🔗 Share this article

At what moment will America's top military officers decide that they've reached their limit, that their duty to constitutional principles and the rule of law overrides blind loyalty to their positions and the current administration?

Expanding Military Presence on US Territory

This concern is far from academic. The administration has been rapidly intensifying military operations within American soil during his second term. Beginning last spring, he began increasing the military presence along portions of the southern border by establishing so-called "national defense areas". Military personnel are now permitted to search, question and arrest people in these zones, significantly obscuring the separation between military authority and police operations.

Disputed Deployments

During the summer months, the administration sent marine corps and state military units to Los Angeles contrary to the objections of the governor, and later to Washington DC. Comparable deployments of national guard forces, also against the preferences of local state governors, are anticipated for Chicago and Portland, Oregon.

Constitutional Concerns

Obviously, US law, under the Posse Comitatus Act, generally prohibits the use of armed services in civilian law enforcement roles. A US court determined in September that the administration's troop deployment in LA breached this law, but operations persist. And the expectation remains for the military to follow orders.

Personal Celebration

More than following orders. There's expectation for the military to worship the commander-in-chief. The administration transformed a 250th Anniversary Parade for military forces, which many considered excessive, into a personal birthday party. The two occasions fell on the same day. Participation at the event was not only sparse but was overshadowed by approximately millions of citizens who participated in "anti-authoritarian demonstrations across the country on the same day.

Recent Developments

Most recently, administration leadership participated with the recently renamed defense official, Pete Hegseth, in an abruptly summoned gathering of the country's military commanders on 30 September. During the meeting, administration leadership told commanders: "We're facing invasion from within, similar to a foreign enemy, but challenging in numerous aspects because they don't wear uniforms." His evidence was that "Democrats run the majority of the cities that are in bad shape," even though each metropolitan area mentioned – San Francisco, Chicago, NYC, Los Angeles – have historically low levels of violent crime in generations. Subsequently he declared: "We ought to utilize certain dangerous cities as training grounds for our military."

Partisan Transformation

Federal leadership is attempting to reshape the US military into a political instrument committed to preserving administrative control, a prospect which is not only contrary to American values but should also alarm every citizen. And they plan to make this reorganization into a spectacle. All statements the secretary stated at this highly publicized and costly meeting could have been issued by memorandum, and actually had been. But the official specifically requires a rebrand. Currently much less known for leading military operations than for disclosing such information. For this official, the very public lecture was a vainglorious attempt at enhancing his own tarnished image.

Troubling Implications

However far more significant, and considerably more alarming, was administration leadership's foreshadowing of even greater quantities of troops on American streets. So, I return to the original concern: at what point will the nation's top military brass decide that enough is enough?

Personnel Changes

There's every reason to believe that high ranking officers of the military might already be worried about being dismissed by the administration, whether for being insufficiently loyal to current leadership, not meeting demographic criteria, or not fitting gender expectations, according to previous decisions from this administration. Shortly of taking power, federal authorities removed the leader of military command, General CQ Brown, just the second Black man to occupy this role. Admiral Franchetti, the initial female to be named to navy leadership, the US Navy's highest rank, was also removed.

Judicial Framework

The administration also eliminated judge advocates general for ground forces, maritime forces and air force, and fired Gen Tim Haugh, the director of intelligence services and digital operations, reportedly at the request of political operative Laura Loomer, who asserted Haugh was not devoted enough to administration leadership. There are many more examples.

Historical Context

While it's true that each presidency does some house cleaning upon assuming power, it's also true that the scale and mission to restructure the military during this administration is without historical parallel. As analysts note: "No earlier presidency exercised authority in such extreme manner for fear that doing so would essentially consider military leadership as akin to political operatives whose professional ethos is to come and go with changes of administration, rather than career public servants whose work ethic is to perform duties regardless of changes in administrative control."

Rules of Engagement

Administration officials claimed that they intend to also currently eliminate "stupid rules of engagement". These guidelines, however, define what is lawful and unlawful conduct by armed forces, a distinction made harder to discern as federal leadership decimates the legal wing of the military. Clearly, there exists plenty of unlawful activity in American armed forces conduct from their establishment until the present. But if you are a member of armed services, there exists the authority, if not the obligation, to refuse illegal orders.

Ongoing Actions

Federal leadership is presently involved in blatantly illegal acts being carried out by the US navy. Deadly attacks are being launched against vessels in the Caribbean that the US asserts are narcotics trafficking vessels. No proof has been provided, and now federal leadership is claiming America is in a "non-international armed conflict" with narcotics organizations and the people who were killed by the US in attacks are "unlawful combatants".

Legal Analysis

This is ludicrous, of course, and recalls of the poorest judicial analysis developed during the early anti-terrorism period. Although the people on those vessels were involved in narcotics trafficking, participating in the sale of a controlled substance does not meet the criteria of military combat, as noted by authorities.

Conclusion

If a government intentionally kills an individual beyond armed conflict and without due process, it's a form of murder. This is occurring in the Caribbean Sea. Is this the path we're headed down on the streets of our own cities? The administration may have drawn up personal military strategies for his purposes, but it's the personnel of the military who will have to carry them out. As all American systems presently at risk, including armed services, we need a much stronger defense against this vision of war.