🔗 Share this article

At what moment will America's highest-ranking armed forces leaders decide that they've reached their limit, that their duty to constitutional principles and legal governance supersedes blind loyalty to their jobs and the sitting president?

Expanding Military Presence on US Territory

This concern isn't merely theoretical. The administration has been rapidly intensifying military operations within United States territory during the current term. Starting in April, he began increasing the military presence along portions of the southern border by creating what are termed "security zones". Armed forces members are now permitted to search, interrogate and arrest individuals in these areas, significantly obscuring the separation between military authority and police operations.

Disputed Deployments

By summer, federal authorities sent marine corps and national guard units to LA against the wishes of state leadership, and subsequently to the capital. Similar assignments of military reserve forces, likewise against the preferences of respective elected officials, are expected for Chicago and the Oregon city.

Legal Challenges

Needless to say, US law, under the Posse Comitatus Act, generally prohibits the use of armed services in civilian law enforcement functions. A federal judge ruled in September that the president's troop deployment in Los Angeles breached this law, but the actions continue. And the expectation remains for the military to comply with directives.

Personal Celebration

More than obeying commands. There's pressure for the military to worship the commander-in-chief. The administration converted a 250th Anniversary Parade for military forces, which some viewed as excessive, into a personal 79th birthday celebration. The two occasions coincided on one date. Attendance at the event was not only limited but was overshadowed by approximately 5 million people who participated in "anti-authoritarian demonstrations across the country on the same day.

Recent Developments

Recently, administration leadership participated with newly titled defense official, Pete Hegseth, in a suddenly called meeting of the country's armed forces leadership on 30 September. During the meeting, the president told the leadership: "We're facing internal threats, similar to a foreign enemy, but challenging 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 – the Bay Area, the Illinois city, NYC, LA – have historically low rates of violent crime in generations. And then he stated: "We ought to utilize certain urban areas as practice locations for armed forces."

Political Reshaping

Federal leadership is working to transform the US military into a political instrument dedicated to maintaining administrative control, a development which is not only contrary to our tradition but should also concern all Americans. And they plan to make this reorganization into a public display. Everything the secretary said at this highly publicized and costly meeting could have been distributed by memorandum, and actually was. However the official specifically needs image rehabilitation. He is much less known for directing military operations than for disclosing such information. For this official, the highly visible presentation was a self-aggrandizing attempt at enhancing his own damaged reputation.

Concerning Developments

But much more important, and infinitely more troubling, was administration leadership's suggestion of increased numbers of military personnel on US city streets. Therefore, I return to my initial question: at what point will America's senior military leadership determine that limits have been reached?

Personnel Changes

There's substantial basis to think that high ranking members of armed forces might already be worried about being dismissed by the administration, whether for being not devoted enough to the administration, not meeting demographic criteria, or not fitting gender expectations, based on previous decisions from this administration. Shortly of taking power, federal authorities dismissed the leader of military command, General CQ Brown, just the second African American to hold the position. Admiral Franchetti, the first woman to be named to chief of naval operations, the US Navy's highest rank, was also dismissed.

Legal Structure

The administration also removed military lawyers for the army, navy and air force, and dismissed Gen Tim Haugh, the director of intelligence services and US Cyber Command, according to accounts at the request of political operative Laura Loomer, who claimed Haugh was not devoted enough to administration leadership. There are many more examples.

Unprecedented Scale

While it's true that every administration does certain personnel changes upon assuming power, it's equally correct that the scale and mission to reorganize armed forces during this administration is unprecedented. As analysts observe: "No earlier presidency exercised authority in this dramatic fashion for concern that doing so would effectively treat military leadership as similar to partisan political appointees whose professional ethos is to come and go with changes of administration, rather than career public servants whose professional ethos is to perform duties regardless of changes in administrative control."

Rules of Engagement

Administration officials stated that they intend to also currently get rid of "unnecessary regulations of engagement". Those rules, though, determine what is legal and illegal conduct by the military, a distinction made harder to identify as federal leadership decimates judicial support of armed services. Clearly, there exists significant illegality in US military behavior from its inception until today. But if you are a member of armed services, you have the right, if not the duty, to refuse illegal orders.

Ongoing Actions

The administration is presently involved in clearly unlawful operations being carried out by the US navy. Lethal strikes are being initiated against boats in tropical waters that the US claims are narcotics trafficking vessels. No proof has been presented, and currently the administration is claiming America is in a military engagement with narcotics organizations and the people who were murdered by the US in the strikes are "illegal fighters".

Expert Opinion

This is ludicrous, of course, and is reminiscent of the worst judicial analysis developed during initial War on Terror period. Although individuals on those vessels were involved in drug smuggling, being involved in the sale of illegal drugs does not meet the criteria of military combat, as noted by authorities.

Final Thoughts

When a state deliberately murders an individual outside of armed conflict and lacking legal procedure, it constitutes of murder. This is occurring in tropical waters. Is that the direction we're moving down on the streets of our own cities? The administration may have created personal battle plans for his purposes, but it's the personnel of the military who will have to implement them. As all American systems presently at risk, including armed services, there's necessity for a much stronger protection against this vision of war.