🔗 Share this article

When exactly will the nation's top military officers decide that enough is enough, that their duty to constitutional principles and legal governance takes precedence over unquestioning obedience to their positions and the current administration?

Expanding Armed Forces Deployment on American Soil

This concern is far from theoretical. The president has been rapidly intensifying military operations within United States territory during the current term. Starting in April, he began increasing the armed forces deployment along portions of the US-Mexico border by creating so-called "security zones". Armed forces members are now authorized to inspect, interrogate and detain individuals in these areas, significantly obscuring the separation between martial law and civilian law enforcement.

Disputed Deployments

By summer, the administration sent marines and national guard units to Los Angeles contrary to the objections of state leadership, and subsequently to the capital. Similar assignments of military reserve forces, likewise against the wishes of local state governors, are anticipated for Chicago and Portland, Oregon.

Legal Challenges

Needless to say, US law, under the federal statute, generally prohibits the employment of armed services in police functions. A US court determined in September that the president's troop deployment in Los Angeles breached this law, but the actions continue. And the expectation remains for armed forces to comply with directives.

Personal Celebration

Not just obeying commands. There's expectation for armed services to venerate the president. Federal authorities transformed a 250th Anniversary Parade for military forces, which some viewed as excessive, into an individual 79th birthday celebration. The two occasions fell on one date. Attendance at the event was not only sparse but was dwarfed by approximately 5 million people who participated in "anti-authoritarian demonstrations across the country on the same day.

Current Events

Recently, the president participated with newly titled secretary of war, the cabinet member, in an abruptly summoned gathering of the nation's military commanders on 30 September. At the gathering, administration leadership told the leadership: "We're facing internal threats, no different than a foreign enemy, but more difficult in many ways because they don't wear uniforms." His evidence was that "Democratic leadership controls most of the cities that are in poor condition," even though each metropolitan area referenced – the Bay Area, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles – have some of their lowest levels of violent crime in generations. Subsequently he declared: "We ought to utilize some of these urban areas as practice locations for our military."

Partisan Transformation

Federal leadership is working to transform the US military into a political instrument dedicated to maintaining executive power, a prospect which is not only contrary to American values but should also concern all Americans. And they intend to make this reorganization into a spectacle. Everything the official stated at this highly publicized and costly meeting could have been issued by memorandum, and actually was. But the official specifically requires image rehabilitation. Currently better recognized for leading military operations than for disclosing them. For this official, the highly visible lecture was a self-aggrandizing attempt at enhancing his own damaged reputation.

Concerning Developments

However far more significant, and considerably more alarming, was administration leadership's foreshadowing of increased numbers of military personnel on American streets. Therefore, I return to my initial question: at what point will America's top military brass decide that enough is enough?

Personnel Changes

There's substantial basis to believe that senior members of the military might already be worried about getting sacked by this president, whether for being insufficiently loyal to the administration, not meeting demographic criteria, or not fitting gender expectations, based on past actions from federal leadership. Within weeks of taking power, federal authorities dismissed the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Air Force Gen CQ Brown, only the second African American to hold the position. Admiral Franchetti, the first woman to be appointed to navy leadership, the US Navy's highest rank, was also removed.

Legal Structure

The administration also eliminated judge advocates general for ground forces, navy and air force, and dismissed Gen Tim Haugh, the director of intelligence services and US Cyber Command, reportedly at the request of far-right activist Laura Loomer, who asserted Haugh was not devoted enough to administration leadership. Exist many more examples.

Unprecedented Scale

Although accurate that each presidency does certain personnel changes upon assuming power, it's equally correct that the extent and objective to restructure armed forces during the current term is without historical parallel. As experts note: "No previous administration used authority in such extreme manner for fear that such action 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 career public servants whose work ethic is to perform duties regardless of changes in political leadership."

Operational Guidelines

The secretary claimed that they will also currently eliminate "stupid rules of engagement". Those rules, though, determine what is legal and illegal conduct by armed forces, a line made more difficult to discern as the administration reduces the legal wing of armed services. Obviously, there exists plenty of unlawful activity in American armed forces conduct from its inception until today. But if one is part of armed services, you have the right, if not the duty, to disobey illegal orders.

Current Operations

Federal leadership is presently involved in blatantly illegal acts being conducted by naval forces. Lethal strikes are being initiated against vessels in tropical waters that American authorities claims are narcotics trafficking boats. No proof has been presented, and now federal leadership is claiming America is in a "non-international armed conflict" with drug cartels and the people who were murdered by the US in the strikes are "unlawful combatants".

Legal Analysis

This is ludicrous, of course, and recalls of the worst legal reasoning developed during initial anti-terrorism period. Although the people on those boats were involved in drug smuggling, being involved in distribution of illegal drugs does not rise to the criteria of engaging in hostilities, as noted by legal experts.

Final Thoughts

If a government intentionally kills a person beyond military engagement and lacking legal procedure, it's a form of murder. It's already happening in tropical waters. Is that the path we're moving down on urban areas of our own cities? Federal leadership may have created his own military strategies for his purposes, but it's the members of the military who will have to implement them. With all our institutions presently at risk, encompassing the military, we need enhanced defense against this vision of war.