At what moment will America's top military officers decide that they've reached their limit, that their duty to the constitution and the rule of law takes precedence over unquestioning obedience to their positions and the current administration?
Growing Armed Forces Deployment on American Soil
This question is far from academic. The administration has been rapidly intensifying military operations within United States territory during the current term. Starting in April, he began expanding the military presence along sections of the US-Mexico border by establishing what are termed "security zones". Armed forces members are now authorized to inspect, interrogate and arrest individuals in these zones, dangerously blurring the distinction between martial law and civilian law enforcement.
Disputed Deployments
By summer, the administration dispatched marine corps and national guard units to LA against the wishes of state leadership, and later to the capital. Similar deployments of national guard forces, also disregarding the wishes of respective elected officials, are expected for the Windy City and the Oregon city.
Legal Challenges
Obviously, American legislation, under the federal statute, generally prohibits the use of armed services in civilian law enforcement functions. A US court determined in last fall that the administration's troop deployment in LA violated this law, but the actions continue. And there's continuing pressure for the military to follow orders.
Personal Celebration
More than obeying commands. There's pressure for armed services to worship the president. Federal authorities converted a 250th Anniversary Parade for the Army, which some viewed as unnecessary, into a personal birthday party. The two occasions fell on the same day. Participation at the parade was not only limited but was dwarfed by approximately 5 million people who participated in "No Kings" demonstrations nationwide on that date.
Current Events
Most recently, the president participated with newly titled defense official, Pete Hegseth, in a suddenly called gathering of the nation's military commanders on 30 September. During the meeting, the president informed the leadership: "We're experiencing internal threats, no different than a foreign enemy, 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 mentioned – the Bay Area, Chicago, NYC, LA – have historically low rates of serious offenses in decades. And then he stated: "We should use certain urban areas as practice locations for our military."
Partisan Transformation
The administration is working to transform the US military into a political instrument committed to maintaining administrative control, a prospect which is not only contrary to our tradition but should also alarm every citizen. And they intend to make this restructuring into a spectacle. Everything the official said at this widely covered and costly meeting could have been distributed by memorandum, and actually had been. However the official specifically needs a rebrand. Currently much less known for directing armed forces activities than for leaking them. For the secretary, the highly visible lecture was a self-aggrandizing attempt at enhancing his personal tarnished image.
Troubling Implications
However far more significant, and considerably more alarming, was administration leadership's foreshadowing of even greater numbers of troops on American streets. Therefore, we reconsider the original concern: when will the nation's top military brass determine that limits have been reached?
Personnel Changes
There's substantial basis to think that high ranking officers of armed forces might already be worried about getting sacked by the administration, whether for being insufficiently loyal to current leadership, insufficiently white, or insufficiently male, based on previous decisions from federal leadership. Shortly of assuming office, federal authorities 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 named to navy leadership, naval forces' highest rank, was also removed.
Legal Structure
The administration also eliminated judge advocates general for ground forces, maritime forces and aerial forces, and fired Gen Tim Haugh, the director of the National Security Agency and US Cyber Command, reportedly at the suggestion of far-right activist Laura Loomer, who claimed Haugh was insufficiently loyal to administration leadership. There are many more examples.
Historical Context
Although accurate that every administration does certain personnel changes upon taking office, it's equally correct that the extent and mission to restructure the military during this administration is without historical parallel. As analysts note: "No previous administration used authority in this dramatic fashion for concern that doing so would effectively treat the senior officer corps as similar to political operatives whose professional ethos is to come and go with political shifts, rather than career public servants whose work ethic is to perform duties regardless of changes in administrative control."
Rules of Engagement
Administration officials stated that they intend to also currently eliminate "unnecessary regulations of engagement". These guidelines, though, determine what is lawful and unlawful conduct by the military, a distinction made more difficult to identify as federal leadership reduces judicial support of the military. Clearly, there exists significant unlawful activity in American armed forces conduct from its inception until today. But if you are a member of the military, there exists the authority, if not the duty, to refuse unlawful commands.
Current Operations
Federal leadership is currently engaged in clearly unlawful acts being carried out by the US navy. Deadly attacks are being initiated against vessels in the Caribbean that American authorities asserts are drug smuggling vessels. No proof has been provided, and currently the administration is stating America is in a "non-international armed conflict" with drug cartels and individuals who were murdered by American forces in the strikes are "unlawful combatants".
Legal Analysis
This is absurd, naturally, and is reminiscent of the poorest judicial analysis developed during initial War on Terror period. Although the people on those vessels were involved in drug smuggling, participating in the sale of a controlled substance does not meet the criteria of engaging in hostilities, as noted by authorities.
Final Thoughts
When a state intentionally kills a person beyond military engagement and lacking legal procedure, it constitutes of homicide. This is occurring in tropical waters. Is this the direction we're moving down on urban areas of our own cities? The administration may have created personal battle plans for specific objectives, 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 a much stronger protection against this vision of war.
