🔗 Share this article

When exactly will the nation's highest-ranking military officers determine that enough is enough, that their duty to constitutional principles and legal governance takes precedence over unquestioning obedience to their jobs and the current administration?

Expanding Armed Forces Deployment on American Soil

This concern is far from academic. The administration has been rapidly intensifying military operations within United States territory during his second term. Starting in April, he initiated increasing the military presence along sections of the US-Mexico border by establishing so-called "security zones". Armed forces members are now permitted to inspect, question and detain individuals in these zones, dangerously blurring the distinction between martial law and police operations.

Disputed Military Assignments

During the summer months, the administration dispatched marines and state military units to Los Angeles contrary to the objections of state leadership, and subsequently to the capital. Comparable assignments of military reserve forces, also against the preferences of respective elected officials, are expected for Chicago and Portland, Oregon.

Constitutional Concerns

Needless to say, American legislation, under the Posse Comitatus Act, typically forbids the use of military forces in police roles. A federal judge determined in September that the president's military assignment in LA violated this law, but operations persist. And the expectation remains for the military to comply with directives.

Personality Cult

More than following orders. There's expectation for the military to venerate the commander-in-chief. The administration converted a historical celebration for the Army, which some viewed as unnecessary, into an individual birthday party. Both events fell on the same day. Attendance at the parade was not only sparse but was dwarfed by the estimated millions of citizens who joined "No Kings" protests nationwide on that date.

Current Events

Most recently, the president participated with newly titled defense official, the cabinet member, in a suddenly called meeting of the nation's armed forces leadership on 30 September. During the meeting, administration leadership told the leadership: "We're experiencing invasion from within, no different than external adversaries, but more difficult in numerous aspects because they're not identifiable." The justification was that "Democratic leadership controls the majority of the cities that are in poor condition," even though all the cities mentioned – the Bay Area, Chicago, NYC, Los Angeles – have some of their lowest rates of violent crime in decades. Subsequently he declared: "We should use certain dangerous cities as training grounds for our military."

Political Reshaping

The administration is attempting to reshape the US military into a partisan force committed to preserving administrative control, a prospect which is not only anathema to our tradition but should also alarm every citizen. And they intend to make this restructuring into a public display. All statements the secretary stated at this widely covered and costly gathering could have been issued by memorandum, and actually had been. However the secretary specifically requires image rehabilitation. He is better recognized for directing military operations than for disclosing such information. For this official, the very public presentation was a self-aggrandizing attempt at improving his personal tarnished image.

Troubling Implications

But far more significant, and considerably more alarming, was administration leadership's suggestion of increased quantities of troops on US city streets. So, we reconsider my initial question: when will the nation's senior military leadership determine that enough is enough?

Personnel Changes

There's substantial basis to think that high ranking members of the military might have concerns about being dismissed by this president, either for being insufficiently loyal to current leadership, insufficiently white, or not fitting gender expectations, based on previous decisions from this administration. Shortly of assuming office, the administration removed the leader of military command, Air Force Gen CQ Brown, just the second African American to occupy the position. Adm Lisa Franchetti, the initial female to be appointed to navy leadership, naval forces' highest rank, was also removed.

Judicial Framework

The administration also removed military lawyers for the army, maritime forces and air force, and dismissed Gen Tim Haugh, the director of the National Security Agency and US Cyber Command, reportedly at the request of political operative Laura Loomer, who asserted Haugh was insufficiently loyal to the president. There are numerous additional instances.

Historical Context

Although accurate that every administration does certain personnel changes upon assuming power, it's also true that the scale and objective to reorganize armed forces during this administration is without historical parallel. As analysts observe: "No earlier presidency used its power in this dramatic fashion for concern that such action would essentially consider the senior officer corps as similar to partisan political appointees whose professional ethos is to come and go with changes of administration, rather than career public servants whose work ethic is to serve regardless of shifts in political leadership."

Operational Guidelines

Administration officials stated that they will also currently get rid of "unnecessary regulations of engagement". Those rules, however, define what is legal and illegal behavior by the military, a distinction made harder to identify as federal leadership decimates the legal wing of armed services. Obviously, there has been significant illegality in US military behavior from its inception until the present. But if one is part of armed services, there exists the right, if not the obligation, to refuse unlawful commands.

Ongoing Actions

The administration is currently engaged in blatantly illegal operations being conducted by the US navy. Deadly attacks are being launched against boats in tropical waters that the US claims are narcotics trafficking boats. No proof has been presented, and currently the administration is stating the US is in a military engagement with narcotics organizations and the people who were murdered by the US in the strikes are "illegal fighters".

Legal Analysis

This is absurd, naturally, and is reminiscent of the poorest legal reasoning created during initial War on Terror era. Even if the people on those vessels were involved in drug smuggling, participating in distribution of illegal drugs does not meet the standard of engaging in hostilities, as noted by legal experts.

Final Thoughts

When a state intentionally kills an individual outside of armed conflict and lacking legal procedure, it constitutes of homicide. This is occurring in the Caribbean Sea. Is that the path we're headed down on urban areas 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. With all our institutions currently on the line, including armed services, we need enhanced defense against this vision of war.