Like many of his counterparts in the mainstream press, Los Angeles Times senior editorial writer Michael McGough is aglow over the apology issued by Army Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for having participated in President Trump's photo-op in which military troops used tear gas on peaceful protestors in the nation's capital in order to clear the way for Trump to arrive at the event. Milley indicated that in the future, he would refuse to obey unconstitutional orders issued by the president. In a recent op-ed in the Times, McGough heaped praise on Milley for acknowledging his mistake.

Clearly concerned about the public-relation consequences of his action, Milley is being disingenuous, and McGough is being naive. If President Trump or any other president issues an order to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to deploy armed troops to quell protests on grounds of "national security," make no mistake about it: The troops will deploy. Oh sure, it's possible that Milley would, this time, refuse to obey the president's order, but in that case he would simply be fired and replaced with another general (or colonel) who believes in faithfully following the orders of his commander-in-chief. The same holds true for soldiers down the ranks.

After all, don't forget President George W. Bush's order to the U.S. military to invade Iraq. Every U.S. soldier, from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff down, knew that there was no congressional declaration of war against Iraq, as the Constitution requires. Nonetheless, they all did their "duty" by faithfully following the orders of the president to invade the country and kill and maim people who had never attacked or invaded the United States. They would do the same if the president ordered them to suppress protests or riots on grounds of "national security." Soldiers faithfully follow orders, which is one of the biggest reasons why our American ancestors so ardently opposed standing armies.