🔗 Share this article

When exactly will America's top armed forces leaders determine that enough is enough, that their allegiance to constitutional principles and the rule of law overrides unquestioning obedience to their jobs and the current administration?

Expanding Military Presence on US Territory

This question is far from academic. The administration has been rapidly intensifying military operations within United States territory during the current term. Starting in April, he initiated expanding the military presence along sections of the US-Mexico border by establishing so-called "national defense areas". Military personnel are now permitted to inspect, question and arrest individuals in these areas, significantly obscuring the separation between martial law and civilian law enforcement.

Disputed Deployments

During the summer months, federal authorities sent marines and state military units to Los Angeles against the wishes of state leadership, and subsequently to the capital. Similar deployments of military reserve forces, likewise against the preferences of respective elected officials, are anticipated for the Windy City and the Oregon city.

Legal Challenges

Obviously, American legislation, under the Posse Comitatus Act, generally prohibits the use of military forces in police roles. A federal judge ruled in last fall that the administration's military assignment in LA breached the act, but operations persist. And the expectation remains for the military to comply with directives.

Personal Celebration

More than following orders. There's pressure for armed services to venerate the commander-in-chief. Federal authorities transformed a 250th Anniversary Parade for military forces, which some viewed as unnecessary, into an individual 79th birthday celebration. Both events coincided on the same day. Participation at the event was not only sparse but was dwarfed by approximately 5 million people who participated in "anti-authoritarian demonstrations across the country on that date.

Recent Developments

Recently, the president joined the recently renamed secretary of war, Pete Hegseth, in an abruptly summoned meeting of the nation's military commanders on late September. At the gathering, the president told commanders: "We're facing invasion from within, similar to a foreign enemy, but more difficult in numerous aspects because they don't wear uniforms." His evidence was that "Democrats run most of urban areas that are in poor condition," even though each metropolitan area referenced – San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles – have some of their lowest rates of serious offenses in decades. And then he declared: "We should use certain urban areas as training grounds for our military."

Political Reshaping

Federal leadership is working to transform American armed forces into a political instrument dedicated to maintaining administrative control, a development which is not only contrary to American values but should also alarm all Americans. And they plan to make this restructuring into a public display. All statements the official said at this highly publicized and costly gathering could have been distributed by written directive, and actually was. However the official in particular needs image rehabilitation. Currently much less known for leading armed forces activities than for disclosing such information. For this official, the highly visible lecture was a self-aggrandizing attempt at enhancing his own tarnished image.

Concerning Developments

However much more important, and considerably more alarming, was administration leadership's suggestion of even greater quantities of military personnel on US city streets. Therefore, I return to my initial question: at what point will the nation's top military brass decide that enough is enough?

Leadership Shakeup

There's substantial basis to think that senior officers of armed forces might have concerns about being dismissed by the administration, whether for being insufficiently loyal to current leadership, not meeting demographic criteria, or insufficiently male, based on past actions from this administration. Within weeks of taking power, the administration removed the chairman of military command, General CQ Brown, just the second African American to occupy the position. Adm Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to be named to navy leadership, naval forces' highest rank, was also dismissed.

Legal Structure

Federal leadership also eliminated military lawyers for ground forces, navy and air force, and dismissed Gen Tim Haugh, the head of the National Security Agency and US Cyber Command, according to accounts at the suggestion of far-right activist Laura Loomer, who asserted Haugh was insufficiently loyal to administration leadership. There are numerous additional instances.

Unprecedented Scale

Although accurate that every administration does certain personnel changes upon taking office, it's also true that the scale and objective to restructure the military during this administration is unprecedented. As experts observe: "No previous administration exercised its power in such extreme manner for concern that doing so would essentially consider the senior officer corps as similar to political operatives whose professional ethos is to come and go with political shifts, rather than career public servants whose work ethic is to serve regardless of shifts in political leadership."

Rules of Engagement

Administration officials stated that they intend to also now get rid of "unnecessary regulations of engagement". These guidelines, however, determine what is legal and illegal behavior by armed forces, a distinction made harder to identify as federal leadership reduces judicial support of armed services. Obviously, there has been significant illegality in US military behavior from their establishment until today. But if you are part of armed services, there exists the right, if not the duty, to disobey illegal orders.

Current Operations

The administration is presently involved in blatantly illegal operations being conducted by the US navy. Deadly attacks are being launched against vessels in tropical waters that the US asserts are narcotics trafficking vessels. No evidence has been presented, and now federal leadership is stating the US is in a military engagement with drug cartels and individuals who were killed by American forces in attacks are "unlawful combatants".

Legal Analysis

This is absurd, of course, and is reminiscent of the worst judicial analysis created during initial anti-terrorism era. Even if the people on those boats were participating in narcotics trafficking, participating in distribution of a controlled substance does not rise to the standard of engaging in hostilities, as observed by legal experts.

Conclusion

If a government intentionally kills a person outside of armed conflict and without due process, it's a form of murder. It's already happening in the Caribbean Sea. Is that the direction we're moving down on urban areas of our own cities? Federal leadership may have created his own military strategies for his purposes, but it's the personnel of armed forces who will have to carry them out. With all our institutions presently at risk, including the military, there's necessity for enhanced protection against his idea of conflict.