🔗 Share this article

When exactly will the nation's highest-ranking armed forces leaders decide that enough is enough, that their allegiance to the constitution and the rule of law supersedes blind loyalty to their positions and the sitting president?

Growing Military Presence on US Territory

This question isn't merely academic. The administration has been significantly increasing military operations within American soil during his second term. Beginning last spring, he initiated increasing the armed forces deployment along portions of the US-Mexico border by creating what are termed "national defense areas". Military personnel are now authorized to search, interrogate and arrest people in these areas, significantly obscuring the distinction between martial law and civilian law enforcement.

Disputed Military Assignments

By summer, federal authorities sent marine corps and state military units to Los Angeles against the wishes of state leadership, and later to Washington DC. Similar deployments of military reserve forces, also against the preferences of local state governors, are expected for Chicago and the Oregon city.

Constitutional Concerns

Obviously, American legislation, under the Posse Comitatus Act, generally prohibits the employment of military forces in police roles. A US court ruled in last fall that the president's troop deployment in Los Angeles violated the act, but the actions continue. And there's continuing pressure for the military to follow orders.

Personality Cult

More than obeying commands. There's expectation for armed services to venerate the president. The administration converted a 250th Anniversary Parade for the Army, which some viewed as unnecessary, into a personal birthday party. Both events coincided on the same day. Participation at the parade was not only sparse but was dwarfed by approximately 5 million people who participated in "No Kings" demonstrations nationwide on the same day.

Current Events

Recently, administration leadership joined the recently renamed secretary of war, Pete Hegseth, in an abruptly summoned gathering of the country's armed forces leadership on 30 September. During the meeting, administration leadership informed the leadership: "We're experiencing invasion from within, similar to a foreign enemy, but challenging in numerous aspects because they don't wear uniforms." His evidence was that "Democratic leadership controls most of urban areas that are in bad shape," even though each metropolitan area referenced – San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles – have historically low rates of serious offenses in generations. And then he declared: "We ought to utilize certain urban areas as practice locations for our military."

Partisan Transformation

The administration is working to transform American armed forces into a partisan force dedicated to preserving administrative control, a development which is not only contrary to American values but should also concern every citizen. And they plan to make this reorganization into a public display. All statements the secretary stated at this highly publicized and costly gathering could have been distributed by memorandum, and in fact had been. However the official in particular needs image rehabilitation. He is better recognized for directing military operations than for leaking such information. For the secretary, the highly visible presentation was a self-aggrandizing effort at improving his personal tarnished image.

Troubling Implications

However much more important, and considerably more alarming, was administration leadership's foreshadowing of increased numbers of troops on American streets. So, I return to the original concern: at what point will America's top military brass determine that limits have been reached?

Leadership Shakeup

There's every reason to believe that high ranking officers of armed forces might have concerns about getting sacked by this president, whether for being insufficiently loyal to current leadership, not meeting demographic criteria, or insufficiently male, according to past actions from this administration. Shortly of taking power, federal authorities removed the leader of military command, Air Force Gen CQ Brown, just the second Black man to hold this role. Adm Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to be appointed to chief of naval operations, the US Navy's top position, was also dismissed.

Judicial Framework

The administration also removed military lawyers for the army, navy and air force, and fired Gen Tim Haugh, the director of intelligence services and digital operations, reportedly at the request of political operative Laura Loomer, who asserted Haugh was insufficiently loyal to the president. There are many more examples.

Unprecedented Scale

While it's true that each presidency does some house cleaning upon taking office, it's equally correct that the scale and mission to restructure armed forces during the current term is without historical parallel. As experts observe: "No previous administration used authority in this dramatic fashion for concern that such action would effectively treat the senior officer corps as akin to partisan political appointees whose professional ethos is to come and go with political shifts, rather than career public servants whose professional ethos is to perform duties independent of shifts in administrative control."

Operational Guidelines

The secretary claimed that they intend to also currently eliminate "stupid rules of engagement". Those rules, however, determine what is legal and illegal conduct by the military, a distinction made more difficult to discern as federal leadership decimates the legal wing of the military. Clearly, there exists significant illegality in US military behavior from their establishment until the present. But if one is a member of the military, you have the authority, if not the duty, to refuse illegal orders.

Current Operations

Federal leadership is currently engaged in clearly unlawful operations being carried out by the US navy. Deadly attacks are being launched against boats in tropical waters that American authorities claims are narcotics trafficking vessels. No proof has been provided, and now federal leadership is stating the US is in a military engagement with narcotics organizations and the people who were killed by the US in attacks are "unlawful combatants".

Legal Analysis

This is ludicrous, naturally, and is reminiscent of the poorest judicial analysis created during initial War on Terror period. Although individuals on those vessels were participating in drug smuggling, participating in distribution of a controlled substance does not meet the criteria of military combat, as noted by authorities.

Conclusion

If a government intentionally kills an individual outside of military engagement and without due process, it's a form of murder. It's already happening in tropical waters. Is that the path we're headed down on the streets of American municipalities? Federal leadership may have drawn up personal military strategies for his purposes, but it's the personnel of armed forces who will have to carry them out. As all American systems presently at risk, encompassing armed services, we need enhanced defense against his idea of war.