🔗 Share this article

At what moment will the nation's top military officers determine that they've reached their limit, that their duty to constitutional principles and legal governance overrides unquestioning obedience to their jobs and the current administration?

Growing Armed Forces Deployment on American Soil

This question isn't merely theoretical. The administration has been rapidly intensifying armed forces activities within American soil during the current term. Starting in April, he initiated expanding the military presence along sections of the US-Mexico border by establishing what are termed "national defense areas". Armed forces members are now permitted to search, interrogate and detain people in these zones, significantly obscuring the separation between martial law and police operations.

Controversial Military Assignments

During the summer months, the administration sent marines and state military units to Los Angeles contrary to the objections of the governor, and later to the capital. Comparable assignments of military reserve forces, likewise disregarding the preferences of respective state governors, are expected for Chicago and Portland, Oregon.

Constitutional Concerns

Needless to say, American legislation, under the federal statute, generally prohibits the employment of armed services in police roles. A US court ruled in last fall that the president's troop deployment in LA breached this law, but operations persist. And there's continuing pressure for the military to follow orders.

Personality Cult

Not just following orders. There's pressure for the military to venerate the commander-in-chief. The administration converted a 250th Anniversary Parade for military forces, which many considered unnecessary, into a personal birthday party. The two occasions coincided on the same day. Participation at the parade was not only limited but was overshadowed by the estimated 5 million people who joined "No Kings" protests nationwide on that date.

Recent Developments

Recently, the president participated with newly titled defense official, Pete Hegseth, in a suddenly called gathering of the nation's military commanders on late September. At the gathering, administration leadership told commanders: "We're facing internal threats, similar to a foreign enemy, but more difficult in many ways because they're not identifiable." The justification was that "Democratic leadership controls most of the cities that are in bad shape," even though each metropolitan area mentioned – the Bay Area, the Illinois city, NYC, LA – have some of their lowest rates of violent crime in decades. Subsequently he stated: "We ought to utilize certain 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 preserving administrative control, a development which is not only anathema to our tradition but should also concern all Americans. And they intend to make this reorganization into a public display. All statements the official said at this highly publicized and costly gathering could have been issued by written directive, and in fact was. But the official specifically needs image rehabilitation. He is better recognized for leading military operations than for disclosing such information. For this official, the very public presentation was a vainglorious effort at enhancing his personal damaged reputation.

Concerning Developments

But far more significant, and considerably more alarming, was the president's foreshadowing of increased numbers of military personnel on American streets. So, I return to the original concern: at what point will the nation's senior military leadership decide that enough is enough?

Personnel Changes

There's substantial basis to believe that senior officers of armed forces might have concerns about getting sacked by the administration, either for being not devoted enough to current leadership, insufficiently white, or not fitting gender expectations, based on previous decisions from federal leadership. Within weeks of assuming office, federal authorities dismissed the leader of the joint chiefs of staff, General CQ Brown, only the second Black man to hold this role. Admiral Franchetti, the initial female to be appointed to navy leadership, the US Navy's top position, was also removed.

Legal Structure

The administration also removed judge advocates general for ground forces, navy and air force, and fired Gen Tim Haugh, the director of the National Security Agency and US Cyber Command, reportedly at the suggestion of political operative Laura Loomer, who claimed Haugh was not devoted enough to administration leadership. There are many more examples.

Historical Context

While it's true that each presidency does certain personnel changes upon assuming power, it's equally correct that the extent and mission to reorganize armed forces during the current term is unprecedented. As analysts observe: "No earlier presidency used authority in such extreme manner for concern 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 professional officials whose professional ethos is to perform duties independent of shifts in administrative control."

Operational Guidelines

Administration officials claimed that they intend to also now eliminate "stupid rules of engagement". Those rules, though, determine what is legal and illegal conduct by the military, a distinction made harder to discern as federal leadership decimates judicial support of the military. Obviously, there has been plenty of unlawful activity in American armed forces conduct from their establishment until today. But if one is part of armed services, there exists the right, if not the obligation, to disobey unlawful commands.

Ongoing Actions

Federal leadership is presently involved in blatantly illegal operations being conducted by naval forces. Lethal strikes are being initiated against boats in tropical waters that the US claims are drug smuggling boats. No evidence has been provided, and currently federal leadership is stating America is in a military engagement with narcotics organizations and individuals who were murdered by American forces in the strikes are "unlawful combatants".

Legal Analysis

This is ludicrous, naturally, and is reminiscent of the poorest legal reasoning created during initial anti-terrorism period. Even if the people on those vessels were involved in narcotics trafficking, being involved in distribution of illegal drugs does not meet the criteria of engaging in hostilities, as observed by legal experts.

Conclusion

If a government deliberately murders a person outside of armed conflict and without due process, it's a form of murder. This is occurring in tropical waters. Is this the path we're moving down on the streets of American municipalities? The administration may have created personal battle plans for his purposes, but it's the personnel of the military who will have to carry them out. As all American systems presently at risk, including the military, we need enhanced protection against this vision of conflict.