🔗 Share this article

When exactly will the nation's top armed forces leaders determine that enough is enough, that their duty to constitutional principles and the rule of law takes precedence over unquestioning obedience to their positions and the sitting president?

Growing Armed Forces Deployment on US Territory

This concern is far from academic. The administration has been significantly increasing military operations within American soil during his second term. Starting in April, he began expanding the military presence along portions of the southern border by creating so-called "security zones". Military personnel are now permitted to inspect, question and arrest individuals in these zones, dangerously blurring the distinction between martial law and civilian law enforcement.

Disputed Military Assignments

By summer, the administration sent marine corps and state military units to Los Angeles contrary to the objections of state leadership, and subsequently to the capital. Comparable deployments of national guard forces, also against the preferences of respective elected officials, are expected for the Windy City and the Oregon city.

Constitutional Concerns

Needless to say, American legislation, under the federal statute, typically forbids the use of armed services in police roles. A federal judge ruled in last fall that the president's troop deployment in Los Angeles breached the act, but operations persist. And the expectation remains for armed forces to follow orders.

Personality Cult

More than obeying commands. There's expectation for armed services to venerate the president. Federal authorities transformed a historical celebration for military forces, which some viewed as excessive, into an individual birthday party. Both events coincided on the same day. Participation at the parade was not only sparse but was dwarfed by the estimated 5 million people who joined "anti-authoritarian protests nationwide on that date.

Current Events

Recently, the president participated with the recently renamed defense official, the cabinet member, in an abruptly summoned gathering of the nation's military commanders on 30 September. At the gathering, administration leadership told commanders: "We're facing invasion from within, no different than a foreign enemy, but challenging in numerous aspects because they're not identifiable." His evidence was that "Democrats run most of the cities that are in poor condition," even though all the cities mentioned – the Bay Area, the Illinois city, NYC, LA – have some of their lowest rates of violent crime in decades. And then he declared: "We ought to utilize certain dangerous cities as practice locations for armed forces."

Political Reshaping

The administration is working to transform American armed forces into a partisan force committed to maintaining executive power, a prospect which is not only contrary to our tradition but should also concern every citizen. And they plan to make this reorganization into a spectacle. All statements the secretary stated at this widely covered and very expensive gathering could have been issued by memorandum, and actually had been. But the secretary in particular requires a rebrand. Currently better recognized for directing military operations than for disclosing such information. For this official, the highly visible lecture was a self-aggrandizing attempt at improving his own tarnished image.

Troubling Implications

But much more important, and considerably more alarming, was the president's suggestion of increased quantities of military personnel on American streets. So, we reconsider the original concern: at what point will the nation's top military brass decide that enough is enough?

Personnel Changes

There's every reason to think that high ranking officers of the military might have concerns about getting sacked by this president, whether for being not devoted enough to the administration, not meeting demographic criteria, or insufficiently male, based on previous decisions from this administration. Within weeks of taking power, federal authorities dismissed the leader of military command, Air Force Gen CQ Brown, just the second Black man to hold this role. Adm Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to be named to chief of naval operations, naval forces' highest rank, was also dismissed.

Legal Structure

Federal leadership also removed judge advocates general for the army, navy and aerial forces, and dismissed Gen Tim Haugh, the head of intelligence services and US Cyber Command, according to accounts at the suggestion of far-right activist Laura Loomer, who asserted Haugh was not devoted enough 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 mission to restructure the military during this administration is unprecedented. As analysts observe: "No earlier presidency exercised its power in such extreme manner for concern that such action would effectively treat military leadership as similar to political operatives whose career commitment is to transition with political shifts, rather than professional officials whose professional ethos is to perform duties independent of changes in administrative control."

Operational Guidelines

The secretary claimed that they will also currently get rid of "unnecessary regulations of engagement". These guidelines, however, determine what is lawful and unlawful conduct by the military, a distinction made more difficult to identify as federal leadership decimates judicial support of the military. Obviously, there exists significant unlawful activity in American armed forces conduct from its inception until today. But if you are a member of the military, you have the authority, if not the obligation, to refuse illegal orders.

Ongoing Actions

The administration is presently involved in blatantly illegal operations being carried out by the US navy. Deadly attacks are being initiated against vessels in tropical waters that the US asserts are narcotics trafficking boats. No evidence has been presented, and now the administration is stating the US is in a military engagement with drug cartels and the people who were killed by the US in attacks are "illegal fighters".

Legal Analysis

This is absurd, of course, and recalls of the worst legal reasoning created during initial War on Terror period. Even if the people on those boats were involved in drug smuggling, participating in the sale of illegal drugs does not meet the criteria of engaging in hostilities, as noted by authorities.

Final Thoughts

When a state intentionally kills a person outside of armed conflict and without due process, it's a form of murder. It's already happening in tropical waters. Is that the direction we're moving down on urban areas of American municipalities? The administration may have drawn up his own battle plans for his purposes, but it's the members of the military who will have to carry them out. As all American systems presently at risk, encompassing the military, there's necessity for a much stronger defense against his idea of war.