🔗 Share this article

At what moment will the nation's highest-ranking military officers decide that they've reached their limit, that their duty to the constitution and legal governance overrides blind loyalty to their jobs and the current administration?

Expanding Military Presence on US Territory

This question is far from academic. The president has been significantly increasing military operations within United States territory during his second term. Beginning last spring, he initiated increasing the armed forces deployment along portions of the southern border by creating so-called "security zones". Armed forces members are now authorized to search, interrogate and detain people in these areas, significantly obscuring the distinction between military authority and police operations.

Disputed Deployments

By summer, federal authorities dispatched marines and national guard units to LA against the objections of state leadership, and subsequently to the capital. Comparable assignments of national guard forces, likewise against the preferences of local elected officials, are anticipated for the Windy City and the Oregon city.

Legal Challenges

Obviously, American legislation, under the federal statute, typically forbids the use of military forces in police roles. A US court determined in last fall that the administration's military assignment in Los Angeles breached this law, but operations persist. And the expectation remains for the military to follow orders.

Personal Celebration

More than obeying commands. There's pressure for armed services to venerate the commander-in-chief. Federal authorities converted a 250th Anniversary Parade for the Army, which many considered excessive, into an individual birthday party. The two occasions coincided on one date. Participation at the parade was not only limited but was overshadowed by approximately 5 million people who joined "No Kings" demonstrations across the country on that date.

Current Events

Recently, administration leadership participated with the recently renamed defense official, Pete Hegseth, in a suddenly called gathering of the country's military commanders on 30 September. At the gathering, the president informed commanders: "We're experiencing invasion from within, similar to external adversaries, but challenging 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 all the cities referenced – the Bay Area, Chicago, NYC, LA – have some of their lowest rates of serious offenses in decades. Subsequently he stated: "We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for armed forces."

Partisan Transformation

The administration is attempting to reshape the US military into a partisan force dedicated to maintaining administrative control, a development which is not only anathema to our tradition but should also concern every citizen. And they intend to make this reorganization into a public display. Everything the official stated at this widely covered and costly meeting could have been distributed by written directive, and in fact was. However the official specifically needs a rebrand. Currently much less known for leading military operations than for disclosing them. For this official, the highly visible lecture was a self-aggrandizing attempt at enhancing his own damaged reputation.

Concerning Developments

However far more significant, and infinitely more troubling, was administration leadership's foreshadowing of even greater quantities of military personnel on American streets. So, I return to my initial question: at what point will the nation's senior military leadership determine that enough is enough?

Personnel Changes

There's every reason to believe that high ranking officers of armed forces might already be worried about being dismissed by the administration, either for being insufficiently loyal to the administration, not meeting demographic criteria, or not fitting gender expectations, based on past actions from this administration. Within weeks of assuming office, the administration dismissed the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General CQ Brown, just the second African American to hold the position. Adm Lisa Franchetti, the initial female to be appointed to chief of naval operations, the US Navy's highest rank, was also removed.

Judicial Framework

Federal leadership also removed judge advocates general for the army, maritime forces and air force, and fired Gen Tim Haugh, the director of intelligence services and digital operations, according to accounts at the suggestion of political operative Laura Loomer, who asserted Haugh was not devoted enough to the president. Exist many more examples.

Unprecedented Scale

Although accurate that every administration does certain personnel changes upon taking office, it's also true that the scale and mission to restructure armed forces during this administration is unprecedented. As analysts note: "No earlier presidency used its power in this dramatic fashion for fear that such action would effectively treat the senior officer corps as similar to partisan political appointees whose professional ethos is to transition with political shifts, rather than professional officials whose work ethic is to serve independent of shifts in political leadership."

Rules of Engagement

Administration officials stated that they intend to also currently get rid of "stupid rules of engagement". Those rules, however, define what is lawful and unlawful behavior by the military, a line made harder to identify as federal leadership decimates judicial support of the military. Obviously, there has been significant unlawful activity in American armed forces conduct from its inception until today. But if you are part of armed services, there exists the right, if not the obligation, to refuse unlawful commands.

Current Operations

The administration is currently engaged in blatantly illegal operations being carried out by the US navy. Deadly attacks are being initiated against boats in tropical waters that American authorities asserts are drug smuggling boats. No proof has been presented, and now 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 "illegal fighters".

Legal Analysis

This is absurd, naturally, and recalls of the poorest judicial analysis created during initial War on Terror period. Even if the people on those boats were participating in drug smuggling, participating in the sale of illegal drugs does not rise to the standard of engaging in hostilities, as noted by legal experts.

Conclusion

If a government deliberately murders a person beyond armed conflict and without due process, it constitutes of murder. This is occurring in tropical waters. Is this the path we're headed down on urban areas of our own cities? Federal leadership may have created his own battle plans for specific objectives, but it's the members of the military who will have to implement them. With all our institutions currently on the line, including armed services, we need a much stronger defense against his idea of war.