Protecting disobedience on jus ad bellum grounds would mean protecting soldiers’ right to exit armed conflict. That possibility of lawfully escaping war’s hell could distort soldiers’ jus ad bellum judgments, could paralyze others with the prospect of choice in battle, and, most fundamentally, could shatter unit cohesion and trigger disobedience cascades. The result would be a heightened risk of military breakdown even in lawful wars. Given the dependence of international law on states’ capacities to deter aggression and to push back against it when it occurs, this risk of military breakdown is of concern even from a cosmopolitan, international point of view. However, for reasons elaborated in this chapter, it does not establish the deeper innocence of those who fight in illegal wars. At most, it explains why international law cannot protect those who refuse, even while recognizing that they do the right thing by international law’s own lights. On the other side, there is no imperative to exclude soldiers’ deaths and suffering from reparations for aggression. However, the imperative of peaceful future relations between the belligerents may demand the evaluation and inclusion of harms inflicted on aggressor troops who were coerced or misled into fighting.