🔗 Share this article

At what moment will the nation's top armed forces leaders determine that they've reached their limit, that their allegiance to constitutional principles and legal governance overrides unquestioning obedience to their positions and the sitting president?

Growing Armed Forces Deployment on American Soil

This concern is far from theoretical. The president has been significantly increasing armed forces activities within American soil during the current term. Starting in April, he began expanding the armed forces deployment along sections of the southern border by creating so-called "security zones". Armed forces members are now permitted to search, interrogate and arrest people in these zones, significantly obscuring the distinction between martial law and civilian law enforcement.

Disputed Military Assignments

During the summer months, the administration dispatched marine corps and national guard units to Los Angeles contrary to the objections of the governor, and later to the capital. Comparable deployments of national guard forces, also against the preferences of respective state governors, are anticipated for the Windy City and the Oregon city.

Legal Challenges

Needless to say, US law, under the Posse Comitatus Act, generally prohibits the use of military forces in civilian law enforcement functions. A US court determined in September that the president's military assignment in LA breached the act, but operations persist. And there's continuing pressure for armed forces to comply with directives.

Personality Cult

Not just obeying commands. There's pressure for the military to worship the commander-in-chief. The administration transformed a 250th Anniversary Parade for military forces, which many considered unnecessary, into a personal birthday party. The two occasions fell on the same day. Participation at the event was not only sparse but was overshadowed by the estimated millions of citizens who participated in "anti-authoritarian demonstrations across the country on that date.

Current Events

Most recently, administration leadership joined newly titled secretary of war, the cabinet member, in an abruptly summoned meeting of the nation's military commanders on late September. At the gathering, the president informed the leadership: "We're facing invasion from within, similar to external adversaries, but challenging in many ways because they're not identifiable." His evidence was that "Democratic leadership controls the majority of urban areas that are in poor condition," even though each metropolitan area referenced – San Francisco, the Illinois city, NYC, LA – have historically low rates of serious offenses in generations. And then he declared: "We should use some of these urban areas as training grounds for armed forces."

Political Reshaping

The administration is working to transform American armed forces into a partisan force 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 restructuring into a spectacle. Everything the official stated at this widely covered and costly meeting could have been distributed by written directive, and in fact had been. But the secretary specifically requires a rebrand. Currently much less known for leading armed forces activities than for leaking such information. For this official, the very public lecture was a vainglorious effort at improving his personal damaged reputation.

Concerning Developments

However far more significant, and considerably more alarming, was the president's suggestion of increased quantities of military personnel on American streets. Therefore, we reconsider the original concern: when will America's senior military leadership determine that limits have been reached?

Personnel Changes

There's every reason to think that senior 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 past actions from federal leadership. Shortly of taking power, federal authorities dismissed the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Air Force Gen CQ Brown, only the second African American to hold the position. Admiral Franchetti, the first woman to be named to chief of naval operations, naval forces' top position, was also removed.

Judicial Framework

Federal leadership also eliminated military lawyers for the army, navy and aerial forces, and fired Gen Tim Haugh, the director of the National Security Agency and digital operations, reportedly at the suggestion of far-right activist Laura Loomer, who claimed Haugh was insufficiently loyal to the president. There are many more examples.

Unprecedented Scale

Although accurate that each presidency does certain personnel changes upon assuming power, it's equally correct that the scale and objective to restructure the military during this administration is without historical parallel. As analysts observe: "No previous administration used its power in such extreme manner for concern that such action would essentially consider the senior officer corps as similar to political operatives whose career commitment is to come and go with political shifts, rather than professional officials whose work ethic is to perform duties independent of shifts in administrative control."

Operational Guidelines

Administration officials claimed that they intend to also now get rid of "unnecessary regulations of engagement". Those rules, though, determine what is legal and illegal conduct by the military, a line made harder to identify as federal leadership reduces judicial support of armed services. Obviously, there has been significant unlawful activity in US military behavior from their establishment until the present. But if one is a member of the military, you have the authority, if not the obligation, to refuse illegal orders.

Current Operations

The administration is presently involved in blatantly illegal acts being conducted by naval forces. Deadly attacks are being initiated against boats in the Caribbean that American authorities asserts are drug smuggling vessels. No evidence has been provided, and now federal leadership is stating the US is in a "non-international armed conflict" with narcotics organizations and the people who were killed by the US in the strikes are "illegal fighters".

Legal Analysis

This is absurd, of course, and is reminiscent of the worst judicial analysis developed during initial anti-terrorism period. Although individuals on those vessels were participating in drug smuggling, participating in the sale of illegal drugs does not rise to the criteria of engaging in hostilities, as observed by legal experts.

Conclusion

When a state intentionally kills a person outside of military engagement and lacking legal procedure, it's a form of murder. This is occurring in the Caribbean Sea. Is that the direction we're moving down on the streets of American municipalities? The administration may have created personal military strategies for his purposes, but it's the personnel of the military who will have to carry them out. As all American systems currently on the line, including armed services, we need a much stronger protection against this vision of conflict.