🔗 Share this article

At what moment will America's top armed forces leaders decide that enough is enough, that their duty to constitutional principles and legal governance overrides blind loyalty to their jobs and the sitting president?

Growing Military Presence on US Territory

This question isn't merely academic. The president has been rapidly intensifying military operations within United States territory during his second term. Starting in April, he initiated expanding the military presence along sections of the US-Mexico border by establishing so-called "security zones". Armed forces members are now permitted to search, question and detain individuals in these areas, dangerously blurring the separation between military authority and police operations.

Controversial Deployments

During the summer months, the administration sent marines and national guard units to LA against the objections of the governor, and later to the capital. Similar assignments of military reserve forces, likewise disregarding the wishes of local elected officials, are expected for Chicago and Portland, Oregon.

Legal Challenges

Needless to say, US law, under the federal statute, typically forbids the employment of armed services in civilian law enforcement roles. A federal judge determined in last fall that the president's military assignment in LA breached this law, but the actions continue. And there's continuing pressure for the military to comply with directives.

Personal Celebration

Not just following orders. There's expectation for armed services to worship the president. Federal authorities converted a 250th Anniversary Parade for military forces, which many considered unnecessary, into an individual birthday party. Both events fell on the same day. Participation at the event was not only limited but was dwarfed by approximately 5 million people who participated in "anti-authoritarian protests across the country on that date.

Recent Developments

Recently, administration leadership joined newly titled defense official, Pete Hegseth, in an abruptly summoned meeting of the country's armed forces leadership on late September. At the gathering, administration leadership informed commanders: "We're experiencing internal threats, similar to external adversaries, but more difficult in many ways because they're not identifiable." His evidence was that "Democratic leadership controls the majority of urban areas that are in poor condition," even though all the cities referenced – San Francisco, Chicago, NYC, Los Angeles – have some of their lowest rates of violent crime in generations. And then he declared: "We should use certain urban areas as practice locations for our military."

Political Reshaping

Federal leadership is working to transform American armed forces into a political instrument committed to maintaining administrative control, a prospect which is not only anathema to our tradition but should also alarm every citizen. And they plan to make this restructuring into a spectacle. All statements the official stated at this widely covered and costly gathering could have been issued by memorandum, and in fact was. But the secretary in particular requires a rebrand. Currently much less known for directing military operations than for leaking them. For the secretary, the very public presentation was a self-aggrandizing effort at enhancing his own damaged reputation.

Troubling Implications

However much more important, and considerably more alarming, was administration leadership's foreshadowing of increased numbers of military personnel on American streets. So, I return to the original concern: at what point will the nation's senior military leadership decide that enough is enough?

Leadership Shakeup

There's every reason to think that high ranking members of armed forces might already be worried about getting sacked by this president, whether for being not devoted enough to the administration, insufficiently white, or insufficiently male, according to previous decisions from federal leadership. Shortly of taking power, federal authorities dismissed the chairman of military command, General CQ Brown, just the second African American to hold the position. Adm Lisa Franchetti, the initial female to be named to navy leadership, naval forces' top position, was also dismissed.

Judicial Framework

Federal leadership also removed military lawyers for ground forces, navy and air force, and fired Gen Tim Haugh, the director of intelligence services and US Cyber Command, reportedly at the suggestion of political operative Laura Loomer, who claimed Haugh was insufficiently loyal to the president. There are numerous additional instances.

Historical Context

Although accurate that every administration does certain personnel changes upon taking office, it's also true that the extent and objective to restructure the military during the current term is unprecedented. As experts observe: "No previous administration exercised authority in this dramatic fashion for fear that such action would essentially consider the senior officer corps as akin to political operatives whose professional ethos is to transition with political shifts, rather than career public servants whose professional ethos is to serve regardless of shifts in administrative control."

Rules of Engagement

Administration officials claimed that they intend to also currently eliminate "stupid rules of engagement". Those rules, though, define what is lawful and unlawful conduct by armed forces, a line made more difficult to identify as federal leadership decimates judicial support of the military. Clearly, there exists significant illegality in US military behavior from their establishment until today. But if one is a member of the military, there exists the authority, if not the obligation, to disobey illegal orders.

Current Operations

Federal leadership is currently engaged in clearly unlawful operations being carried out by the US navy. Lethal strikes are being initiated against boats in tropical waters that the US claims are drug smuggling vessels. No proof has been provided, and currently the administration is claiming America is in a "non-international armed conflict" with narcotics organizations and individuals who were murdered by American forces in the strikes are "unlawful combatants".

Legal Analysis

This is ludicrous, naturally, and recalls of the worst judicial analysis developed during the early anti-terrorism era. Although the people on those boats were involved in narcotics trafficking, participating in distribution of illegal drugs does not meet the standard of military combat, as observed by legal experts.

Conclusion

When a state deliberately murders an individual beyond military engagement and lacking legal procedure, it's a form of murder. This is occurring in the Caribbean Sea. Is that the direction we're headed down on urban areas of American municipalities? Federal leadership may have drawn up personal military strategies for his purposes, but it's the members of armed forces who will have to carry them out. With all our institutions currently on the line, including armed services, there's necessity for enhanced protection against his idea of conflict.