There are occassions in war when the commands of the sovereign need not be obeyed.

If the situation is one of victory but the sovereign has issued orders not to engage, the general may decide to fight. If the situation is such that he cannot win, but the sovereign has issued orders to engage, he need not do so.

Do you agree with this?

i agree fog.

you might have guessed by other posts, the army are the last chance the population have.

as long as the fellas remember their oath and constitution, and not follow private banks

i just wanted to agree again today.

the obvious purpose of a war is to achieve victory . first on the battle field then through deplomacy/politics to establish and solidify a piecefull existence . to often the soveren/political leaders interfere with the generals for reasons of some political expediency or other .
the generals in the field understand military stratigy and its effective use .
polititions think the military as just one more card in their political game .
if victory is not the objective what is?
vietnam is an example of political interference .

the lives of the men under his command is a prime responcibility of the general . in my oppinion he would correct to engage to achieve victory ; end the conflict and prevent future lose of life of those under his command .
he would then accept the cocequences of his actions .

Fog. Am surprised you would pose this conundrum. You know that often infantry are 'written off' either to slow down an enemy or attract an enemy or divert an enemy.

joker spade i am not surprised at all

paras get 15mins life expectancy