedback loop, where lessons from past conflicts inform future decisions, ensures continuous improvement and fosters a culture that values both decisive action and ethical responsibility.
By fostering a culture that values operational integrity and ethical decision-making, militaries can navigate the complexities of modern warfare while maintaining public trust and legitimacy. This approach reinforces the balance between authority and critical thinking, both essential for success.
The martial law incident in South Korea serves as a reminder that flawed orders can come from higher authorities, even in advanced nations. It underscores the critical role of ethical judgment in military operations, emphasizing that operational integrity depends not just on following orders like automatons but also on the moral discernment of individual soldiers.
