🔗 Share this article

At what moment will America's top armed forces leaders determine that enough is enough, that their allegiance to constitutional principles and legal governance takes precedence over unquestioning obedience to their jobs and the sitting president?

Growing Military Presence on American Soil

This concern isn't merely theoretical. The administration has been significantly increasing military operations within American soil during the current term. Starting in April, he began increasing the military presence along portions of the US-Mexico border by establishing what are termed "security zones". Armed forces members are now permitted to inspect, interrogate and arrest people in these areas, dangerously blurring the distinction between military authority and civilian law enforcement.

Controversial Deployments

During the summer months, federal authorities sent marine corps and national guard units to Los Angeles contrary to the objections of the governor, and subsequently to Washington DC. Comparable assignments of military reserve forces, also disregarding the preferences of local state governors, are anticipated for Chicago and the Oregon city.

Legal Challenges

Needless to say, US law, under the federal statute, typically forbids the use of armed services in civilian law enforcement roles. A federal judge ruled in last fall that the president's military assignment in LA 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 expectation for the military to worship the commander-in-chief. Federal authorities converted a 250th Anniversary Parade for the Army, which some viewed as unnecessary, into an individual birthday party. The two occasions fell on the same day. Participation at the parade was not only sparse but was dwarfed by approximately 5 million people who joined "No Kings" demonstrations nationwide on that date.

Recent Developments

Recently, administration leadership joined newly titled secretary of war, the cabinet member, in a suddenly called meeting of the nation's military commanders on 30 September. At the gathering, administration leadership informed commanders: "We're facing invasion from within, no different than external adversaries, but challenging in many ways because they're not identifiable." The justification was that "Democratic leadership controls most of urban areas that are in poor condition," even though each metropolitan area referenced – San Francisco, Chicago, NYC, LA – have historically low rates of violent crime in decades. Subsequently he declared: "We should use certain dangerous cities as practice locations for our military."

Partisan Transformation

Federal leadership is attempting to reshape American armed forces into a partisan force committed to preserving executive power, a prospect which is not only anathema to American values but should also concern every citizen. And they intend to make this restructuring into a public display. All statements the secretary said at this widely covered and costly meeting could have been distributed by written directive, and actually had been. However the secretary in particular requires image rehabilitation. He is much less known for leading military operations than for disclosing such information. For the secretary, the very public presentation was a self-aggrandizing attempt at enhancing his own tarnished image.

Concerning Developments

But far more significant, and considerably more alarming, was the president's suggestion of even greater quantities of troops on US city streets. So, I return to the original concern: when will the nation's top military brass determine that enough is enough?

Leadership Shakeup

There's substantial basis to believe that senior officers of armed forces might already be worried about being dismissed by this president, whether for being insufficiently loyal to current leadership, insufficiently white, or not fitting gender expectations, according to past actions from federal leadership. Within weeks of assuming office, the administration removed the chairman of military command, General CQ Brown, just the second African American to hold this role. Admiral Franchetti, the initial female to be named to navy leadership, naval forces' top position, was also removed.

Judicial Framework

Federal leadership also eliminated judge advocates general for ground forces, maritime forces and aerial forces, and dismissed Gen Tim Haugh, the head of the National Security Agency and US Cyber Command, according to accounts at the request of far-right activist Laura Loomer, who claimed Haugh was insufficiently loyal to the president. Exist numerous additional instances.

Historical Context

Although accurate that each presidency does certain personnel changes upon taking office, it's equally correct that the scale and objective to reorganize armed forces during the current term is without historical parallel. As experts observe: "No previous administration used authority in such extreme manner for fear that doing so would effectively treat military leadership as similar to partisan political appointees whose career commitment is to come and go with political shifts, rather than professional officials whose work ethic is to serve independent of shifts in administrative control."

Rules of Engagement

Administration officials claimed that they intend to also currently get rid of "stupid rules of engagement". Those rules, though, define what is legal and illegal behavior by armed forces, a line made harder to discern as federal leadership reduces the legal wing of armed services. Clearly, there has been plenty of illegality in American armed forces conduct from their establishment until today. But if one is a member of the military, there exists the right, if not the duty, to refuse unlawful commands.

Ongoing Actions

The administration is currently engaged in blatantly illegal acts being conducted by naval forces. Lethal strikes are being initiated against vessels in the Caribbean that American authorities claims are narcotics trafficking vessels. No evidence has been provided, and now the administration is claiming America is in a "non-international armed conflict" with drug cartels and the people who were killed by American forces in the strikes are "illegal fighters".

Legal Analysis

This is absurd, naturally, and is reminiscent of the worst legal reasoning created during initial anti-terrorism era. Even if individuals on those boats were involved in drug smuggling, participating in distribution of a controlled substance does not meet the criteria of engaging in hostilities, as noted by legal experts.

Final Thoughts

If a government deliberately murders a person outside of armed conflict and lacking legal procedure, it constitutes of murder. It's already happening in the Caribbean Sea. Is this the path we're headed down on urban areas of our own cities? Federal leadership may have drawn up his own battle plans for his purposes, but it's the members of armed forces who will have to implement them. With all our institutions presently at risk, including the military, there's necessity for a much stronger defense against this vision of war.