🔗 Share this article

When exactly will America's highest-ranking armed forces leaders determine that enough is enough, that their duty to constitutional principles and the rule of law overrides blind loyalty to their jobs and the current administration?

Expanding Armed Forces Deployment on US Territory

This concern is far from academic. The administration has been rapidly intensifying armed forces activities within United States territory during the current term. Starting in April, he began expanding the armed forces deployment along sections of the southern border by establishing what are termed "security zones". Military personnel are now permitted to search, question and detain individuals in these areas, significantly obscuring the separation between military authority and civilian law enforcement.

Controversial Military Assignments

By summer, federal authorities dispatched marines and state military units to Los Angeles against the wishes of the governor, and subsequently to the capital. Comparable assignments of military reserve forces, also against the preferences of respective elected officials, are expected for Chicago and the Oregon city.

Constitutional Concerns

Needless to say, US law, under the Posse Comitatus Act, typically forbids the use of armed services in police functions. A US court ruled in last fall that the administration's military assignment in LA breached this law, but operations persist. And there's continuing pressure for armed forces to comply with directives.

Personality Cult

More than obeying commands. There's expectation for the military to venerate the commander-in-chief. Federal authorities transformed a historical celebration for the Army, which many considered excessive, into an individual 79th birthday celebration. The two occasions coincided on one date. Attendance at the event was not only limited but was overshadowed by approximately 5 million people who joined "anti-authoritarian demonstrations nationwide on that date.

Current Events

Recently, administration leadership joined newly titled secretary of war, Pete Hegseth, in an abruptly summoned meeting of the nation's military commanders on 30 September. At the gathering, administration leadership informed the leadership: "We're facing invasion from within, similar to external adversaries, but challenging in numerous aspects because they're not identifiable." The justification was that "Democrats run most of the cities that are in poor condition," even though all the cities referenced – San Francisco, the Illinois city, New York, Los Angeles – have historically low levels of serious offenses in decades. And then he stated: "We should use some of these urban areas as practice locations for armed forces."

Partisan Transformation

The administration is working to transform the US military into a political instrument dedicated to maintaining executive power, 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 secretary stated at this widely covered and costly gathering could have been distributed by memorandum, and in fact had been. But the secretary in particular requires image rehabilitation. He is better recognized for leading armed forces activities than for leaking such information. For the secretary, the very public lecture was a vainglorious attempt at improving his personal damaged reputation.

Concerning Developments

However far more significant, and infinitely more troubling, was the president's foreshadowing of even greater numbers of troops on American streets. So, I return to the original concern: at what point will the nation's top military brass determine that enough is enough?

Leadership Shakeup

There's every reason to believe that high ranking officers of the military might already be worried about getting sacked by this president, either for being insufficiently loyal to the administration, insufficiently white, or insufficiently male, according to past actions from federal leadership. Shortly of assuming office, federal authorities dismissed the leader of military command, General CQ Brown, only the second African American to occupy this role. Adm Lisa Franchetti, the initial female to be named to chief of naval operations, the US Navy's highest rank, was also dismissed.

Judicial Framework

The administration also eliminated military lawyers for ground forces, navy and aerial forces, and dismissed Gen Tim Haugh, the head of the National Security Agency and digital operations, reportedly at the suggestion of political operative Laura Loomer, who asserted Haugh was insufficiently loyal to the president. Exist numerous additional instances.

Historical Context

While it's true that each presidency does some house cleaning upon taking office, it's equally correct that the extent and mission to restructure armed forces during this administration is unprecedented. As experts observe: "No earlier presidency used authority in this dramatic fashion for fear that doing so would essentially consider the senior officer corps as akin to political operatives whose career commitment is to come and go with changes of administration, rather than professional officials whose professional ethos is to serve regardless of changes in administrative control."

Rules of Engagement

The secretary stated that they intend to also currently eliminate "unnecessary regulations of engagement". These guidelines, however, determine what is legal and illegal conduct by armed forces, a line made more difficult to identify as the administration reduces judicial support of the military. Obviously, there exists significant illegality in American armed forces conduct from their establishment until the present. But if one is a member of armed services, there exists the authority, if not the obligation, to refuse unlawful commands.

Ongoing Actions

Federal leadership is presently involved in blatantly illegal acts being conducted by the US navy. Lethal strikes are being launched against vessels in the Caribbean that the US claims are drug smuggling vessels. No proof has been provided, and currently the administration is stating the US is in a "non-international armed conflict" with narcotics organizations and the people who were murdered by American forces in attacks are "illegal fighters".

Legal Analysis

This is ludicrous, of course, and recalls of the poorest judicial analysis developed during the early anti-terrorism period. Even if individuals on those vessels were participating in drug smuggling, participating in the sale of a controlled substance does not rise to the standard of engaging in hostilities, as observed by authorities.

Conclusion

If a government deliberately murders an individual outside of military engagement and without due process, it constitutes of homicide. This is occurring in tropical waters. Is this the path we're headed down on the streets of American municipalities? The administration may have created his own battle plans for specific objectives, but it's the members of armed forces who will have to carry them out. With all our institutions currently on the line, encompassing the military, we need enhanced defense against this vision of conflict.