🔗 Share this article

When exactly will America's top military officers decide that they've reached their limit, that their allegiance to constitutional principles and legal governance overrides blind loyalty to their positions and the sitting president?

Growing Armed Forces Deployment on American Soil

This concern isn't merely theoretical. The president has been significantly increasing armed forces activities within American soil during the current term. Starting in April, he began increasing the armed forces deployment along sections of the southern border by establishing what are termed "security zones". Armed forces members are now authorized to inspect, interrogate and detain people in these areas, significantly obscuring the distinction between martial law and civilian law enforcement.

Disputed Military Assignments

During the summer months, the administration dispatched marines and state military units to Los Angeles contrary to the wishes of state leadership, and later to the capital. Comparable assignments of national guard forces, also against the wishes of respective elected officials, are expected for Chicago and Portland, Oregon.

Legal Challenges

Obviously, American legislation, under the federal statute, generally prohibits the use of military forces in civilian law enforcement functions. A federal judge determined in September that the president's military assignment in Los Angeles breached this law, but operations persist. And there's continuing pressure for the military to follow orders.

Personal Celebration

Not just following orders. There's pressure for the military to venerate the president. Federal authorities converted a historical celebration for military forces, which many considered unnecessary, into an individual birthday party. The two occasions fell on one date. Participation at the event was not only sparse but was dwarfed by the estimated 5 million people who participated in "anti-authoritarian demonstrations across the country on the same day.

Current Events

Recently, administration leadership joined the recently renamed defense official, Pete Hegseth, in a suddenly called gathering of the country's military commanders on late September. At the gathering, administration leadership told the leadership: "We're experiencing invasion from within, similar to a foreign enemy, but challenging in many ways because they don't wear uniforms." His evidence was that "Democratic leadership controls the majority of urban areas that are in poor condition," even though all the cities referenced – San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles – have historically low levels of serious offenses in decades. And then he declared: "We should use certain urban areas as training grounds for our military."

Political Reshaping

Federal leadership is working to transform the US military into a political instrument dedicated to preserving administrative control, a development which is not only anathema to American values but should also concern every citizen. And they plan to make this reorganization into a public display. All statements the official stated at this widely covered and very expensive meeting could have been distributed by written directive, and in fact had been. However the official in particular requires a rebrand. Currently better recognized for leading military operations than for disclosing them. For the secretary, the highly visible presentation was a self-aggrandizing effort at improving his personal tarnished image.

Troubling Implications

But much more important, and infinitely more troubling, was administration leadership's suggestion of increased quantities of military personnel on US city streets. So, I return to the original concern: when will America's senior military leadership determine that enough is enough?

Leadership Shakeup

There's substantial basis to believe that senior officers of the military might have concerns about being dismissed by this president, either for being not devoted enough to the administration, insufficiently white, or insufficiently male, based on past actions from this administration. Shortly of taking power, federal authorities dismissed the leader of the joint chiefs of staff, General CQ Brown, only the second Black man to occupy the position. Adm Lisa Franchetti, the initial female to be named to navy leadership, naval forces' top position, was also removed.

Legal Structure

The administration also eliminated military lawyers for ground forces, maritime forces and aerial forces, and dismissed Gen Tim Haugh, the director of intelligence services and digital operations, reportedly at the suggestion of far-right activist Laura Loomer, who claimed Haugh was not devoted enough to administration leadership. There are numerous additional instances.

Unprecedented Scale

Although accurate that each presidency does some house cleaning upon taking office, it's equally correct that the extent and objective to reorganize the military during the current term is unprecedented. As analysts observe: "No previous administration used its power in such extreme manner for fear that doing so would essentially consider the senior officer corps as similar to political operatives whose career commitment is to transition with political shifts, rather than professional officials whose work ethic is to serve regardless of shifts in administrative control."

Rules of Engagement

Administration officials stated that they will also now get rid of "stupid rules of engagement". These guidelines, however, determine what is lawful and unlawful behavior by the military, a distinction made harder to discern as the administration 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 you are a member of the military, you have the right, if not the duty, to refuse unlawful commands.

Ongoing Actions

Federal leadership is currently engaged in clearly unlawful operations being conducted by naval forces. Deadly attacks are being initiated against vessels in tropical waters that American authorities asserts are narcotics trafficking boats. No evidence has been presented, and currently federal leadership is stating the US is in a military engagement with narcotics organizations and the people who were murdered by the US in attacks are "unlawful combatants".

Legal Analysis

This is absurd, of course, and is reminiscent of the worst judicial analysis developed during initial anti-terrorism period. Even if individuals on those boats were involved in drug smuggling, participating in distribution of illegal drugs does not rise to the criteria of military combat, as noted by legal experts.

Conclusion

If a government deliberately murders an individual beyond military engagement and without due process, it's a form of homicide. It's already happening in the Caribbean Sea. Is that the direction we're moving down on urban areas of American municipalities? Federal leadership may have drawn up personal battle plans for his purposes, but it's the members of the military who will have to implement them. As all American systems presently at risk, encompassing armed services, we need enhanced protection against this vision of war.