🔗 Share this article

When exactly will the nation's top armed forces leaders determine that they've reached their limit, that their allegiance to the constitution and legal governance supersedes blind loyalty to their jobs and the current administration?

Growing Military Presence on US Territory

This concern is far from academic. The president has been significantly increasing armed forces activities within American soil during his second term. Starting in April, he initiated increasing the military presence along sections of the southern border by establishing so-called "national defense areas". Armed forces members are now permitted to inspect, interrogate and detain people in these areas, significantly obscuring the separation between military authority and civilian law enforcement.

Disputed Deployments

By summer, federal authorities sent marine corps and national guard units to Los Angeles against the objections of state leadership, and later to the capital. Similar deployments of national guard forces, also against the preferences of respective elected officials, are expected for Chicago and the Oregon city.

Legal Challenges

Needless to say, American legislation, under the federal statute, typically forbids the use of military forces in police roles. A federal judge ruled in last fall that the president's troop deployment in LA breached the act, but the actions continue. And there's continuing pressure for the military to comply with directives.

Personal Celebration

More than following orders. There's expectation for the military to worship the commander-in-chief. Federal authorities transformed a 250th Anniversary Parade for military forces, which many considered excessive, into an individual birthday party. The two occasions coincided on one date. Attendance at the parade was not only sparse but was overshadowed by the estimated millions of citizens who joined "anti-authoritarian demonstrations across the country on the same day.

Recent Developments

Most recently, administration leadership participated with newly titled defense official, the cabinet member, in a suddenly called gathering of the country's military commanders on 30 September. During the meeting, the president told the leadership: "We're facing invasion from within, no different than external adversaries, but more difficult in numerous aspects because they're not identifiable." His evidence was that "Democrats run the majority of the cities that are in poor condition," even though all the cities mentioned – San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles – have historically low levels of serious offenses in generations. And then he stated: "We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for armed forces."

Partisan Transformation

Federal leadership is working to transform American armed forces into a partisan force dedicated to maintaining administrative control, a development which is not only contrary to our tradition but should also concern all Americans. And they intend to make this reorganization into a public display. Everything the secretary said at this widely covered and very expensive gathering could have been issued by written directive, and in fact was. But the secretary specifically needs a rebrand. He is better recognized for leading armed forces activities than for disclosing such information. For the secretary, the very public presentation was a self-aggrandizing effort at improving his personal tarnished image.

Troubling Implications

But much more important, and infinitely more troubling, was administration leadership's suggestion of increased numbers of military personnel on American streets. Therefore, we reconsider the original concern: when will the nation's senior military leadership decide that limits have been reached?

Leadership Shakeup

There's every reason to think that high ranking members of the military might have concerns about getting sacked by this president, either for being not devoted enough to current leadership, insufficiently white, or not fitting gender expectations, based on past actions from federal leadership. Shortly of assuming office, federal authorities dismissed the leader of military command, Air Force Gen CQ Brown, just the second Black man to hold this role. Admiral Franchetti, the first woman to be appointed to navy leadership, the US Navy's highest rank, was also dismissed.

Legal Structure

Federal leadership also removed judge advocates general for the army, maritime forces and air force, and fired Gen Tim Haugh, the head 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. Exist many more examples.

Unprecedented Scale

While it's true that each presidency does some house cleaning upon assuming power, it's also true that the scale and objective to restructure the military during the current term is unprecedented. As experts observe: "No previous administration used authority in such extreme manner for concern that such action would effectively treat the senior officer corps as similar to political operatives whose career commitment is to come and go with changes of administration, rather than professional officials whose professional ethos is to serve regardless of shifts in political leadership."

Operational Guidelines

Administration officials claimed that they intend to also now get rid of "stupid rules of engagement". Those rules, however, determine what is legal and illegal conduct by armed forces, a line made more difficult to discern as federal leadership decimates the legal wing of armed services. Obviously, there has been significant unlawful activity in American armed forces conduct from their establishment until the present. But if one is part of the military, there exists the authority, if not the duty, to disobey illegal orders.

Ongoing Actions

Federal leadership is presently involved in clearly unlawful operations being conducted by naval forces. Deadly attacks are being initiated against vessels in tropical waters that American authorities claims are drug smuggling vessels. No proof has been provided, and currently the administration is claiming the US is in a military engagement with drug cartels and individuals who were murdered by American forces in the strikes are "illegal fighters".

Legal Analysis

This is absurd, naturally, and is reminiscent of the worst legal reasoning developed during the early anti-terrorism period. Although individuals on those vessels were involved in narcotics trafficking, being involved in the sale of illegal drugs does not rise to the criteria of engaging in hostilities, as observed by legal experts.

Final Thoughts

If a government intentionally kills a person beyond military engagement and without due process, it constitutes of homicide. This is occurring in tropical waters. Is that the path we're headed down on urban areas of American municipalities? Federal leadership may have drawn up personal military strategies for specific objectives, but it's the personnel of armed forces who will have to carry them out. As all American systems currently on the line, encompassing armed services, there's necessity for enhanced protection against his idea of conflict.