In 2001, the President Bush administration witnessed a significant civil-military tension centered around the figure of the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. His strategy of criticizing and pressuring senior officers in order to establish his authority over the Pentagon caused serious discontent among the military. In 2006, a number of retired Army and Marine generals called on Secretary Rumsfeld to resign, calling him incompetent and claiming that he deliberately ignored military advice when initiating the war with Iraq. Greg Newbold, the former operations director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, argued that the Pentagon’s military leaders acted too timidly in expressing their views towards the war. The public discussion started on whether senior military leaders should have openly spoken against the government decisions during the conflict and what the ethically correct course of action in this situation would be. The ethical dilemma connected with this discussion is whether it is ethical for military leaders who provide guidance to political leadership to criticize its decisions if their recommendations are not followed. On the one hand, it is the responsibility of every officer to obey orders from authorized superiors without questioning, arguing, and hesitation. On the other hand, the basic ethical principles require them to refuse if these orders violate human rights. Depending on the situation, the criticism of government decisions expressed by senior military leaders can be regarded as reprehensible and unprofessional insubordination or a manifestation of the highest standards of military professionalism. When faced with a situation when their guidance is not followed, senior military leaders can choose between two main options. The first is to accept the situation as it is without questions, strictly following the orders and observing the limitations of their inferior position as consultants to the government. The second option is to openly oppose the civil leadership, proving that their actions are unreasonable and strategically wrong. Both options are connected with some of the basic ethical principles. The first option adheres to the principle of loyalty that demands fidelity, faithfulness, allegiance, and devotion from the military personnel. The second option, however, is consistent with more ethical principles. Throughout the history of the military, the obligation of soldiers and officers to strictly follow the orders has been disputed. The Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals determined that in many cases, simply obeying the orders cannot be considered an ethical course of action. According to the military code of ethics, officers are required to follow the principles of respect, beneficence, truthfulness, and accountability. Under these principles, human life needs to be respected, decisions need to be made with compassion, and the actors need to accept responsibility for their decisions and their consequences. Considering that the military mistakes of the civil government can lead to many deaths and suffering, these principles, when applied to the actions of the senior officers, would demand from them to oppose their leadership. Based on the analysis, it can be concluded