🔗 Share this article

When exactly will America's highest-ranking armed forces leaders decide that they've reached their limit, that their duty to the constitution and the rule of law takes precedence over unquestioning obedience to their positions and the current administration?

Expanding Armed Forces Deployment on American Soil

This concern is far from academic. The administration has been significantly increasing military operations within United States territory during the current term. Beginning last spring, he initiated increasing the armed forces deployment along portions of the US-Mexico border by creating so-called "security zones". Military personnel are now permitted to inspect, interrogate and arrest people in these zones, dangerously blurring the separation between military authority and police operations.

Controversial Deployments

During the summer months, federal authorities sent marine corps and national guard units to Los Angeles contrary to the objections of the governor, and subsequently to the capital. Similar deployments of national guard forces, likewise disregarding the wishes of local elected officials, are anticipated for the Windy City and Portland, Oregon.

Legal Challenges

Obviously, US law, 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 armed forces to comply with directives.

Personal Celebration

Not just following orders. There's pressure for the military to worship the president. The administration converted a 250th Anniversary Parade for the Army, which some viewed as unnecessary, into an individual 79th birthday celebration. The two occasions coincided on the same day. Participation at the event was not only limited but was dwarfed by the estimated millions of citizens who participated in "No Kings" demonstrations nationwide on the same day.

Recent Developments

Most recently, administration leadership participated with newly titled defense official, Pete Hegseth, in a suddenly called meeting of the nation's armed forces leadership on late September. At the gathering, administration leadership told commanders: "We're experiencing internal threats, no different than a foreign enemy, but more difficult in numerous aspects because they don't wear uniforms." The justification was that "Democrats run most of urban areas that are in bad shape," even though all the cities mentioned – San Francisco, Chicago, New York, LA – have historically low rates of serious offenses in generations. And then he declared: "We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for armed forces."

Partisan Transformation

Federal leadership is attempting to reshape American armed forces into a partisan force committed to preserving administrative control, a development which is not only anathema to our tradition but should also alarm 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 in fact was. But the official specifically needs a rebrand. He is much less known for directing armed forces activities than for leaking them. For the secretary, the highly visible presentation was a vainglorious attempt at enhancing his own tarnished image.

Concerning Developments

However far more significant, and infinitely more troubling, was the president's suggestion of even greater numbers of troops on US city streets. Therefore, we reconsider the original concern: at what point will the nation's senior military leadership decide that enough is enough?

Leadership Shakeup

There's every reason to believe that high ranking officers of the military might already be worried about getting sacked by the administration, whether for being insufficiently loyal to the administration, not meeting demographic criteria, or insufficiently male, according to past actions from federal leadership. Within weeks of taking power, federal authorities dismissed the leader of military command, General CQ Brown, just the second Black man to occupy the position. Admiral Franchetti, the initial female to be appointed to navy leadership, the US Navy's top position, was also removed.

Legal Structure

The administration also removed military lawyers for the army, navy and aerial forces, and fired Gen Tim Haugh, the head of intelligence services and US Cyber Command, reportedly at the suggestion of far-right activist Laura Loomer, who asserted Haugh was not devoted enough to administration leadership. 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 extent and mission to restructure armed forces during the current term is without historical parallel. As analysts observe: "No earlier presidency exercised authority in this dramatic fashion for fear that doing so would effectively treat military leadership as akin to partisan political appointees whose career commitment is to transition with political shifts, rather than professional officials whose professional ethos is to perform duties regardless of shifts in administrative control."

Rules of Engagement

Administration officials claimed that they will also currently get rid of "unnecessary regulations of engagement". Those rules, though, determine what is lawful and unlawful behavior by the military, a distinction made more difficult to discern as federal leadership reduces the legal wing of armed services. Clearly, there has been significant unlawful activity in US military behavior from their establishment until the present. But if one is a member of armed services, there exists the right, if not the obligation, to refuse unlawful commands.

Current Operations

The administration is currently engaged in clearly unlawful acts being carried out by the US navy. Lethal strikes are being launched against boats in tropical waters that American authorities claims are drug smuggling vessels. No evidence has been presented, and now the administration is claiming the US is in a "non-international armed conflict" with drug cartels and the people who were killed by American forces in the strikes are "illegal fighters".

Legal Analysis

This is ludicrous, naturally, and recalls of the worst legal reasoning created during the early anti-terrorism period. Although the people on those vessels were involved in drug smuggling, being involved in the sale of a controlled substance does not rise to the criteria of military combat, as noted by legal experts.

Conclusion

If a government intentionally kills a person outside of armed conflict and lacking legal procedure, it constitutes of homicide. This is occurring in the Caribbean Sea. Is that the path we're moving down on the streets of American municipalities? Federal leadership may have created his own battle plans for specific objectives, but it's the members of the military who will have to carry them out. As all American systems currently on the line, including armed services, there's necessity for enhanced defense against his idea of conflict.