🔗 Share this article

At what moment will the nation's top armed forces leaders decide that enough is enough, that their allegiance to the constitution and legal governance takes precedence over unquestioning obedience to their positions and the sitting president?

Expanding Military Presence on US Territory

This question isn't merely academic. The administration has been significantly increasing armed forces activities within American soil during the current term. Beginning last spring, he began expanding the military presence along sections of the US-Mexico border by establishing what are termed "security zones". Military personnel are now permitted to inspect, question and detain individuals in these areas, significantly obscuring the distinction between martial law and police operations.

Disputed Deployments

During the summer months, federal authorities dispatched marines and national guard units to LA contrary to the objections of state leadership, and later to the capital. Similar deployments of military reserve forces, likewise against the wishes of local elected officials, are expected for Chicago and Portland, Oregon.

Constitutional Concerns

Obviously, US law, under the federal statute, generally prohibits the employment of military forces in civilian law enforcement roles. A US court determined in last fall that the president's troop deployment in Los Angeles breached this law, but operations persist. And the expectation remains for armed forces to follow orders.

Personal Celebration

Not just obeying commands. There's pressure for the military to worship the commander-in-chief. Federal authorities converted a 250th Anniversary Parade for the Army, which some viewed as excessive, into an individual birthday party. The two occasions coincided on the same day. Attendance at the event was not only limited but was overshadowed by approximately millions of citizens who participated in "No Kings" protests nationwide on that date.

Recent Developments

Most recently, the president joined the recently renamed secretary of war, the cabinet member, in a suddenly called meeting of the country's armed forces leadership on late September. During the meeting, administration leadership informed commanders: "We're experiencing invasion from within, similar to external adversaries, but challenging in numerous aspects because they're not identifiable." His evidence was that "Democratic leadership controls most of urban areas that are in bad shape," even though each metropolitan area referenced – San Francisco, the Illinois city, New York, LA – have historically low rates of serious offenses in generations. And then he declared: "We ought to utilize some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for armed forces."

Partisan Transformation

The administration is working to transform American armed forces into a partisan force dedicated to maintaining executive power, a development which is not only contrary to our tradition but should also alarm every citizen. And they intend to make this restructuring into a spectacle. All statements the secretary said at this widely covered and very expensive gathering could have been issued by memorandum, and in fact had been. However the secretary specifically needs image rehabilitation. He is much less known for leading armed forces activities than for disclosing them. For this official, the very public presentation was a vainglorious effort at improving his own tarnished image.

Concerning Developments

But much more important, and infinitely more troubling, was the president's foreshadowing of increased numbers of troops on American streets. So, we reconsider my initial question: at what point will the nation's senior military leadership determine that enough is enough?

Personnel Changes

There's substantial basis to believe that high ranking officers of armed forces might have concerns about getting sacked by the administration, either for being not devoted enough to current leadership, not meeting demographic criteria, or insufficiently male, based on past actions from federal leadership. Shortly of assuming office, federal authorities dismissed the leader of the joint chiefs of staff, General CQ Brown, only the second African American to occupy the position. Adm Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to be appointed to navy leadership, naval forces' top position, was also dismissed.

Judicial Framework

The administration also eliminated judge advocates general for ground forces, navy and air force, and fired Gen Tim Haugh, the director of the National Security Agency and US Cyber Command, reportedly at the request of political operative Laura Loomer, who claimed Haugh was not devoted enough to administration leadership. Exist many more examples.

Historical Context

While it's true that every administration does some house cleaning upon taking office, it's also true that the extent and mission to reorganize the military during this administration is unprecedented. As experts observe: "No previous administration used authority in such extreme manner for concern that such action would essentially consider military leadership as similar to political operatives whose career commitment is to transition with political shifts, rather than professional officials whose work ethic is to perform duties independent of shifts in administrative control."

Rules of Engagement

Administration officials stated that they intend to also now eliminate "stupid rules of engagement". These guidelines, though, determine what is legal and illegal conduct by armed forces, a line made more difficult to discern as the administration decimates the legal wing of the military. Clearly, there exists significant illegality in American armed forces conduct from their establishment until the present. But if one is part of armed services, there exists the authority, if not the duty, to disobey unlawful commands.

Current Operations

The administration is currently engaged in clearly unlawful acts being carried out by the US navy. Lethal strikes are being launched against vessels in the Caribbean that American authorities asserts are narcotics trafficking boats. No evidence has been presented, and now the administration is stating the US is in a "non-international armed conflict" with narcotics organizations and individuals who were killed by the US in attacks are "unlawful combatants".

Expert Opinion

This is ludicrous, of course, and recalls of the poorest judicial analysis created during the early anti-terrorism period. Even if the people on those boats were participating in drug smuggling, being involved in the sale of illegal drugs does not rise to the criteria of engaging in hostilities, as noted by authorities.

Final Thoughts

If a government deliberately murders a person outside of armed conflict and without due process, it constitutes of murder. This is occurring in tropical waters. Is that the path we're moving down on urban areas of our own cities? Federal leadership may have drawn up his own battle plans for specific objectives, but it's the members of armed forces who will have to carry them out. With all our institutions currently on the line, including armed services, there's necessity for enhanced protection against this vision of war.