🔗 Share this article

When exactly will the nation's top armed forces leaders decide that enough is enough, that their duty to the constitution and the rule of law overrides unquestioning obedience to their jobs and the sitting president?

Growing Military Presence on American Soil

This question isn't merely academic. The administration has been significantly increasing armed forces activities within American soil during the current term. Beginning last spring, he began expanding the armed forces deployment along portions of the southern border by creating what are termed "national defense areas". Armed forces members are now permitted to search, interrogate and arrest individuals in these zones, dangerously blurring the distinction between martial law and civilian law enforcement.

Controversial Deployments

By summer, federal authorities sent marine corps and national guard units to Los Angeles contrary to the objections of state leadership, and subsequently to the capital. Similar deployments of military reserve forces, likewise against the preferences of local elected officials, are expected for Chicago and the Oregon city.

Legal Challenges

Needless to say, American legislation, under the federal statute, generally prohibits the use of armed services in police functions. A federal judge determined in September that the administration's troop deployment in LA breached this law, but the actions continue. And the expectation remains for the military to follow orders.

Personal Celebration

Not just obeying commands. There's expectation for the military to venerate the commander-in-chief. The administration transformed a historical celebration for the Army, which some viewed as unnecessary, into a personal birthday party. Both events coincided on one date. Participation at the parade was not only limited but was dwarfed by the estimated millions of citizens who joined "anti-authoritarian protests across the country on the same day.

Current Events

Most recently, the president participated with the recently renamed defense official, Pete Hegseth, in a suddenly called meeting of the nation's military commanders on 30 September. At the gathering, the president informed commanders: "We're experiencing invasion from within, similar to a foreign enemy, but challenging in many ways because they're not identifiable." His evidence was that "Democrats run the majority of urban areas that are in poor condition," even though each metropolitan area referenced – the Bay Area, the Illinois city, New York, LA – have some of their lowest rates of violent crime in decades. And then he stated: "We ought to utilize some of these urban areas as training grounds for our military."

Political Reshaping

The administration is working to transform American armed forces into a partisan force dedicated to maintaining administrative control, a prospect which is not only contrary to American values but should also concern every citizen. And they plan to make this restructuring into a spectacle. Everything the secretary said at this widely covered and very expensive gathering could have been issued by memorandum, and in fact was. But the secretary specifically needs a rebrand. He is better recognized for directing military operations than for leaking such information. For this official, the very public presentation was a self-aggrandizing effort at improving his own tarnished image.

Concerning Developments

But far more significant, and infinitely more troubling, was administration leadership's foreshadowing of even greater quantities of military personnel on US city streets. So, we reconsider my initial question: when will America's senior military leadership determine that enough is enough?

Leadership Shakeup

There's every reason to think that high ranking members of the military might already be worried about being dismissed by this president, whether for being not devoted enough to the administration, not meeting demographic criteria, or not fitting gender expectations, according to past actions from federal leadership. Shortly of taking power, the administration removed the leader of military command, General CQ Brown, just the second African American to occupy the position. Adm Lisa Franchetti, the initial female to be named to navy leadership, the US Navy's top position, was also removed.

Judicial Framework

The administration also eliminated judge advocates general for ground forces, navy and aerial forces, and fired Gen Tim Haugh, the head of the National Security Agency and US Cyber Command, according to accounts at the suggestion of political operative Laura Loomer, who asserted Haugh was insufficiently loyal to administration leadership. Exist many more examples.

Historical Context

Although accurate that each presidency does certain personnel changes upon assuming power, it's also true that the scale and mission to reorganize the military during the current term is without historical parallel. As analysts observe: "No previous administration exercised its power in such extreme manner for concern that doing so would essentially consider the senior officer corps as akin to political operatives whose career commitment is to transition with changes of administration, rather than career public servants whose work ethic is to perform duties regardless of changes in administrative control."

Rules of Engagement

Administration officials claimed that they will also currently eliminate "unnecessary regulations of engagement". Those rules, however, determine what is legal and illegal conduct by the military, a line made more difficult to identify as federal leadership decimates the legal wing of the military. Clearly, there exists significant illegality 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 duty, to refuse illegal orders.

Current Operations

The administration is presently involved in clearly unlawful acts being carried out by naval forces. Lethal strikes are being initiated against boats in the Caribbean that the US asserts are narcotics trafficking vessels. No evidence has been provided, and now the administration is claiming America is in a military engagement with drug cartels and the people who were killed by American forces in attacks are "unlawful combatants".

Expert Opinion

This is absurd, naturally, and recalls of the poorest judicial analysis developed during initial anti-terrorism era. Even if individuals on those boats were involved in drug smuggling, being involved in the sale of illegal drugs does not rise to the standard of engaging in hostilities, as observed by legal experts.

Final Thoughts

If a government deliberately murders an individual outside of military engagement and without due process, it constitutes of homicide. It's already happening in tropical waters. Is this the path we're headed down on urban areas of American municipalities? The administration may have created his own military strategies for his purposes, but it's the personnel of the military who will have to implement them. As all American systems currently on the line, encompassing the military, there's necessity for enhanced protection against his idea of war.