🔗 Share this article

When exactly will the nation'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?

Expanding Military Presence on American Soil

This concern isn't merely academic. The administration has been rapidly intensifying military operations within United States territory during his second term. Beginning last spring, he began expanding the military presence along sections of the southern border by establishing so-called "national defense areas". Armed forces members are now authorized to inspect, interrogate and detain individuals in these zones, significantly obscuring the separation between military authority and civilian law enforcement.

Controversial Military Assignments

By summer, federal authorities dispatched marine corps and national guard units to Los Angeles against the objections of state leadership, and later to the capital. Comparable assignments of national guard forces, likewise against the preferences of respective elected officials, are anticipated for Chicago and Portland, Oregon.

Legal Challenges

Needless to say, US law, under the Posse Comitatus Act, generally prohibits the employment of armed services in police functions. A federal judge determined in September that the administration's military assignment in LA violated this law, but operations persist. And there's continuing pressure for the military to comply with directives.

Personal Celebration

Not just obeying commands. There's pressure for the military to worship the president. The administration converted a 250th Anniversary Parade for military forces, which some viewed as unnecessary, into an individual birthday party. The two occasions coincided on the same day. Attendance at the event was not only sparse but was dwarfed by the estimated millions of citizens who participated in "No Kings" protests across the country on the same day.

Current Events

Most recently, the president joined the recently renamed defense official, the cabinet member, in a suddenly called meeting of the nation's military commanders on late September. At the gathering, administration leadership informed the leadership: "We're experiencing internal threats, no different than external adversaries, but more difficult in numerous aspects because they don't wear uniforms." His evidence was that "Democratic leadership controls the majority of urban areas that are in bad shape," even though each metropolitan area referenced – San Francisco, the Illinois city, New York, LA – have some of their lowest levels of serious offenses in decades. And then he declared: "We ought to utilize certain dangerous cities as practice locations for armed forces."

Partisan Transformation

The administration is attempting to reshape American armed forces into a partisan force dedicated to preserving administrative control, a prospect which is not only contrary to our tradition but should also alarm all Americans. And they intend to make this reorganization into a spectacle. Everything the official said at this widely covered and costly gathering could have been distributed by written directive, and in fact had been. But the secretary in particular needs a rebrand. He is better recognized for leading military operations than for leaking them. For this official, the very public lecture was a self-aggrandizing effort at improving his personal tarnished image.

Concerning Developments

But far more significant, and infinitely more troubling, was the president's foreshadowing of even greater numbers of troops on US city streets. Therefore, I return to the original concern: when will the nation's senior military leadership decide that enough is enough?

Leadership Shakeup

There's every reason to believe that senior members of armed forces might already be worried about getting sacked by this president, either for being not devoted enough to current leadership, insufficiently white, or not fitting gender expectations, according to previous decisions from this administration. Shortly of taking power, the administration removed the leader of the joint chiefs of staff, General CQ Brown, only the second Black man to occupy the position. Admiral Franchetti, the first woman to be appointed to navy leadership, the US Navy's highest rank, was also removed.

Judicial Framework

The administration also eliminated military lawyers for the army, navy and aerial forces, and fired 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.

Unprecedented Scale

Although accurate that each presidency does certain personnel changes upon taking office, it's also true that the scale and mission to reorganize armed forces during this administration is unprecedented. As analysts note: "No previous administration used authority in such extreme manner for fear that such action would effectively treat the senior officer corps as akin to partisan political appointees whose professional ethos is to transition with political shifts, rather than career public servants whose professional ethos is to serve regardless of changes in administrative control."

Operational Guidelines

Administration officials claimed that they intend to also now eliminate "stupid rules of engagement". Those rules, however, define what is lawful and unlawful conduct by armed forces, a line made more difficult to discern as the administration reduces the legal wing of the military. Clearly, there exists plenty of unlawful activity in American armed forces conduct from its inception until today. But if one is a member of the military, you have the authority, if not the duty, to refuse illegal orders.

Current Operations

The administration is presently involved in blatantly illegal operations being conducted by naval forces. Lethal strikes are being launched against vessels in the Caribbean that American authorities asserts are narcotics trafficking vessels. No proof has been presented, and currently federal leadership is claiming America is in a "non-international armed conflict" with drug cartels and the people who were murdered by American forces in attacks are "illegal fighters".

Expert Opinion

This is absurd, of course, and recalls of the poorest legal reasoning created during the early anti-terrorism period. Although the people on those vessels were involved in drug smuggling, being involved in distribution of a controlled substance does not rise to the standard of engaging in hostilities, as noted by legal experts.

Final Thoughts

When a state deliberately murders an individual outside of military engagement and lacking legal procedure, it constitutes of homicide. This is occurring in the Caribbean Sea. Is this the direction we're headed down on urban areas of our own cities? Federal leadership may have drawn up personal battle plans for his purposes, but it's the members of the military who will have to carry them out. As all American systems presently at risk, including armed services, we need enhanced defense against this vision of conflict.