🔗 Share this article

At what moment will the nation's highest-ranking armed forces leaders determine that they've reached their limit, that their duty to the constitution and legal governance supersedes blind loyalty to their jobs and the sitting president?

Expanding Armed Forces Deployment on American Soil

This question isn't merely academic. The administration has been significantly increasing armed forces activities within United States territory during the current term. Beginning last spring, he initiated expanding the armed forces deployment along portions of the US-Mexico border by creating what are termed "security zones". Military personnel are now permitted to inspect, question and arrest people in these areas, significantly obscuring the distinction between military authority and civilian law enforcement.

Controversial Military Assignments

By summer, federal authorities sent marines and national guard units to LA contrary to the wishes of state leadership, and subsequently to Washington DC. Similar assignments of national guard forces, likewise disregarding the wishes of respective state governors, are anticipated for Chicago and Portland, Oregon.

Legal Challenges

Obviously, US law, under the Posse Comitatus Act, generally prohibits the employment of armed services in civilian law enforcement roles. A US court determined in September that the president's military assignment in LA violated the act, but the actions continue. And the expectation remains for armed forces to comply with directives.

Personality Cult

More than obeying commands. There's pressure for the military to venerate the commander-in-chief. Federal authorities converted a historical celebration for the Army, which some viewed as unnecessary, into a personal birthday party. Both events coincided on one date. Participation at the event was not only sparse but was dwarfed by the estimated 5 million people who joined "No Kings" demonstrations nationwide on the same day.

Current Events

Most recently, administration leadership participated with the recently renamed secretary of war, the cabinet member, in an abruptly summoned meeting of the nation's military commanders on late September. At the gathering, the president told the leadership: "We're facing internal threats, no different than external adversaries, but more difficult in numerous aspects because they're not identifiable." His evidence was that "Democrats run the majority of the cities that are in bad shape," even though each metropolitan area mentioned – San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles – have historically low rates of violent crime in decades. Subsequently he declared: "We should use certain urban areas as practice locations for armed forces."

Political Reshaping

Federal leadership is attempting to reshape American armed forces into a political instrument dedicated to maintaining administrative control, a development which is not only anathema to our tradition but should also alarm every citizen. And they intend to make this reorganization into a public display. 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 requires a rebrand. He is much less known for directing military operations than for disclosing such information. For this official, the very public lecture was a vainglorious attempt at enhancing his own damaged reputation.

Troubling Implications

However much more important, and considerably more alarming, was administration leadership's suggestion of even greater quantities of military personnel on US city streets. Therefore, we reconsider the original concern: at what point will America's top military brass decide that limits have been reached?

Leadership Shakeup

There's substantial basis to think that senior members of the military might already be worried about being dismissed by the administration, either for being not devoted enough to the administration, insufficiently white, or insufficiently male, according to past actions from federal leadership. Within weeks of assuming office, the administration dismissed the leader of the joint chiefs of staff, General CQ Brown, only the second Black man to occupy this role. Adm Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to be named to navy leadership, the US Navy's top position, was also removed.

Judicial Framework

The administration also removed military lawyers for the army, navy and air force, and dismissed Gen Tim Haugh, the director of the National Security Agency and US Cyber Command, reportedly at the request of far-right activist Laura Loomer, who asserted Haugh was insufficiently loyal to administration leadership. Exist many more examples.

Historical Context

While it's true that each presidency does some house cleaning upon assuming power, it's equally correct that the scale and mission to reorganize the military during this administration is unprecedented. As analysts observe: "No previous administration exercised its power in this dramatic fashion for fear that such action would effectively treat military leadership as similar to partisan political appointees whose professional ethos is to come and go with changes of administration, rather than career public servants whose work ethic is to perform duties regardless of changes in political leadership."

Rules of Engagement

Administration officials stated that they intend to also now get rid of "unnecessary regulations of engagement". Those rules, though, determine what is lawful and unlawful behavior by armed forces, a line made more difficult to identify as the administration reduces the legal wing of the military. Obviously, there has been significant illegality in American armed forces conduct from their establishment until the present. But if you are part of the military, you have the right, if not the obligation, to refuse unlawful commands.

Ongoing Actions

Federal leadership is currently engaged in clearly unlawful operations being conducted by the US navy. Deadly attacks are being launched against vessels in tropical waters that the US claims are drug smuggling vessels. No evidence has been provided, and now federal leadership is claiming America is in a "non-international armed conflict" with narcotics organizations and the people who were killed by American forces in the strikes are "illegal fighters".

Expert Opinion

This is absurd, of course, and recalls of the poorest legal reasoning created during initial War on Terror era. Although the people on those boats were involved in narcotics trafficking, being involved in the sale of illegal drugs does not meet the standard of military combat, as observed by legal experts.

Final Thoughts

If a government intentionally kills a person beyond military engagement and lacking legal procedure, it constitutes of homicide. It's already happening in the Caribbean Sea. Is this the direction we're moving down on the streets of our own cities? Federal leadership may have created personal military strategies for specific objectives, but it's the members of armed forces who will have to implement them. As all American systems currently on the line, including the military, we need a much stronger defense against his idea of war.