🔗 Share this article

At what moment will America's top armed forces leaders decide that enough is enough, that their duty to the constitution and the rule of law takes precedence over unquestioning obedience to their jobs and the sitting president?

Expanding Armed Forces Deployment on American Soil

This concern is far from academic. The president has been rapidly intensifying military operations within United States territory during his second term. Starting in April, he initiated increasing the armed forces deployment along sections of the US-Mexico border by establishing what are termed "national defense areas". Military personnel are now permitted to search, question and arrest people in these areas, significantly obscuring the distinction between military authority and police operations.

Controversial Deployments

By summer, the administration dispatched marines and state military units to LA contrary to the objections of the governor, and later to Washington DC. Comparable assignments of national guard forces, also disregarding the preferences of local elected officials, are expected for Chicago and Portland, Oregon.

Constitutional Concerns

Needless to say, US law, under the Posse Comitatus Act, typically forbids the use of armed services in civilian law enforcement roles. A federal judge determined in September that the president's troop deployment in LA violated this law, but operations persist. And the expectation remains for the military to comply with directives.

Personal Celebration

Not just following orders. There's pressure for the military to venerate the commander-in-chief. The administration transformed a historical celebration for the Army, which some viewed as unnecessary, into an individual 79th birthday celebration. Both events fell on one date. Attendance at the parade was not only limited but was dwarfed by the estimated millions of citizens who participated in "No Kings" demonstrations nationwide on the same day.

Recent Developments

Most recently, administration leadership joined the recently renamed secretary of war, Pete Hegseth, in a suddenly called gathering of the country's armed forces leadership on late September. During the meeting, the president told the leadership: "We're facing internal threats, no different than a foreign enemy, but challenging in numerous aspects because they don't wear uniforms." The justification was that "Democrats run most of the cities that are in bad shape," even though each metropolitan area referenced – the Bay Area, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles – have some of their lowest rates of serious offenses in decades. Subsequently he declared: "We ought to utilize certain dangerous cities as practice locations for our military."

Partisan Transformation

The administration is attempting to reshape American armed forces into a political instrument dedicated to maintaining administrative control, a development which is not only contrary to American values but should also alarm every citizen. And they plan to make this restructuring into a public display. All statements the secretary said at this widely covered and costly gathering could have been issued by written directive, and in fact was. But the official in particular needs a rebrand. Currently better recognized for directing military operations than for leaking such information. For the secretary, the very public presentation was a vainglorious attempt at enhancing his own damaged reputation.

Concerning Developments

However much more important, and considerably more alarming, was the president's suggestion of even greater numbers of military personnel on American streets. Therefore, I return to the original concern: at what point will America's senior military leadership decide that enough is enough?

Personnel Changes

There's substantial basis to think that senior members of armed forces might have concerns about getting sacked by the administration, whether for being insufficiently loyal to current leadership, insufficiently white, or not fitting gender expectations, based on previous decisions from federal leadership. Shortly of assuming office, the administration removed the leader of the joint chiefs of staff, Air Force Gen CQ Brown, only the second African American to hold this role. Adm Lisa Franchetti, the initial female to be appointed to chief of naval operations, the US Navy's highest rank, was also removed.

Legal Structure

The administration also eliminated judge advocates general for the army, maritime forces and aerial forces, and fired Gen Tim Haugh, the director of the National Security Agency and US Cyber Command, according to accounts at the request of far-right activist Laura Loomer, who claimed Haugh was insufficiently loyal to the president. There are many more examples.

Historical Context

While it's true that each presidency does certain personnel changes upon taking office, it's also true that the scale and objective to reorganize armed forces during the current term is unprecedented. 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 akin to partisan political appointees whose professional ethos is to come and go with changes of administration, rather than professional officials whose work ethic is to perform duties independent of shifts in political leadership."

Rules of Engagement

Administration officials stated that they intend to also currently eliminate "stupid rules of engagement". These guidelines, though, determine what is lawful and unlawful conduct by the military, a line made more difficult to discern as the administration decimates judicial support of armed services. Obviously, there has been significant illegality in US military behavior from their establishment until today. But if you are part of armed services, there exists the right, if not the obligation, to disobey illegal orders.

Current Operations

Federal leadership is currently engaged in blatantly illegal acts being conducted by naval forces. Lethal strikes are being initiated against boats in tropical waters that American authorities claims are drug smuggling vessels. No proof has been presented, and now the administration is claiming the US is in a "non-international armed conflict" with drug cartels and the people who were killed by the US in attacks are "illegal fighters".

Expert Opinion

This is absurd, of course, and is reminiscent of the poorest judicial analysis created during initial anti-terrorism period. Even if individuals on those boats were involved in drug smuggling, participating in the sale of illegal drugs does not rise to the criteria of engaging in hostilities, as observed by authorities.

Final Thoughts

If a government intentionally kills a person outside of armed conflict and lacking legal procedure, it's a form of murder. This is occurring in tropical waters. Is that the path we're moving down on urban areas of our own cities? Federal leadership may have created personal military strategies for specific objectives, but it's the personnel of armed forces who will have to implement them. With all our institutions presently at risk, encompassing the military, there's necessity for a much stronger defense against this vision of conflict.