STEPEN A. SMITH'S TAKE ON JOHN KELLY MISSES THE MARK

Stephen A. Smith is a gifted commentator, but on the issue of former General John Kelly’s remarks about the military’s obligation to disobey illegal orders, he misses the mark. The United States military is not built on blind loyalty to any individual—its loyalty is to the Constitution. That principle isn’t optional, interpretive, or political. It is foundational. 

John Kelly’s video simply restated what every service member learns from the first day they put on a uniform: an unlawful order must not be followed. This is not a matter of opinion. It is embedded in military law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the moral framework of just war. Disobeying illegal commands is not insubordination—it is duty. 

Where Stephen A. Smith goes wrong is in framing Kelly’s comments as an act of political commentary or personal criticism. But when a high-ranking former military leader reminds the public of a core constitutional safeguard, that is not partisanship; it is civic responsibility. In fact, it is dangerous to treat the military’s obligation to reject illegal orders as if it were a matter of loyalty, preference, or politeness. Doing so normalizes the idea that military obedience is owed to a person instead of a principle.

Smith’s point that such statements can “inflame” political debate overlooks a deeper truth: constitutional guardrails must be discussed precisely because political pressure tries to erode them. Silence helps no one. Clarifying the limits of military obedience is how democratic societies prevent abuses of power.

 So my disagreement is simple: 

John Kelly was reinforcing the rule of law. Stephen A. Smith treated it like a personal jab. Those two things are not the same.

The military’s duty to refuse unlawful commands is not controversial. It is the bedrock that prevents our armed forces from becoming a tool of authoritarianism. Reminding Americans of that obligation is not politically charged—it is patriotic.

 If Stephen A. Smith can criticize athletes and teams for failing to uphold their responsibilities, he should certainly understand why a former general would emphasize the military’s most sacred responsibility: defending the Constitution above all else.