🔗 Share this article

At what moment will America's highest-ranking armed forces leaders determine that they've reached their limit, that their duty to constitutional principles and legal governance overrides unquestioning obedience to their positions and the sitting president?

Expanding Armed Forces Deployment on American Soil

This concern is far from theoretical. The administration has been rapidly intensifying military operations within American soil during the current term. Beginning last spring, he began expanding the military presence along portions of the US-Mexico border by creating what are termed "national defense areas". Military personnel are now authorized to inspect, question and arrest individuals in these areas, dangerously blurring the distinction between martial law and police operations.

Controversial Military Assignments

During the summer months, federal authorities sent marines and national guard units to LA contrary to the objections of the governor, and subsequently to the capital. Similar assignments of military reserve forces, likewise disregarding the wishes of local state governors, are anticipated for the Windy City and the Oregon city.

Constitutional Concerns

Needless to say, US law, under the Posse Comitatus Act, generally prohibits the use of armed services in police roles. A US court ruled in last fall that the administration's military assignment in LA violated this law, but the actions continue. And the expectation remains for armed forces to follow orders.

Personality Cult

Not just obeying commands. There's expectation for the military to venerate the president. The administration transformed a 250th Anniversary Parade for military forces, which many considered excessive, into a personal birthday party. The two occasions coincided on one date. Participation at the event was not only sparse but was dwarfed by the estimated millions of citizens who joined "No Kings" demonstrations nationwide on that date.

Current Events

Recently, administration leadership participated with newly titled secretary of war, the cabinet member, in an abruptly summoned gathering of the nation's military commanders on late September. At the gathering, the president told commanders: "We're facing internal threats, similar to external adversaries, but more difficult 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 mentioned – San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles – have historically low levels of serious offenses in generations. Subsequently he declared: "We ought to utilize some of these dangerous cities as practice locations for our military."

Partisan Transformation

The administration is attempting to reshape American armed forces into a political instrument committed to maintaining administrative control, a development which is not only anathema to American values but should also alarm every citizen. And they plan to make this restructuring into a spectacle. All statements the secretary said at this highly publicized and very expensive meeting could have been issued by memorandum, and actually had been. But the official specifically needs image rehabilitation. Currently much less known for leading military operations than for leaking them. For the secretary, the highly visible presentation was a self-aggrandizing effort at improving his own damaged reputation.

Troubling Implications

However far more significant, and infinitely more troubling, was administration leadership's suggestion of increased quantities of military personnel on American streets. So, we reconsider my initial question: at what point will America's senior military leadership determine that limits have been reached?

Leadership Shakeup

There's substantial basis to believe that high ranking officers of armed forces might already be worried about getting sacked by the administration, whether for being not devoted enough to current leadership, insufficiently white, or insufficiently male, based on past actions from this administration. Within weeks of taking power, federal authorities dismissed the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General CQ Brown, just the second African American to hold the position. Admiral Franchetti, the initial female to be appointed to navy leadership, the US Navy's top position, was also dismissed.

Legal Structure

The administration also removed judge advocates general for ground forces, navy and aerial forces, and dismissed Gen Tim Haugh, the director of intelligence services and digital operations, according to accounts at the request of political operative Laura Loomer, who claimed 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 objective to restructure armed forces during this administration is unprecedented. As experts note: "No earlier presidency used its power in this dramatic fashion for concern that doing so would essentially consider military leadership as akin to political operatives whose professional ethos is to come and go with changes of administration, rather than career public servants whose professional ethos is to serve regardless of shifts in political leadership."

Rules of Engagement

Administration officials claimed that they will also now eliminate "stupid rules of engagement". Those rules, however, determine what is lawful and unlawful behavior by the military, a line made more difficult to identify as federal leadership reduces the legal wing of the military. Clearly, there has been significant unlawful activity in American armed forces conduct from its inception until the present. But if you are a member of armed services, there exists the authority, if not the duty, to disobey unlawful commands.

Ongoing Actions

Federal leadership is currently engaged in clearly unlawful acts being carried out by naval forces. Lethal strikes are being initiated against boats in tropical waters that the US asserts are narcotics trafficking boats. No proof has been provided, and currently the administration is stating America is in a military engagement with narcotics organizations and the people who were murdered by American forces in attacks are "illegal fighters".

Legal Analysis

This is absurd, of course, and recalls of the worst legal reasoning developed during initial anti-terrorism era. Even if individuals on those boats were participating in narcotics trafficking, participating in the sale of illegal drugs does not meet the standard of engaging in hostilities, as observed by legal experts.

Final Thoughts

When a state deliberately murders an individual outside of military engagement and lacking legal procedure, it constitutes of murder. This is occurring in tropical waters. Is that the direction we're headed down on urban areas of our own cities? The administration may have drawn up personal battle plans for specific objectives, but it's the members of armed forces who will have to implement them. With all our institutions presently at risk, including armed services, we need enhanced protection against his idea of war.