🔗 Share this article

At what moment will the nation's top armed forces leaders determine that they've reached their limit, that their duty to the constitution and the rule of law overrides blind loyalty to their positions and the sitting president?

Expanding Armed Forces Deployment on American Soil

This question isn't merely academic. The administration has been rapidly intensifying military operations within United States territory during his second term. Beginning last spring, he began increasing the armed forces deployment along sections of the southern border by establishing what are termed "security zones". Armed forces members are now authorized to search, interrogate and detain people in these zones, significantly obscuring the distinction between martial law and civilian law enforcement.

Controversial Deployments

By summer, federal authorities sent marines and national guard units to LA against the wishes of the governor, and subsequently to Washington DC. Similar assignments of military reserve forces, likewise against the preferences of local state governors, are expected for the Windy City and Portland, Oregon.

Legal Challenges

Needless to say, American legislation, under the federal statute, generally prohibits the use of armed services in police roles. A US court determined in last fall that the president's military assignment in LA breached the act, but the actions continue. And there's continuing pressure for the military to follow orders.

Personal Celebration

Not just obeying commands. There's expectation for armed services to venerate the president. The administration converted a historical celebration for military forces, which many considered unnecessary, into an individual birthday party. The two occasions fell on one date. Participation at the parade was not only limited but was dwarfed by the estimated 5 million people who joined "anti-authoritarian protests nationwide on the same day.

Recent Developments

Most recently, administration leadership joined the recently renamed defense official, the cabinet member, in a suddenly called meeting of the nation's military commanders on late September. At the gathering, administration leadership told commanders: "We're facing invasion from within, similar to external adversaries, but more difficult in numerous aspects because they don't wear uniforms." His evidence was that "Democratic leadership controls most of the cities that are in bad shape," even though each metropolitan area referenced – the Bay Area, the Illinois city, NYC, Los Angeles – have historically low rates of serious offenses in decades. Subsequently he declared: "We ought to utilize certain dangerous cities as training grounds for our military."

Political Reshaping

The administration is working to transform American armed forces into a partisan force dedicated to preserving executive power, a prospect which is not only contrary to our tradition but should also concern all Americans. And they plan to make this reorganization into a public display. Everything the secretary said at this widely covered and very expensive meeting could have been issued by written directive, and actually was. However the official in particular requires image rehabilitation. Currently better recognized for directing military operations than for leaking them. For the secretary, the very public lecture was a self-aggrandizing attempt at enhancing his personal tarnished image.

Troubling Implications

But far more significant, and infinitely more troubling, was administration leadership's suggestion of increased quantities of troops on American streets. Therefore, we reconsider the original concern: at what point will America's top military brass decide that limits have been reached?

Personnel Changes

There's every reason to believe that high ranking members of the military might already be worried about getting sacked by the administration, whether for being insufficiently loyal to the administration, insufficiently white, or not fitting gender expectations, based on previous decisions from this administration. Shortly of taking power, the administration dismissed the leader of the joint chiefs of staff, Air Force Gen CQ Brown, only the second Black man to occupy this role. Adm Lisa Franchetti, the initial female to be named to chief of naval operations, the US Navy's top position, was also dismissed.

Judicial Framework

Federal leadership also eliminated military lawyers for the army, maritime forces and aerial forces, and fired 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 insufficiently loyal to the president. Exist numerous additional instances.

Historical Context

While it's true that each presidency does some house cleaning upon taking office, it's equally correct that the scale and objective to restructure the military during the current term is unprecedented. As experts note: "No previous administration used its power in this dramatic fashion for concern that doing so would effectively treat the senior officer corps as similar to political operatives whose career commitment is to come and go with changes of administration, rather than professional officials whose work ethic is to perform duties independent of changes in administrative control."

Rules of Engagement

The secretary stated that they intend to also now get rid of "unnecessary regulations of engagement". Those rules, however, determine what is lawful and unlawful behavior by armed forces, a line made more difficult to discern as the administration reduces judicial support of the military. Clearly, there has been significant illegality in American armed forces conduct from their establishment until today. But if one is a member of armed services, there exists the authority, if not the duty, to refuse illegal orders.

Ongoing Actions

Federal leadership is presently involved in clearly unlawful operations being conducted by naval forces. Deadly attacks are being launched against boats in the Caribbean that the US asserts are narcotics trafficking vessels. No evidence has been provided, and currently federal leadership is stating the US is in a military engagement with drug cartels and individuals who were murdered by the US in the strikes are "illegal fighters".

Legal Analysis

This is absurd, naturally, and recalls of the poorest judicial analysis developed during initial anti-terrorism period. Even if the people on those vessels were involved in drug smuggling, being involved in the sale of a controlled substance does not meet the criteria of military combat, as noted by authorities.

Conclusion

If a government deliberately murders a person outside of military engagement and without due process, it constitutes of murder. It's already happening in tropical waters. Is this the path we're headed down on the streets of our own cities? Federal leadership may have drawn up personal battle plans for his purposes, but it's the members of the military who will have to carry them out. With all our institutions currently on the line, encompassing armed services, we need enhanced defense against his idea of war.