When exactly will the nation's top armed forces leaders determine 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 current administration?
Expanding Armed Forces Deployment on US Territory
This question is far from theoretical. The president has been rapidly intensifying armed forces activities within American soil during his second term. Starting in April, he initiated increasing the armed forces deployment along portions of the US-Mexico border by establishing what are termed "security zones". Military personnel are now permitted to inspect, question and detain people in these zones, dangerously blurring the distinction between martial law and civilian law enforcement.
Controversial Deployments
During the summer months, the administration sent marine corps and state military units to Los Angeles against the objections of the governor, and subsequently to Washington DC. Comparable assignments of military reserve forces, likewise against the preferences of respective elected officials, are anticipated for Chicago and the Oregon city.
Legal Challenges
Obviously, US law, under the Posse Comitatus Act, typically forbids 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 violated the act, but the actions continue. And the expectation remains for the military to follow orders.
Personal Celebration
Not just following orders. There's pressure for the military to venerate the commander-in-chief. Federal authorities converted a historical celebration for the Army, which many considered unnecessary, into an individual birthday party. The two occasions coincided on one date. Participation at the event was not only limited but was overshadowed by approximately 5 million people who joined "No Kings" protests across the country on that date.
Current Events
Most recently, the president joined newly titled secretary of war, the cabinet member, in a suddenly called gathering of the country's armed forces leadership on 30 September. At the gathering, administration leadership told the leadership: "We're experiencing invasion from within, similar to external adversaries, but more difficult in numerous aspects because they don't wear uniforms." His evidence was that "Democrats run 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 rates of serious offenses in generations. And then he declared: "We ought to utilize certain urban areas as practice locations for armed forces."
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 contrary to American values but should also alarm all Americans. And they plan to make this reorganization into a spectacle. Everything the secretary said at this widely covered and very expensive gathering could have been distributed by memorandum, and actually was. However the official in particular needs a rebrand. Currently much less known for leading military operations than for disclosing them. For this official, the highly visible presentation was a vainglorious attempt at enhancing his personal tarnished image.
Concerning Developments
But much more important, and considerably more alarming, was administration leadership's foreshadowing of even greater quantities of troops on American streets. So, we reconsider my initial question: at what point will the nation's senior military leadership decide that enough is enough?
Personnel Changes
There's substantial basis to believe that senior members of the military might already be worried about getting sacked by this president, whether for being not devoted enough to current leadership, insufficiently white, or not fitting gender expectations, according to previous decisions from federal leadership. Within weeks of assuming office, the administration dismissed the leader of military command, General CQ Brown, only the second African American to occupy this role. Admiral Franchetti, the first woman to be named to chief of naval operations, the US Navy's top position, was also dismissed.
Legal Structure
The administration also removed military lawyers for the army, navy and aerial forces, and dismissed Gen Tim Haugh, the head of intelligence services and US Cyber Command, reportedly at the suggestion of political operative Laura Loomer, who asserted Haugh was not devoted enough to administration leadership. There are numerous additional instances.
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 armed forces during the current term is without historical parallel. As experts observe: "No earlier presidency exercised its power in this dramatic fashion for concern that doing so would essentially consider military leadership as similar to political operatives whose career commitment is to transition with changes of administration, rather than career public servants whose professional ethos is to perform duties regardless of changes in administrative control."
Operational Guidelines
Administration officials claimed that they will also now get rid of "unnecessary regulations of engagement". These guidelines, however, define what is legal and illegal behavior by the military, a distinction made harder to discern as the administration decimates judicial support of the military. Obviously, there has been plenty of illegality in American armed forces conduct from its inception until today. But if one is a member of armed services, you have the right, if not the duty, to disobey unlawful commands.
Ongoing Actions
The administration is presently involved in blatantly illegal operations being conducted by naval forces. Lethal strikes are being initiated against boats in tropical waters that American authorities claims are narcotics trafficking boats. No proof has been presented, and currently the administration is claiming America is in a military engagement with narcotics organizations and the people who were murdered by American forces in the strikes are "illegal fighters".
Legal Analysis
This is absurd, of course, and recalls of the poorest legal reasoning developed during the early War on Terror period. Even if the people on those vessels were participating in narcotics trafficking, participating in distribution of illegal drugs does not rise to the criteria of engaging in hostilities, as noted by authorities.
Final Thoughts
If a government intentionally kills a person beyond armed conflict and without due process, it's a form of murder. This is occurring in the Caribbean Sea. Is this the direction we're moving down on urban areas of our own cities? Federal leadership may have drawn up personal military strategies for his purposes, but it's the personnel of armed forces who will have to implement them. As all American systems presently at risk, encompassing the military, we need enhanced defense against this vision of war.
