🔗 Share this article

At what moment will the nation's top military officers determine that enough is enough, that their duty to the constitution and legal governance supersedes blind loyalty to their jobs and the current administration?

Expanding Military Presence on American Soil

This concern is far from theoretical. The president 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 portions of the southern border by creating what are termed "security zones". Armed forces members are now permitted to search, question and detain individuals in these areas, dangerously blurring the distinction between military authority and police operations.

Controversial Deployments

During the summer months, the administration sent marines and state military units to LA contrary to the wishes of the governor, and later to Washington DC. Similar assignments of national guard forces, also against the wishes of local state governors, are anticipated for Chicago and the Oregon city.

Constitutional Concerns

Obviously, American legislation, under the federal statute, generally prohibits the employment of military forces in civilian law enforcement roles. A US court determined in September that the president's troop deployment in Los Angeles breached this law, but the actions continue. And the expectation remains for the military to follow orders.

Personality Cult

More than obeying commands. There's pressure for armed services to venerate the commander-in-chief. Federal authorities converted a historical celebration for military forces, which many considered excessive, into a personal 79th birthday celebration. The two occasions fell on the same day. Attendance at the parade was not only sparse but was overshadowed by approximately millions of citizens who participated in "No Kings" demonstrations nationwide on that date.

Recent Developments

Most recently, administration leadership joined newly titled secretary of war, Pete Hegseth, in a suddenly called meeting of the nation's armed forces leadership on 30 September. At the gathering, the president informed commanders: "We're experiencing internal threats, similar to external adversaries, but more difficult in many ways because they're not identifiable." The justification was that "Democrats run the majority of urban areas that are in poor condition," even though each metropolitan area mentioned – the Bay Area, Chicago, New York, LA – have historically low levels of violent crime in decades. And then he declared: "We should use certain dangerous cities as training grounds for our military."

Political Reshaping

Federal leadership is working to transform the US military into a partisan force committed to preserving administrative control, a development which is not only contrary to American values but should also alarm all Americans. And they intend to make this restructuring into a public display. Everything the official said at this widely covered and costly meeting could have been distributed by written directive, and in fact had been. However the official in particular needs image rehabilitation. Currently much less known for leading military operations than for leaking them. For this official, the very public lecture was a vainglorious effort at improving his personal damaged reputation.

Concerning Developments

However much more important, and considerably more alarming, was the president's foreshadowing of increased quantities of military personnel on American streets. Therefore, we reconsider the original concern: when will the nation's top military brass decide that limits have been reached?

Leadership Shakeup

There's every reason to believe that senior members of armed forces might already be worried about being dismissed by this president, whether for being not devoted enough to the administration, not meeting demographic criteria, or not fitting gender expectations, based on past actions from this administration. Shortly of taking power, the administration removed the leader of the joint chiefs of staff, General CQ Brown, just the second Black man to occupy this role. Adm Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to be appointed to navy leadership, naval forces' top position, was also dismissed.

Legal Structure

The administration also eliminated judge advocates general for ground forces, navy and aerial forces, and fired Gen Tim Haugh, the director of the National Security Agency and digital operations, reportedly at the request of political operative Laura Loomer, who asserted Haugh was not devoted enough to the president. There are numerous additional instances.

Historical Context

Although accurate that every administration does some house cleaning upon assuming power, it's equally correct that the scale and mission to reorganize the military during the current term is without historical parallel. As analysts note: "No earlier presidency used its power in such extreme manner for fear that doing so would essentially consider the senior officer corps as similar to political operatives whose career commitment is to come and go with changes of administration, rather than career public servants whose work ethic is to perform duties independent of shifts in administrative control."

Rules of Engagement

The secretary stated that they intend to also now get rid of "unnecessary regulations of engagement". These guidelines, however, define what is legal and illegal conduct by the military, a distinction made more difficult to discern as the administration reduces the legal wing of the military. Clearly, there exists significant unlawful activity in US military behavior 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 currently engaged in blatantly illegal acts being carried out by naval forces. Deadly attacks are being initiated against boats in the Caribbean that American authorities claims are narcotics trafficking vessels. No proof has been presented, and now the administration is stating America is in a military engagement with drug cartels and the people who were killed by American forces in the strikes are "illegal fighters".

Expert Opinion

This is ludicrous, of course, and is reminiscent of the poorest judicial analysis developed during the early anti-terrorism period. Although individuals on those boats were involved in narcotics trafficking, being involved in the sale of illegal drugs does not rise to the criteria of military combat, as noted by authorities.

Conclusion

If a government intentionally kills a person beyond military engagement and lacking legal procedure, it's a form of homicide. This is occurring in the Caribbean Sea. Is that the path we're moving down on urban areas of American municipalities? Federal leadership may have created personal battle plans for his purposes, but it's the personnel of the military who will have to implement them. As all American systems currently on the line, including the military, we need enhanced protection against his idea of war.