🔗 Share this article

When exactly will the nation's highest-ranking armed forces leaders determine that enough is enough, that their allegiance to constitutional principles and the rule of law supersedes unquestioning obedience to their jobs and the sitting president?

Expanding Armed Forces Deployment on US Territory

This question isn't merely theoretical. The president has been significantly increasing armed forces activities within United States territory during his second term. Starting in April, he initiated expanding the armed forces deployment along sections of the US-Mexico border by establishing so-called "national defense areas". Armed forces members are now permitted to search, interrogate and arrest individuals in these zones, dangerously blurring the separation between military authority and police operations.

Disputed Deployments

During the summer months, federal authorities sent marine corps and national guard units to LA against the wishes of the governor, and subsequently to Washington DC. Similar assignments of military reserve forces, also against the wishes of respective state governors, are anticipated for Chicago and the Oregon city.

Constitutional Concerns

Obviously, US law, under the Posse Comitatus Act, generally prohibits the employment of armed services in police roles. A US court determined in September that the administration's troop deployment in Los Angeles violated this law, but operations persist. And there's continuing pressure for the military to comply with directives.

Personal Celebration

Not just following orders. There's pressure for the military to worship the president. The administration converted a historical celebration for the Army, which some viewed as unnecessary, into an individual 79th birthday celebration. The two occasions coincided on one date. Attendance at the parade was not only limited but was dwarfed by approximately 5 million people who joined "anti-authoritarian protests nationwide on that date.

Recent Developments

Most recently, administration leadership participated with the recently renamed secretary of war, Pete Hegseth, in an abruptly summoned meeting of the nation's military commanders on 30 September. At the gathering, administration leadership told the leadership: "We're facing invasion from within, similar to external adversaries, but challenging in many ways because they don't wear uniforms." The justification was that "Democratic leadership controls the majority of the cities that are in poor condition," even though each metropolitan area referenced – San Francisco, Chicago, NYC, Los Angeles – have some of their lowest levels of violent crime in generations. And then he stated: "We ought to utilize some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military."

Partisan Transformation

The administration is working to transform the US military into a political instrument dedicated to maintaining executive power, a prospect which is not only contrary to our tradition but should also concern all Americans. And they plan to make this reorganization into a public display. Everything the official said at this highly publicized and very expensive gathering could have been distributed by written directive, and in fact had been. However the official specifically needs a rebrand. Currently better recognized for leading military operations than for disclosing them. For the secretary, the highly visible presentation was a self-aggrandizing effort at improving his personal tarnished image.

Troubling Implications

But much more important, and considerably more alarming, was the president's suggestion of increased numbers of troops on American streets. So, we reconsider the original concern: when will America's senior military leadership determine that enough is enough?

Leadership Shakeup

There's substantial basis to think that senior officers of the military might have concerns about getting sacked by this president, either for being not devoted enough to current leadership, not meeting demographic criteria, or insufficiently male, according to previous decisions from federal leadership. Within weeks of assuming office, federal authorities removed the leader of military command, General CQ Brown, just the second African American to occupy the position. Admiral Franchetti, the first woman to be named to chief of naval operations, the US Navy's top position, was also removed.

Legal Structure

Federal leadership also eliminated military lawyers for the army, 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 political operative Laura Loomer, who asserted Haugh was insufficiently loyal to the president. There are numerous additional instances.

Historical Context

While it's true that every administration does certain personnel changes upon assuming power, it's also true that the scale and objective to restructure the military during this administration is unprecedented. As analysts note: "No earlier presidency exercised its power in such extreme manner for fear that doing so would effectively treat military leadership 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."

Rules of Engagement

The secretary stated that they intend to also now eliminate "unnecessary regulations of engagement". These guidelines, however, determine what is lawful and unlawful behavior by the military, a line made more difficult to discern as federal leadership decimates the legal wing of the military. Clearly, there exists plenty of illegality in US military behavior from their establishment until today. But if one is a member of armed services, you have the right, if not the obligation, to refuse illegal orders.

Ongoing Actions

Federal leadership is currently engaged in blatantly illegal acts being conducted by naval forces. Deadly attacks are being launched against vessels in tropical waters that the US claims are narcotics trafficking boats. No proof has been presented, and now the administration is stating the US is in a "non-international armed conflict" with narcotics organizations and the people who were killed by American forces in attacks are "unlawful combatants".

Legal Analysis

This is ludicrous, of course, and recalls of the worst judicial analysis created during initial War on Terror era. Although the people on those vessels were involved in narcotics trafficking, participating in the sale of illegal drugs does not meet the standard of engaging in hostilities, as noted by legal experts.

Conclusion

When a state intentionally kills an individual outside of armed conflict and lacking legal procedure, it constitutes of murder. This is occurring in the Caribbean Sea. Is this the direction we're moving down on urban areas of our own cities? The administration may have created personal battle plans for specific objectives, but it's the personnel of the military who will have to carry them out. With all our institutions currently on the line, including the military, there's necessity for enhanced defense against this vision of conflict.