Many will argue that service members cannot simply pick and choose which conflicts they participate in; that the nature of military service by definition requires unique sacrifices of personal freedoms. If service members can simply walk away from the job when they feel like it, the argument goes, there is little point to having a military.

There is some truth to this, but few consider the other side of the coin: those sacrifices cannot be taken lightly by the state either. When service members die or are wounded for a cause that doesn’t make sense, as is often the case, decision makers must face consequences—or they will repeat their mistakes.

This dynamic plays out legally too. President Truman was the first to enter a conflict without getting a formal declaration of war from Congress, as the Constitution requires, and that has set the precedent for every president since. But until now presidents at least sought congressional approval for major conflicts; this disastrous war began without even a consultation from lawmakers. It marks the nail in the coffin for the separation of powers and for the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which requires unauthorized troop commitments to be limited to 60 days. Absent resistance now, the law will be meaningless, and presidents will have no checks on their ability to start major wars.

Americans are being sent into harm’s way today for a stupid, immoral project because the Pentagon recently got away with it twice in a row, in Iraq and Afghanistan, with little consequence.