🔗 Share this article

When exactly will the nation's top military officers decide that they've reached their limit, that their allegiance to the constitution and legal governance takes precedence over blind loyalty to their positions and the current administration?

Growing Military Presence on US Territory

This question is far from academic. The administration has been significantly increasing armed forces activities within United States territory during the current term. Starting in April, he initiated increasing the military presence along sections of the southern border by creating so-called "security zones". Armed forces members are now authorized to inspect, interrogate and detain people in these zones, significantly obscuring the separation between martial law and civilian law enforcement.

Controversial Deployments

During the summer months, the administration dispatched marines and state military units to LA contrary to the wishes of the governor, and subsequently to Washington DC. Similar deployments of military reserve forces, likewise disregarding the wishes of respective elected officials, are anticipated for Chicago and Portland, Oregon.

Legal Challenges

Obviously, American legislation, under the federal statute, generally prohibits the employment of armed services in police functions. A federal judge ruled in last fall that the administration's troop deployment in LA breached the act, but operations persist. And there's continuing pressure for the military to follow orders.

Personal Celebration

Not just obeying commands. There's pressure for armed services to venerate the commander-in-chief. The administration transformed a historical celebration for the Army, which some viewed as excessive, into an individual 79th birthday celebration. The two occasions fell on one date. Participation at the parade was not only limited but was dwarfed by approximately millions of citizens who joined "anti-authoritarian protests nationwide on the same day.

Current Events

Recently, administration leadership joined the recently renamed defense official, Pete Hegseth, in an abruptly summoned meeting of the country's armed forces leadership on 30 September. At the gathering, administration leadership told commanders: "We're facing internal threats, similar to external adversaries, but more difficult in numerous aspects because they're not identifiable." The justification was that "Democrats run the majority of the cities that are in bad shape," even though each metropolitan area referenced – San Francisco, the Illinois city, NYC, Los Angeles – have historically low rates of serious offenses in decades. Subsequently he stated: "We should use some of these urban areas as practice locations for armed forces."

Partisan Transformation

The administration is attempting to reshape American armed forces into a partisan force committed to preserving executive power, a prospect which is not only contrary to our tradition but should also concern all Americans. And they intend to make this restructuring into a public display. All statements the official stated at this widely covered and very expensive meeting could have been issued by memorandum, and in fact was. However the official specifically needs image rehabilitation. Currently much less known for leading military operations than for leaking such information. For this official, the very public lecture was a vainglorious effort at improving his personal damaged reputation.

Concerning Developments

But much more important, and infinitely more troubling, was administration leadership's suggestion of increased quantities of military personnel on US city streets. Therefore, we reconsider the original concern: when will the nation's senior military leadership decide that limits have been reached?

Personnel Changes

There's substantial basis to believe that senior members of the military might already be worried about being dismissed by the administration, whether for being not devoted enough to current leadership, insufficiently white, or not fitting gender expectations, based on past actions from this administration. Shortly of assuming office, the administration dismissed the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General CQ Brown, just the second Black man to occupy this role. Admiral Franchetti, the initial female to be named to navy leadership, naval forces' highest rank, was also removed.

Judicial Framework

Federal leadership also eliminated military lawyers for the army, maritime forces and aerial forces, and fired Gen Tim Haugh, the director of intelligence services and digital operations, reportedly at the request of far-right activist Laura Loomer, who asserted Haugh was not devoted enough to the president. There are numerous additional instances.

Unprecedented Scale

While it's true that every administration 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 without historical parallel. As analysts note: "No previous administration exercised its power in such extreme manner for concern that such action would essentially consider the senior officer corps as akin to partisan political appointees whose career commitment is to come and go with changes of administration, rather than career public servants whose work ethic is to perform duties regardless of shifts in political leadership."

Rules of Engagement

The secretary stated that they intend to also currently get rid of "unnecessary regulations of engagement". Those rules, though, determine what is lawful and unlawful conduct by armed forces, a line made more difficult to identify as federal leadership decimates judicial support of armed services. Obviously, there has been significant unlawful activity in American armed forces conduct from their establishment until today. But if one is part of armed services, there exists the authority, if not the duty, to refuse illegal orders.

Current Operations

Federal leadership is currently engaged in blatantly illegal acts being conducted by naval forces. Deadly attacks are being initiated against vessels in tropical waters that the US asserts are narcotics trafficking vessels. No proof has been presented, and currently federal leadership is claiming the US is in a military engagement with drug cartels and the people who were murdered by the US in the strikes are "illegal fighters".

Expert Opinion

This is ludicrous, naturally, and is reminiscent of the poorest legal reasoning developed during the early War on Terror period. Although the people on those boats were involved in narcotics trafficking, being involved in distribution of illegal drugs does not meet the criteria of military combat, as noted by authorities.

Final Thoughts

If a government intentionally kills an individual beyond armed conflict and without due process, it constitutes of homicide. It's already happening in tropical waters. Is that the path we're headed down on urban areas of our own cities? 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 armed services, there's necessity for a much stronger defense against this vision of conflict.