🔗 Share this article

At what moment will America's top military officers determine that enough is enough, that their allegiance to the constitution and legal governance takes precedence over unquestioning obedience to their positions and the current administration?

Expanding Military Presence on American Soil

This question isn't merely academic. The president has been rapidly intensifying armed forces activities within United States territory during his second term. Beginning last spring, he began expanding the military presence along sections of the US-Mexico border by establishing what are termed "security zones". Armed forces members are now authorized to search, interrogate and detain people in these areas, significantly obscuring the distinction between military authority and police operations.

Controversial Military Assignments

During the summer months, the administration sent marines and national guard units to Los Angeles against the wishes of state leadership, and later to the capital. Comparable deployments of military reserve forces, likewise disregarding the wishes of local elected officials, are anticipated for Chicago and the Oregon city.

Legal Challenges

Needless to say, American legislation, under the federal statute, typically forbids the use of military forces in civilian law enforcement functions. A federal judge ruled in last fall that the president's military assignment in Los Angeles violated the act, but operations persist. And the expectation remains for the military to comply with directives.

Personality Cult

More than obeying commands. There's pressure for armed services to worship the president. The administration transformed a historical celebration for military forces, which some viewed as excessive, into an individual 79th birthday celebration. Both events fell on the same day. Participation at the parade was not only sparse but was dwarfed by the estimated millions of citizens who joined "No Kings" demonstrations nationwide on that date.

Current Events

Recently, administration leadership joined the recently renamed secretary of war, the cabinet member, in a suddenly called gathering of the country's armed forces leadership on 30 September. At the gathering, administration leadership told the leadership: "We're experiencing invasion from within, no different than external adversaries, but challenging in many ways because they don't wear uniforms." His evidence was that "Democratic leadership controls most of the cities that are in poor condition," even though each metropolitan area mentioned – the Bay Area, the Illinois city, New York, LA – have some of their lowest levels of violent crime in generations. Subsequently he stated: "We ought to utilize some of these dangerous cities as practice locations for our military."

Partisan Transformation

The administration is attempting to reshape the US military into a partisan force dedicated to maintaining executive power, a prospect which is not only contrary to our tradition but should also alarm all Americans. And they intend to make this reorganization into a public display. All statements the official stated at this highly publicized and costly gathering could have been distributed by written directive, and actually had been. But the secretary in particular needs image rehabilitation. Currently much less known for directing military operations than for leaking such information. For the secretary, the very public presentation was a vainglorious attempt at improving his personal damaged reputation.

Troubling Implications

But much more important, and considerably more alarming, was administration leadership's foreshadowing of increased numbers of military personnel on American streets. So, I return to my initial question: at what point will the nation's top military brass determine that enough is enough?

Leadership Shakeup

There's substantial basis to believe that high ranking members of armed forces might have concerns about getting sacked by the administration, either for being not devoted enough to the administration, insufficiently white, or not fitting gender expectations, according to past actions from this administration. Shortly of taking power, the administration removed the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Air Force Gen CQ Brown, only the second Black man to occupy the position. Adm Lisa Franchetti, the initial female to be named to navy leadership, naval forces' highest rank, was also dismissed.

Legal Structure

Federal leadership also removed judge advocates general for ground forces, navy and air force, and dismissed Gen Tim Haugh, the head of intelligence services and digital operations, according to accounts at the request of far-right activist Laura Loomer, who asserted Haugh was insufficiently loyal to administration leadership. There are numerous additional instances.

Historical Context

Although accurate that every administration does some house cleaning upon assuming power, it's equally correct that the extent and objective to restructure armed forces during this administration is unprecedented. As analysts observe: "No previous administration used its power in this dramatic fashion for fear that such action would effectively treat the senior officer corps as similar to partisan political appointees whose career commitment is to transition with changes of administration, rather than career public servants whose work ethic is to perform duties independent of changes in administrative control."

Rules of Engagement

The secretary claimed that they will also currently eliminate "stupid rules of engagement". These guidelines, though, determine what is legal and illegal behavior by the military, a distinction made more difficult to identify as federal leadership reduces the legal wing of armed services. Obviously, there has been significant unlawful activity in American armed forces conduct from their establishment until today. But if you are a member of the military, there exists the right, if not the duty, to refuse unlawful commands.

Ongoing Actions

The administration is presently involved in clearly unlawful operations being conducted by the US navy. Deadly attacks are being initiated against boats in the Caribbean that American authorities claims are drug smuggling vessels. No evidence has been provided, and currently federal leadership is claiming America is in a military engagement with drug cartels and the people who were murdered by the US in attacks are "illegal fighters".

Legal Analysis

This is ludicrous, naturally, and is reminiscent of the worst legal reasoning developed during the early anti-terrorism era. Although individuals on those boats were involved in narcotics trafficking, participating in distribution of illegal drugs does not rise to the standard of engaging in hostilities, as noted by authorities.

Conclusion

If a government deliberately murders a person beyond armed conflict and without due process, it constitutes of murder. It's already happening in the Caribbean Sea. Is that the direction we're moving down on urban areas of our own cities? Federal leadership may have created personal battle plans for his purposes, but it's the members of the military who will have to implement them. With all our institutions presently at risk, encompassing armed services, there's necessity for enhanced defense against his idea of conflict.