🔗 Share this article

When exactly will America's top armed forces leaders determine that they've reached their limit, that their duty to the constitution and the rule of law takes precedence over unquestioning obedience to their positions and the sitting president?

Growing Military Presence on American Soil

This concern isn't merely theoretical. The administration has been rapidly intensifying armed forces activities within United States territory during the current term. Beginning last spring, he began expanding the military presence along portions of the US-Mexico border by creating so-called "security zones". Military personnel are now permitted to search, question and arrest people in these zones, significantly obscuring the distinction between martial law and police operations.

Controversial Deployments

During the summer months, federal authorities sent marines and national guard units to Los Angeles against the objections of the governor, and later to Washington DC. Comparable deployments of military reserve forces, also disregarding the preferences of respective elected officials, are expected for Chicago and Portland, Oregon.

Legal Challenges

Obviously, US law, under the federal statute, generally prohibits the use of armed services in civilian law enforcement roles. A federal judge ruled in last fall that the administration's military assignment in LA violated the act, but the actions continue. And the expectation remains for armed forces to comply with directives.

Personal Celebration

More than obeying commands. There's expectation for the military to venerate the commander-in-chief. Federal authorities transformed a historical celebration for the Army, which many considered unnecessary, into an individual birthday party. Both events fell on one date. Participation at the parade was not only sparse but was dwarfed by approximately millions of citizens who participated in "No Kings" demonstrations across the country on the same day.

Recent Developments

Recently, the president participated with newly titled secretary of war, the cabinet member, in a suddenly called meeting of the country's military commanders on late September. At the gathering, the president told commanders: "We're experiencing invasion from within, similar to external adversaries, but challenging in numerous aspects because they're not identifiable." His evidence was that "Democratic leadership controls most of urban areas that are in bad shape," even though all the cities mentioned – San Francisco, the Illinois city, New York, Los Angeles – have historically low rates of serious offenses in generations. And then he declared: "We should use some of these urban areas as training grounds for armed forces."

Partisan Transformation

The administration is working to transform American armed forces into a political instrument dedicated to preserving executive power, a prospect which is not only contrary to our tradition but should also concern every citizen. And they plan to make this restructuring into a public display. Everything the official said at this highly publicized and very expensive gathering could have been distributed by written directive, and actually had been. But the secretary specifically needs a rebrand. He is better recognized for directing armed forces activities than for disclosing them. For the secretary, the highly visible lecture was a self-aggrandizing effort at improving his own tarnished image.

Concerning Developments

But far more significant, and infinitely more troubling, was the president's foreshadowing of even greater numbers of military personnel on American streets. Therefore, I return to the original concern: at what point will the nation's senior military leadership determine that limits have been reached?

Leadership Shakeup

There's substantial basis to believe that senior officers of armed forces might have concerns about getting sacked by this president, whether for being insufficiently loyal to the administration, insufficiently white, or not fitting gender expectations, based on previous decisions from federal leadership. Within weeks of taking power, the administration removed the leader of military command, Air Force Gen CQ Brown, only the second Black man to hold this role. Adm Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to be named to navy leadership, the US Navy's highest rank, was also removed.

Judicial Framework

Federal leadership also eliminated military lawyers for ground forces, maritime forces and aerial forces, and fired Gen Tim Haugh, the head of intelligence services and US Cyber Command, according to accounts at the request of far-right activist Laura Loomer, who claimed Haugh was not devoted enough to the president. There are many more examples.

Historical Context

While it's true that every administration does certain personnel changes upon taking office, it's also true that the scale and objective to restructure armed forces during the current term is without historical parallel. As experts note: "No earlier presidency exercised authority in such extreme manner for concern that such action would essentially consider the senior officer corps as akin 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 perform duties regardless of shifts in political leadership."

Rules of Engagement

The secretary stated that they intend to also currently eliminate "unnecessary regulations of engagement". These guidelines, though, define what is lawful and unlawful behavior by armed forces, a distinction made more difficult to identify as federal leadership decimates the legal wing of the military. Clearly, there has been significant illegality in US military behavior from their establishment until the present. But if one is a member of the military, there exists the right, if not the obligation, to disobey unlawful commands.

Current Operations

Federal leadership is currently engaged in blatantly illegal acts being carried out by naval forces. Lethal strikes are being launched against vessels in the Caribbean that American authorities claims are drug smuggling vessels. No evidence has been provided, and currently the administration is claiming the US is in a "non-international armed conflict" with narcotics organizations and individuals who were killed by the US in the strikes are "unlawful combatants".

Expert Opinion

This is ludicrous, naturally, and is reminiscent of the worst judicial analysis created during initial War on Terror period. Even if individuals on those vessels were participating in drug smuggling, being involved in the sale of illegal drugs does not meet the criteria of military combat, as observed by authorities.

Final Thoughts

If a government deliberately murders an individual outside of military engagement and lacking legal procedure, it constitutes of homicide. This is occurring in tropical waters. Is this the direction we're moving down on the streets of our own cities? Federal leadership may have created his own military strategies for his purposes, but it's the personnel of the military who will have to carry them out. As all American systems currently on the line, encompassing the military, there's necessity for a much stronger protection against this vision of war.