🔗 Share this article

When exactly will America's highest-ranking military officers determine that they've reached their limit, that their allegiance to constitutional principles and legal governance supersedes blind loyalty to their positions and the sitting president?

Expanding Armed Forces Deployment on American Soil

This question isn't merely academic. The administration has been rapidly intensifying armed forces activities within American soil during his second term. Starting in April, he began increasing the armed forces deployment along portions of the US-Mexico border by establishing what are termed "national defense areas". Military personnel are now permitted to search, interrogate and detain people in these areas, significantly obscuring the distinction between military authority and police operations.

Disputed Military Assignments

During the summer months, federal authorities sent marines and state military units to LA against the objections of state leadership, and later to the capital. Similar assignments of national guard forces, likewise against the preferences of local state governors, are anticipated for Chicago and the Oregon city.

Legal Challenges

Needless to say, US law, 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 Los Angeles violated the act, but operations persist. And there's continuing pressure for the military to comply with directives.

Personal Celebration

Not just obeying commands. There's expectation for armed services to worship the president. Federal authorities converted a historical celebration for the Army, which many considered excessive, into an individual birthday party. The two occasions coincided on the same day. Attendance at the parade was not only sparse but was overshadowed by the estimated millions of citizens who participated in "anti-authoritarian protests nationwide on the same day.

Current Events

Recently, administration leadership participated with the recently renamed defense official, Pete Hegseth, in an abruptly summoned gathering of the country's military commanders on late September. At the gathering, the president told the leadership: "We're facing internal threats, no different than a foreign enemy, but challenging in many ways because they don't wear uniforms." His evidence was that "Democratic leadership controls most of urban areas that are in poor condition," even though each metropolitan area mentioned – San Francisco, Chicago, NYC, Los Angeles – have some of their lowest rates of violent crime in generations. Subsequently he declared: "We should use certain dangerous cities as training grounds for our military."

Partisan Transformation

The administration is attempting to reshape American armed forces into a partisan force dedicated to preserving executive power, a development which is not only contrary to our tradition but should also alarm every citizen. And they intend to make this restructuring into a spectacle. All statements the secretary said at this highly publicized and very expensive gathering could have been distributed by memorandum, and in fact had been. However the official in particular needs a rebrand. Currently much less known for leading armed forces activities than for leaking them. For the secretary, the highly visible presentation was a vainglorious effort at improving his personal tarnished image.

Concerning Developments

However far more significant, and infinitely more troubling, was the president's suggestion of even greater quantities of troops on US city streets. So, I return to the original concern: at what point will America's top military brass decide that limits have been reached?

Leadership Shakeup

There's substantial basis to believe that high ranking officers of the military might have concerns about getting sacked by the administration, whether for being not devoted enough to the administration, insufficiently white, or not fitting gender expectations, based on past actions from this administration. Within weeks of assuming office, federal authorities removed the chairman of military command, General CQ Brown, just the second Black man to occupy this role. Adm Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to be named to chief of naval operations, 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 fired Gen Tim Haugh, the director of the National Security Agency and US Cyber Command, reportedly at the request of political operative Laura Loomer, who claimed Haugh was insufficiently loyal to administration leadership. Exist numerous additional instances.

Historical Context

Although accurate that each presidency does some house cleaning upon taking office, it's also true that the extent and objective to restructure the military during this administration is unprecedented. As experts observe: "No previous administration used its power in this dramatic fashion for concern that doing so would effectively treat the senior officer corps as similar to partisan political appointees whose professional ethos is to transition with changes of administration, rather than professional officials whose professional ethos is to perform duties regardless of shifts in administrative control."

Operational Guidelines

Administration officials stated that they will also now eliminate "stupid rules of engagement". These guidelines, though, determine what is legal and illegal conduct by the military, a distinction made more difficult to discern as federal leadership reduces judicial support of armed services. Obviously, there exists plenty of unlawful activity in American armed forces conduct from its inception until today. But if one is a member of armed services, there exists the authority, if not the obligation, to refuse unlawful commands.

Current Operations

Federal leadership is presently involved in blatantly illegal operations being carried out by naval forces. Deadly attacks are being initiated against boats in tropical waters that the US asserts are narcotics trafficking boats. No proof has been presented, and currently federal leadership is claiming America is in a "non-international armed conflict" with narcotics organizations and the people who were murdered by American forces in attacks are "unlawful combatants".

Expert Opinion

This is ludicrous, naturally, and is reminiscent of the poorest legal reasoning created during initial anti-terrorism period. Although individuals on those vessels were involved in drug smuggling, participating in distribution of a controlled substance does not rise to the criteria of engaging in hostilities, as observed by legal experts.

Conclusion

When a state intentionally kills a person outside of military engagement and lacking legal procedure, it's a form of murder. It's already happening in tropical waters. Is this the direction we're headed down on the streets of American municipalities? The administration may have created personal military strategies for specific objectives, but it's the members of armed forces who will have to carry them out. As all American systems currently on the line, encompassing armed services, we need enhanced defense against this vision of war.