🔗 Share this article

When exactly will the nation's top military officers decide that they've reached their limit, that their allegiance to the constitution and the rule of law takes precedence over unquestioning obedience to their positions and the sitting president?

Expanding Armed Forces Deployment on American Soil

This question is far from theoretical. The administration has been significantly increasing military operations within United States territory during the current term. Beginning last spring, he initiated expanding the armed forces deployment along sections of the US-Mexico border by establishing what are termed "national defense areas". Military personnel are now authorized to search, question and detain individuals in these areas, dangerously blurring the distinction between martial law and civilian law enforcement.

Disputed Deployments

During the summer months, the administration dispatched marine corps and national guard units to Los Angeles contrary to the wishes of the governor, and later to Washington DC. Comparable assignments of military reserve forces, likewise against the wishes of local elected officials, are expected for the Windy City and the Oregon city.

Constitutional Concerns

Obviously, US law, under the federal statute, generally prohibits the employment of military forces in police functions. A federal judge determined in September that the president's troop deployment in Los Angeles violated the act, but the actions continue. And the expectation remains for armed forces to follow orders.

Personality Cult

Not just following orders. There's pressure for the military to worship the commander-in-chief. Federal authorities transformed a 250th Anniversary Parade for military forces, which many considered excessive, into an individual birthday party. The two occasions fell on one date. Attendance at the parade was not only limited but was dwarfed by the estimated 5 million people who participated in "No Kings" protests nationwide on that date.

Current Events

Most recently, the president participated with the recently renamed secretary of war, Pete Hegseth, in an abruptly summoned gathering of the nation's military commanders on 30 September. During the meeting, administration leadership informed commanders: "We're experiencing internal threats, no different than external adversaries, but more difficult in numerous aspects because they're not identifiable." The justification was that "Democrats run most of the cities that are in poor condition," even though all the cities mentioned – the Bay Area, Chicago, New York, LA – have historically low levels of violent crime in decades. Subsequently he declared: "We should use certain urban areas as practice locations for armed forces."

Partisan Transformation

Federal leadership is attempting to reshape the US military into a partisan force committed to preserving executive power, a development which is not only contrary to our tradition but should also alarm all Americans. And they plan to make this reorganization into a public display. Everything the secretary said at this highly publicized and very expensive gathering could have been distributed by memorandum, and in fact was. However the secretary specifically requires a rebrand. Currently better recognized for directing armed forces activities than for leaking them. For the secretary, the very public lecture was a vainglorious attempt at enhancing his own damaged reputation.

Troubling Implications

But far more significant, and considerably more alarming, was the president's suggestion of even greater quantities of military personnel on American streets. Therefore, I return to my initial question: when will America's senior military leadership decide that enough is enough?

Personnel Changes

There's every reason to believe that high ranking members of armed forces might have concerns about getting sacked by this president, either for being not devoted enough to the administration, not meeting demographic criteria, or not fitting gender expectations, based on past actions from federal leadership. Within weeks of taking power, the administration dismissed the leader of the joint chiefs of staff, Air Force Gen CQ Brown, just the second African American to hold this role. Admiral Franchetti, the initial female to be appointed to navy leadership, naval forces' highest rank, was also removed.

Judicial Framework

Federal leadership also eliminated military lawyers for ground forces, navy and aerial forces, and fired Gen Tim Haugh, the head of intelligence services and US Cyber Command, reportedly at the request of political operative Laura Loomer, who claimed Haugh was not devoted enough to administration leadership. Exist numerous additional instances.

Historical Context

While it's true that each presidency does some house cleaning upon taking office, it's also true that the scale and objective to reorganize armed forces during the current term is without historical parallel. As experts note: "No previous administration exercised authority in this dramatic fashion for fear that doing so would essentially consider the senior officer corps as similar to political operatives whose career commitment is to transition with changes of administration, rather than professional officials whose work ethic is to serve independent of shifts in administrative control."

Operational Guidelines

Administration officials claimed that they will also currently eliminate "stupid rules of engagement". Those rules, however, define what is lawful and unlawful conduct by armed forces, a line made more difficult to identify as federal leadership decimates the legal wing of the military. Obviously, there has been significant unlawful activity in American armed forces conduct from their establishment until the present. But if you are a member of the military, there exists the authority, if not the obligation, to disobey unlawful commands.

Ongoing Actions

The administration is currently engaged in blatantly illegal acts being carried out by the US navy. Lethal strikes are being launched against boats in tropical waters that the US asserts are drug smuggling vessels. No evidence has been presented, and now federal leadership is stating America is in a military engagement with narcotics organizations and the people who were killed by American forces in attacks are "illegal fighters".

Legal Analysis

This is ludicrous, of course, and is reminiscent of the poorest legal reasoning created during the early anti-terrorism era. Although the people on those vessels were involved in narcotics trafficking, being involved in distribution of illegal drugs does not meet the standard of engaging in hostilities, as observed by authorities.

Final Thoughts

When a state deliberately murders an individual outside of military engagement and lacking legal procedure, it constitutes of homicide. This is occurring in the Caribbean Sea. Is that the direction we're headed down on the streets of American municipalities? The administration may have drawn up personal battle plans for his purposes, but it's the members of armed forces who will have to carry them out. As all American systems currently on the line, including armed services, we need enhanced protection against this vision of war.