🔗 Share this article

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

Growing Military Presence on US Territory

This concern isn't merely theoretical. The president has been significantly increasing armed forces activities within United States territory during his second term. Starting in April, he initiated increasing the armed forces deployment along sections of the US-Mexico border by creating so-called "security zones". Armed forces members are now authorized to search, interrogate and arrest individuals in these areas, significantly obscuring the separation between military authority and police operations.

Controversial Military Assignments

During the summer months, the administration sent marines and national guard units to Los Angeles against the objections of the governor, and later to the capital. Comparable deployments of national guard forces, likewise against the preferences of respective state governors, are expected for the Windy City and the Oregon city.

Constitutional Concerns

Needless to say, US law, under the federal statute, typically forbids the employment of military forces in civilian law enforcement functions. A federal judge ruled in last fall that the president's military assignment in LA violated this law, but operations persist. And the expectation remains for the military to comply with directives.

Personality Cult

Not just following orders. There's pressure for armed services to worship the commander-in-chief. Federal authorities transformed a 250th Anniversary Parade for the Army, which some viewed as excessive, into an individual birthday party. The two occasions coincided on the same day. Attendance at the parade was not only limited but was dwarfed by approximately 5 million people who joined "No Kings" demonstrations nationwide on the same day.

Recent Developments

Most recently, the president joined newly titled defense official, Pete Hegseth, in a suddenly called meeting of the nation's military commanders on late September. During the meeting, administration leadership told commanders: "We're facing internal threats, no different than a foreign enemy, but more difficult in numerous aspects because they don't wear uniforms." The justification was that "Democratic leadership controls the majority of the cities that are in poor condition," even though each metropolitan area referenced – San Francisco, the Illinois city, NYC, Los Angeles – have historically low rates of serious offenses in generations. Subsequently he stated: "We ought to utilize certain urban areas as practice locations for our military."

Political Reshaping

The administration is attempting to reshape American armed forces into a partisan force committed to maintaining executive power, a prospect which is not only anathema to American values but should also alarm all Americans. And they intend to make this reorganization into a public display. All statements the secretary stated at this highly publicized and very expensive gathering could have been issued by written directive, and actually was. But the official in particular requires a rebrand. He is much less known for leading military operations than for leaking them. For the secretary, the very public presentation was a vainglorious attempt at improving his own tarnished image.

Concerning Developments

But much more important, and considerably more alarming, was administration leadership's suggestion of increased numbers of troops on American streets. So, we reconsider my initial question: at what point will America's top military brass decide that limits have been reached?

Personnel Changes

There's every reason to think that senior members of the military might already be worried about being dismissed by the administration, whether for being insufficiently loyal to the administration, not meeting demographic criteria, or not fitting gender expectations, according to past actions from this administration. Within weeks of assuming office, federal authorities dismissed the leader of the joint chiefs of staff, General CQ Brown, only the second African American to hold the position. Admiral Franchetti, the initial female to be appointed to chief of naval operations, the US Navy's top position, was also dismissed.

Judicial Framework

Federal leadership also eliminated judge advocates general for the army, navy and aerial forces, and dismissed Gen Tim Haugh, the head of the National Security Agency and digital operations, according to accounts at the suggestion of far-right activist Laura Loomer, who claimed Haugh was insufficiently loyal to administration leadership. Exist many more examples.

Historical Context

Although accurate that every administration does certain personnel changes upon assuming power, it's also true that the scale and objective to restructure armed forces during this administration is without historical parallel. As experts note: "No earlier presidency used authority in such extreme manner for concern that such action would effectively treat 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 serve regardless of shifts in political leadership."

Rules of Engagement

The secretary claimed that they will also now eliminate "stupid rules of engagement". These guidelines, though, determine what is legal and illegal conduct by armed forces, a line made harder to discern as federal leadership decimates the legal wing of the military. Clearly, there has been plenty of unlawful activity in American armed forces conduct from their establishment until the present. But if you are a member of the military, you have the authority, if not the obligation, to refuse illegal orders.

Ongoing Actions

Federal leadership is presently involved in clearly unlawful acts being conducted by naval forces. Lethal strikes are being launched against vessels in tropical waters that the US asserts are drug smuggling boats. No evidence has been presented, and currently federal leadership is stating America is in a "non-international armed conflict" with narcotics organizations and individuals who were murdered by American forces in the strikes are "unlawful combatants".

Expert Opinion

This is absurd, naturally, and is reminiscent of the worst legal reasoning developed during initial anti-terrorism era. Although the people on those boats were participating 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 an individual outside of military engagement and lacking legal procedure, it's a form of murder. It's already happening in the Caribbean Sea. Is this the path we're headed down on the streets 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 carry them out. With all our institutions currently on the line, including the military, there's necessity for enhanced defense against his idea of war.