🔗 Share this article

When exactly will America's highest-ranking military officers decide that they've reached their limit, that their duty to the constitution and legal governance supersedes blind loyalty to their jobs and the current administration?

Expanding Armed Forces Deployment on American Soil

This question is far from theoretical. The president has been significantly increasing military operations within American soil during the current term. Starting in April, he began expanding the armed forces deployment along portions of the southern border by establishing what are termed "security zones". Armed forces members are now permitted to inspect, question and detain individuals in these areas, significantly obscuring the distinction between military authority and police operations.

Controversial Military Assignments

By summer, the administration sent marine corps and state military units to LA contrary to the wishes of the governor, and subsequently to Washington DC. Similar deployments of national guard forces, likewise against the preferences of respective elected officials, are anticipated for the Windy City and Portland, Oregon.

Constitutional Concerns

Obviously, US law, under the Posse Comitatus Act, typically forbids the employment of armed services in police functions. A federal judge determined in September that the administration's troop deployment in Los Angeles violated this law, but the actions continue. And there's continuing pressure for armed forces to comply with directives.

Personal Celebration

More than obeying commands. There's expectation for armed services to worship the president. Federal authorities transformed a historical celebration for military forces, which some viewed as unnecessary, into an individual 79th birthday celebration. The two occasions coincided on the same day. Attendance at the event was not only sparse but was overshadowed by approximately millions of citizens who joined "anti-authoritarian demonstrations nationwide on that date.

Current Events

Recently, the president participated with the recently renamed secretary of war, the cabinet member, in an abruptly summoned meeting of the nation's military commanders on late September. During the meeting, the president told the leadership: "We're experiencing invasion from within, no different than external adversaries, but challenging in numerous aspects because they don't wear uniforms." The justification was that "Democratic leadership controls most of urban areas that are in bad shape," even though all the cities mentioned – San Francisco, the Illinois city, NYC, Los Angeles – have historically low rates of serious offenses in generations. Subsequently he stated: "We should use certain urban areas as training grounds for our military."

Partisan Transformation

Federal leadership is working to transform the US military into a political instrument dedicated to preserving administrative control, a prospect which is not only anathema to our tradition but should also alarm all Americans. And they plan to make this reorganization into a spectacle. All statements the official stated at this highly publicized and very expensive gathering could have been issued by memorandum, and in fact had been. However the secretary specifically needs 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 effort at improving his personal tarnished image.

Concerning Developments

However far more significant, and considerably more alarming, was administration leadership's suggestion of increased quantities of military personnel on US city streets. So, we reconsider my initial question: at what point will the nation's senior military leadership determine that limits have been reached?

Personnel Changes

There's every reason to think that senior officers of armed forces might have concerns about getting sacked by the administration, either for being insufficiently loyal to current leadership, not meeting demographic criteria, or not fitting gender expectations, based on previous decisions from federal leadership. Within weeks of taking power, federal authorities dismissed the chairman of military command, Air Force Gen CQ Brown, only the second African American to hold the position. Admiral Franchetti, the first woman to be named to navy leadership, naval forces' highest rank, was also dismissed.

Judicial Framework

Federal leadership also eliminated judge advocates general for the army, maritime forces and air force, and fired Gen Tim Haugh, the director of the National Security Agency and US Cyber Command, according to accounts at the request of far-right activist Laura Loomer, who asserted Haugh was insufficiently loyal to administration leadership. Exist many more examples.

Historical Context

While it's true that every administration does some house cleaning upon taking office, it's also true that the extent and mission to reorganize the military during this administration is unprecedented. As experts observe: "No earlier presidency used its power in such extreme manner for fear that doing so would essentially consider the senior officer corps as akin to partisan political appointees whose professional ethos is to come and go with changes of administration, rather than professional officials whose work ethic is to perform duties independent of changes in administrative control."

Operational Guidelines

The secretary stated that they intend to also currently get rid of "unnecessary regulations of engagement". These guidelines, though, define what is lawful and unlawful behavior by the military, a distinction made harder to identify as federal leadership reduces the legal wing of armed services. Obviously, there has been plenty of unlawful activity in US military behavior from its inception until today. But if you are part of armed services, there exists the authority, if not the obligation, to refuse illegal orders.

Current Operations

Federal leadership is presently involved in blatantly illegal acts being carried out by the US navy. Deadly attacks are being initiated against vessels in the Caribbean that the US asserts are drug smuggling boats. No evidence has been presented, and currently the administration is stating the US is in a "non-international armed conflict" with narcotics organizations and individuals who were killed by American forces in the strikes are "illegal fighters".

Legal Analysis

This is ludicrous, of course, and recalls of the worst legal reasoning created during initial War on Terror era. Although individuals on those boats were participating in drug smuggling, participating in the sale of a controlled substance does not meet the standard of military combat, as noted by authorities.

Final Thoughts

If a government intentionally kills a person outside of military engagement and without due process, it's a form of homicide. It's already happening in tropical waters. Is this the direction we're headed down on urban areas of American municipalities? The administration may have created his own military strategies for specific objectives, but it's the personnel of armed forces who will have to implement them. As all American systems presently at risk, including the military, we need a much stronger defense against his idea of conflict.