🔗 Share this article

When exactly will the nation's top military officers decide that enough is enough, that their allegiance to the constitution and legal governance supersedes blind loyalty to their positions and the sitting president?

Expanding Military Presence on US Territory

This concern is far from theoretical. The administration has been rapidly intensifying armed forces activities within American soil during his second term. Beginning last spring, he initiated increasing the armed forces deployment along sections of the US-Mexico border by creating so-called "security zones". Armed forces members are now permitted to inspect, question and arrest individuals in these zones, significantly obscuring the distinction between military authority and civilian law enforcement.

Disputed Military Assignments

During the summer months, the administration sent marines and state military units to LA contrary to the objections of state leadership, and later to Washington DC. Similar assignments of national guard forces, also disregarding the wishes of local elected officials, are anticipated for the Windy City and Portland, Oregon.

Legal Challenges

Needless to say, American legislation, under the federal statute, typically forbids the use of armed services in civilian law enforcement roles. A US court ruled in last fall that the president's military assignment in LA violated this law, but the actions continue. And there's continuing pressure for the military to comply with directives.

Personal Celebration

More than obeying commands. There's pressure for armed services to worship the commander-in-chief. Federal authorities transformed a 250th Anniversary Parade for the Army, which many considered excessive, into a personal 79th birthday celebration. Both events fell on the same day. Participation at the parade was not only sparse but was dwarfed by the estimated 5 million people who participated in "anti-authoritarian protests across the country on the same day.

Current Events

Most recently, administration leadership participated with the recently renamed secretary of war, the cabinet member, in a suddenly called meeting of the country's armed forces leadership on late September. During the meeting, the president informed the leadership: "We're experiencing invasion from within, similar to external adversaries, but more difficult in many ways because they don't wear uniforms." His evidence was that "Democratic leadership controls most of urban areas that are in bad shape," even though all the cities referenced – San Francisco, Chicago, NYC, Los Angeles – have some of their lowest rates of serious offenses in generations. Subsequently he declared: "We ought to utilize some of these urban areas as training grounds for armed forces."

Partisan Transformation

Federal leadership is attempting to reshape American armed forces into a political instrument dedicated to maintaining administrative control, a prospect which is not only anathema to American values but should also alarm every citizen. And they plan to make this restructuring into a public display. Everything the official stated at this highly publicized and costly gathering could have been distributed by memorandum, and in fact had been. However the official specifically requires a rebrand. He is much less known for leading armed forces activities than for leaking such information. For the secretary, the very public presentation was a vainglorious attempt at improving his personal damaged reputation.

Troubling Implications

But far more significant, and considerably more alarming, was the president's foreshadowing of even greater quantities of military personnel on American streets. Therefore, we reconsider my initial question: when will the nation's senior military leadership decide that limits have been reached?

Leadership Shakeup

There's every reason to think that high ranking officers of the military might already be worried about being dismissed by this president, whether for being insufficiently loyal to the administration, insufficiently white, or insufficiently male, according to past actions from this administration. Within weeks of taking power, the administration dismissed the leader of the joint chiefs of staff, General CQ Brown, just the second African American to occupy this role. Admiral Franchetti, the first woman to be appointed to chief of naval operations, naval forces' highest rank, was also removed.

Judicial Framework

Federal leadership also eliminated military lawyers for ground forces, maritime forces and air force, and fired Gen Tim Haugh, the head of the National Security Agency and digital operations, according to accounts at the suggestion of far-right activist Laura Loomer, who claimed Haugh was insufficiently loyal to the president. There are many more examples.

Historical Context

While it's true that each presidency does certain personnel changes upon taking office, it's equally correct that the scale and mission to restructure armed forces during the current term is unprecedented. As analysts observe: "No earlier presidency exercised its power in this dramatic fashion for concern that such action would effectively treat the senior officer corps as similar to partisan political appointees whose career commitment is to transition with changes of administration, rather than professional officials whose professional ethos is to serve regardless of shifts in political leadership."

Operational Guidelines

The secretary stated that they intend to also now get rid of "stupid rules of engagement". Those rules, though, determine what is legal and illegal behavior by the military, a line made harder to discern as the administration decimates the legal wing of the military. Clearly, there exists significant illegality in American armed forces conduct from its inception until today. But if one is part of armed services, there exists the authority, if not the duty, to refuse unlawful commands.

Ongoing Actions

The administration is presently involved in blatantly illegal acts being conducted by the US navy. Lethal strikes are being initiated against vessels in the Caribbean that American authorities claims are drug smuggling boats. No evidence has been provided, and currently the administration is stating America is in a military engagement with drug cartels and the people who were murdered by the US in the strikes are "illegal fighters".

Expert Opinion

This is absurd, naturally, and recalls of the worst legal reasoning developed during initial anti-terrorism era. Even if the people on those vessels were involved in drug smuggling, participating in the sale of a controlled substance does not meet 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 homicide. It's already happening in the Caribbean Sea. Is that the path we're headed down on the streets of American municipalities? Federal leadership may have drawn up personal battle plans for his purposes, but it's the personnel of armed forces who will have to carry them out. With all our institutions currently on the line, including armed services, we need enhanced defense against this vision of war.