Karpinski, the commander at Abu Ghraib, expressed in correspondence with her superiors her serious concerns that DoD policy and the orders she received as a result of that policy were in violation of the Geneva Convention. Her concerns were dismissed and she confronted the all too familiar dilemma of disobeying her orders at the risk of a court martial or following them at the same risk; the rest, as they say, is history.

That is from the US Army Field Manual, though it has come up at Congressional hearings, for obvious reasons. Part of supporting the troops means not demanding they violate their own military as well as international law, even when they object on those grounds, then leaving them to twist in the wind and/or scapegoating them when it becomes public knowledge. "Following orders" is never an excuse for war crimes, but the complicity of those who follow orders to commit atrocities does not exonerate commanders who give those orders, nor civilian politicians who establish them as systemic policy. That is like executing a mob hit man for murder while ignoring the capo who hired him and dozens of others to repeatedly and routinely commit murder.

Politicians can no more be trusted with unaccountable military authority than with unaccountable taxing authority; that is probably Vietnams chief lesson.