🔗 Share this article

When exactly will America's top military officers decide that enough is enough, that their allegiance to the constitution and the rule of law overrides unquestioning obedience to their jobs and the sitting president?

Expanding Military Presence on US Territory

This question isn't merely academic. The president has been rapidly intensifying military operations within United States territory during the current term. Starting in April, he initiated expanding the armed forces deployment along sections of the southern border by establishing so-called "national defense areas". Military personnel are now permitted to search, question and detain individuals in these zones, dangerously blurring the distinction between martial law and civilian law enforcement.

Disputed Military Assignments

During the summer months, federal authorities dispatched marine corps and national guard units to Los Angeles contrary to the objections of the governor, and subsequently to Washington DC. Comparable deployments of national guard forces, likewise disregarding the preferences of local elected officials, are expected for the Windy City and Portland, Oregon.

Constitutional Concerns

Obviously, US law, under the federal statute, typically forbids the use of armed services in civilian law enforcement roles. A US court ruled in September that the president's troop deployment in LA breached this law, but operations persist. And there's continuing pressure for armed forces to comply with directives.

Personality Cult

Not just following orders. There's expectation for the military to worship the president. The administration converted a 250th Anniversary Parade for military forces, which some viewed as excessive, into an individual 79th birthday celebration. Both events fell on one date. Participation at the parade was not only sparse but was dwarfed by the estimated millions of citizens who participated in "No Kings" protests nationwide on that date.

Current Events

Most recently, the president 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. During the meeting, administration leadership told commanders: "We're facing invasion from within, similar to a foreign enemy, but more difficult in many ways because they're not identifiable." His evidence was that "Democrats run the majority of the cities that are in poor condition," even though each metropolitan area referenced – San Francisco, Chicago, New York, LA – have historically low rates of violent crime in generations. Subsequently he declared: "We ought to utilize some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military."

Partisan Transformation

Federal leadership is attempting to reshape the US military into a political instrument committed to preserving administrative control, a prospect which is not only contrary to American values but should also concern all Americans. And they intend to make this restructuring into a public display. Everything the official said at this highly publicized and very expensive meeting could have been distributed by written directive, and in fact was. But the official specifically needs image rehabilitation. He is better recognized for leading military operations than for disclosing such information. For this official, the very public presentation was a self-aggrandizing effort at enhancing his personal damaged reputation.

Concerning Developments

However much more important, and infinitely more troubling, was administration leadership's suggestion of even greater quantities of military personnel on American streets. Therefore, I return to the original concern: when will America's senior military leadership decide that limits have been reached?

Leadership Shakeup

There's substantial basis to think that high ranking officers of the military might have concerns about getting sacked by this president, either for being insufficiently loyal to the administration, not meeting demographic criteria, or insufficiently male, based on previous decisions from federal leadership. Shortly of assuming office, the administration removed the leader of the joint chiefs of staff, Air Force Gen CQ Brown, only the second Black man to occupy the position. Admiral Franchetti, the first woman to be appointed to navy leadership, the US Navy's highest rank, was also removed.

Legal Structure

Federal leadership also eliminated judge advocates general for ground forces, navy and aerial forces, and fired Gen Tim Haugh, the director of the National Security Agency and US Cyber Command, reportedly at the suggestion of far-right activist Laura Loomer, who asserted Haugh was insufficiently loyal to administration leadership. Exist many more examples.

Historical Context

Although accurate that each presidency does certain personnel changes upon taking office, it's equally correct that the scale and objective to restructure the military during this administration is without historical parallel. As analysts note: "No earlier presidency exercised authority in such extreme manner for concern that doing so would essentially consider the senior officer corps as similar to partisan political appointees whose professional ethos is to come and go with changes of administration, rather than professional officials whose work ethic is to serve independent of changes in administrative control."

Operational Guidelines

Administration officials stated that they will also currently get rid of "stupid rules of engagement". These guidelines, however, define what is legal and illegal behavior by the military, a line made more difficult to identify as federal leadership decimates the legal wing of armed services. Obviously, there has been significant illegality in American armed forces conduct from its inception until the present. But if one is part of armed services, you have the authority, if not the duty, to refuse unlawful commands.

Current Operations

The administration is presently involved in clearly unlawful operations being carried out by naval forces. Lethal strikes are being launched against vessels in the Caribbean that the US asserts are narcotics trafficking boats. No proof has been presented, and currently the administration is claiming the US is in a military engagement with narcotics organizations and the people who were killed by American forces in attacks are "unlawful combatants".

Expert Opinion

This is absurd, naturally, and recalls of the poorest legal reasoning developed during initial War on Terror era. Although the people on those boats were participating in narcotics trafficking, participating in the sale of illegal drugs does not rise to the standard of engaging in hostilities, as observed by authorities.

Conclusion

If a government intentionally kills a person outside of military engagement and without due process, it constitutes of murder. It's already happening in tropical waters. Is this the direction we're headed down on urban areas of our own cities? Federal leadership may have drawn up personal battle plans for specific objectives, but it's the members of the military who will have to implement them. With all our institutions currently on the line, encompassing armed services, we need a much stronger protection against his idea of war.