🔗 Share this article

At what moment will America's top military officers determine that they've reached their limit, that their allegiance to constitutional principles and the rule of law supersedes unquestioning obedience to their positions and the current administration?

Expanding Armed Forces Deployment on American Soil

This concern isn't merely academic. The administration has been significantly increasing armed forces activities within American soil during the current term. Starting in April, he began expanding the military presence along portions of the US-Mexico border by establishing what are termed "national defense areas". Armed forces members are now authorized to inspect, question and detain individuals in these zones, dangerously blurring the distinction between military authority and civilian law enforcement.

Controversial Deployments

By summer, federal authorities sent marines and state military units to Los Angeles contrary to the wishes of the governor, and later to the capital. Comparable deployments of national guard forces, also disregarding the preferences of local state governors, are anticipated for the Windy City and the Oregon city.

Legal Challenges

Obviously, American legislation, under the Posse Comitatus Act, generally prohibits the use of military forces in civilian law enforcement roles. A US court determined in last fall that the president's military assignment in Los Angeles violated this law, but operations persist. And the expectation remains for the military to follow orders.

Personality Cult

Not just following orders. There's pressure for armed services to worship the president. Federal authorities converted a 250th Anniversary Parade for military forces, which some viewed as excessive, into an individual 79th birthday celebration. Both events coincided on the same day. Attendance at the parade was not only limited but was overshadowed by the estimated 5 million people who joined "No Kings" protests nationwide on the same day.

Current Events

Recently, administration leadership joined the recently renamed defense official, the cabinet member, in an abruptly summoned gathering of the nation's armed forces leadership on 30 September. At the gathering, administration leadership told commanders: "We're facing internal threats, similar to a foreign enemy, but more difficult in numerous aspects because they're not identifiable." His evidence was that "Democratic leadership controls the majority of the cities that are in poor condition," even though each metropolitan area mentioned – the Bay Area, the Illinois city, NYC, LA – have some of their lowest levels of violent crime in decades. Subsequently he stated: "We ought to utilize certain dangerous cities as training grounds for armed forces."

Partisan Transformation

Federal leadership is attempting to reshape American armed forces into a political instrument committed to maintaining executive power, a development which is not only contrary to American values but should also concern all Americans. And they plan to make this reorganization into a spectacle. Everything the official stated at this widely covered and costly gathering could have been issued by written directive, and actually was. However the official specifically requires a rebrand. Currently much less known for leading armed forces activities than for leaking such information. For the secretary, the very public lecture was a vainglorious effort at improving his personal damaged reputation.

Troubling Implications

However far more significant, and considerably more alarming, was the president's foreshadowing of increased numbers of military personnel on American streets. Therefore, we reconsider the original concern: at what point will America's senior military leadership decide that enough is enough?

Leadership Shakeup

There's substantial basis to believe that high ranking members of armed forces might already be worried about getting sacked by this president, whether for being not devoted enough to the administration, not meeting demographic criteria, or not fitting gender expectations, based on past actions from federal leadership. Within weeks of assuming office, the administration removed the chairman of military command, General CQ Brown, only the second Black man to occupy this role. Admiral Franchetti, the first woman to be appointed to navy leadership, naval forces' highest rank, was also dismissed.

Legal Structure

Federal leadership also eliminated judge advocates general for ground forces, maritime forces and aerial forces, and fired Gen Tim Haugh, the head of the National Security Agency and US Cyber Command, reportedly at the request of far-right activist Laura Loomer, who claimed Haugh was insufficiently loyal to the president. There are numerous additional instances.

Unprecedented Scale

While it's true that each presidency does certain personnel changes upon taking office, it's also true that the extent and objective to restructure armed forces during this administration is unprecedented. As analysts observe: "No previous administration used authority in such extreme manner for fear that doing so would essentially consider the senior officer corps as similar to political operatives whose career commitment is to transition with changes of administration, rather than career public servants whose work ethic is to perform duties independent of changes in administrative control."

Operational Guidelines

Administration officials stated that they intend to also now eliminate "stupid rules of engagement". Those rules, however, determine what is legal and illegal behavior by armed forces, a line made harder to identify as federal leadership decimates the legal wing of the military. Clearly, there has been significant unlawful activity in American armed forces conduct from its inception until today. But if you are a member of the military, you have the right, if not the duty, to refuse unlawful commands.

Current Operations

Federal leadership is currently engaged in blatantly illegal acts being carried out by naval forces. Deadly attacks are being launched against boats in the Caribbean that American authorities claims are drug smuggling boats. No proof has been presented, and currently the administration is claiming America is in a military engagement with narcotics organizations and individuals who were killed by American forces in the strikes are "illegal fighters".

Expert Opinion

This is absurd, naturally, and recalls of the poorest legal reasoning created during initial War on Terror period. Even if the people on those vessels were participating in narcotics trafficking, being involved in distribution of illegal drugs does not rise to the criteria of engaging in hostilities, as observed by authorities.

Final Thoughts

If a government intentionally kills a person outside of military engagement and lacking legal procedure, it's a form of murder. It's already happening in tropical waters. Is this the path we're headed down on urban areas of American municipalities? The administration may have drawn up his own military strategies for specific objectives, but it's the members of armed forces who will have to implement them. As all American systems currently on the line, including the military, there's necessity for enhanced defense against this vision of war.