🔗 Share this article

At what moment will America's top armed forces leaders 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?

Growing Armed Forces Deployment on US Territory

This question is far from theoretical. The president has been significantly increasing military operations within United States territory during his second term. Beginning last spring, he initiated expanding the armed forces deployment along portions of the US-Mexico border by establishing so-called "national defense areas". Military personnel are now authorized to inspect, question and detain individuals in these zones, dangerously blurring the distinction between military authority and civilian law enforcement.

Disputed Military Assignments

During the summer months, federal authorities dispatched marine corps and state military units to LA against the wishes of the governor, and subsequently to the capital. Comparable assignments of military reserve forces, likewise disregarding the preferences of respective elected officials, are expected for the Windy City and the Oregon city.

Legal Challenges

Needless to say, US law, under the federal statute, generally prohibits the use of military forces in civilian law enforcement roles. A US court ruled in September that the administration's troop deployment in LA violated this law, but operations persist. And the expectation remains for armed forces to comply with directives.

Personal Celebration

Not just obeying commands. There's expectation for armed services to venerate the commander-in-chief. The administration transformed a 250th Anniversary Parade for military forces, which many considered unnecessary, into a personal birthday party. Both events coincided on the same day. Attendance at the parade was not only limited but was dwarfed by the estimated millions of citizens who participated in "anti-authoritarian 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 country's armed forces leadership on 30 September. At the gathering, administration leadership told commanders: "We're facing invasion from within, no different than external adversaries, but more difficult in numerous aspects because they don't wear uniforms." The justification was that "Democratic leadership controls most of urban areas that are in poor condition," even though each metropolitan area referenced – the Bay Area, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles – have historically low rates of serious offenses in decades. Subsequently he declared: "We ought to utilize certain urban areas as training grounds for our military."

Political Reshaping

The administration is working to transform the US military into a political instrument dedicated to preserving executive power, a development which is not only contrary to American values but should also alarm every citizen. And they plan to make this reorganization into a public display. All statements the secretary said at this highly publicized and costly meeting could have been distributed by memorandum, and in fact was. But the official in particular needs image rehabilitation. He is better recognized for directing military operations than for disclosing such information. For this official, the highly visible presentation was a self-aggrandizing attempt at enhancing his personal damaged reputation.

Troubling Implications

But far more significant, and infinitely more troubling, was administration leadership's suggestion of increased numbers of troops on US city streets. So, we reconsider my initial question: at what point will the nation's top military brass decide that limits have been reached?

Leadership Shakeup

There's every reason to believe that senior members of the military might have concerns about being dismissed by this president, whether for being insufficiently loyal to current leadership, not meeting demographic criteria, or insufficiently male, according to previous decisions from this administration. Within weeks of taking power, the administration dismissed the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Air Force Gen CQ Brown, only the second African American to occupy this role. Adm Lisa Franchetti, the initial female to be named to navy leadership, the US Navy's top position, was also removed.

Legal Structure

The administration also eliminated judge advocates general for the army, maritime forces and air force, and dismissed Gen Tim Haugh, the director of intelligence services and US Cyber Command, according to accounts at the suggestion of far-right activist Laura Loomer, who claimed Haugh was not devoted enough to the president. There are numerous additional instances.

Historical Context

Although accurate that every administration does some house cleaning upon taking office, it's also true that the extent and mission to reorganize the military during the current term is unprecedented. As analysts observe: "No previous administration exercised its power in this dramatic fashion for fear that such action would effectively treat military leadership as similar to partisan political appointees whose professional ethos is to transition with political shifts, rather than career public servants whose professional ethos is to serve regardless of changes in administrative control."

Rules of Engagement

The secretary claimed that they will also currently eliminate "unnecessary regulations of engagement". These guidelines, though, determine what is legal and illegal conduct by armed forces, a line made harder to discern as the administration reduces the legal wing of armed services. Clearly, there exists significant illegality in American armed forces conduct from their establishment until the present. But if you are part of the military, you have the authority, if not the duty, to disobey illegal orders.

Ongoing Actions

Federal leadership is presently involved in blatantly illegal acts being conducted by the US navy. Deadly attacks are being launched against vessels in tropical waters that American authorities claims are narcotics trafficking boats. No proof has been presented, and currently the administration is stating America is in a "non-international armed conflict" with narcotics organizations and the people who were killed by the US in attacks are "unlawful combatants".

Legal Analysis

This is absurd, naturally, and recalls of the worst judicial analysis developed during the early War on Terror period. Although individuals on those boats were participating in narcotics trafficking, being involved in distribution of a controlled substance does not rise to the standard of military combat, as noted by legal experts.

Conclusion

If a government intentionally kills an individual beyond military engagement and without due process, it constitutes of murder. This is occurring in the Caribbean Sea. Is that the path we're moving down on urban areas of American municipalities? The administration may have created personal military strategies for his purposes, but it's the members of the military who will have to implement them. As all American systems presently at risk, including the military, there's necessity for a much stronger protection against his idea of conflict.