At what moment will the nation's top military officers determine that enough is enough, that their duty to the constitution and legal governance overrides blind loyalty to their positions and the current administration?
Growing Armed Forces Deployment on American Soil
This concern is far from theoretical. The administration has been rapidly intensifying armed forces activities within American soil during the current term. Beginning last spring, he initiated increasing the armed forces deployment along sections of the southern border by creating what are termed "national defense areas". Armed forces members are now permitted to search, interrogate and detain individuals in these areas, significantly obscuring the distinction between martial law and police operations.
Disputed Military Assignments
By summer, federal authorities dispatched marine corps and state military units to Los Angeles contrary to the wishes of the governor, and later to Washington DC. Comparable assignments of military reserve forces, also disregarding the preferences of local state governors, are expected for the Windy City and Portland, Oregon.
Constitutional Concerns
Needless to say, American legislation, under the Posse Comitatus Act, typically forbids the employment of armed services in civilian law enforcement functions. A federal judge determined in last fall that the administration's troop deployment in Los Angeles breached the act, but operations persist. And there's continuing pressure for the military to comply with directives.
Personality Cult
Not just following orders. There's expectation for armed services to worship the commander-in-chief. Federal authorities transformed a 250th Anniversary Parade for military forces, which some viewed as unnecessary, into a personal 79th birthday celebration. Both events fell on the same day. Participation at the event was not only limited but was overshadowed by the estimated millions of citizens who participated in "anti-authoritarian protests across the country on the same day.
Current Events
Most recently, administration leadership participated with newly titled defense official, the cabinet member, in a suddenly called gathering of the country's armed forces leadership on 30 September. At the gathering, administration leadership informed the leadership: "We're facing invasion from within, no different than a foreign enemy, but more difficult in numerous aspects because they're not identifiable." His evidence was that "Democrats run most of the cities that are in poor condition," even though each metropolitan area mentioned – San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles – have historically low rates of serious offenses in decades. Subsequently he stated: "We ought to utilize certain dangerous cities as training grounds for our military."
Partisan Transformation
Federal leadership is working to transform American armed forces into a political instrument dedicated to preserving executive power, a prospect which is not only contrary to our tradition but should also concern all Americans. And they plan to make this restructuring into a spectacle. Everything the secretary said at this highly publicized and costly gathering could have been distributed by memorandum, and in fact had been. But the official in particular requires image rehabilitation. Currently better recognized for leading military operations than for leaking such information. For this official, the highly visible lecture was a vainglorious attempt at enhancing his personal damaged reputation.
Troubling Implications
But much more important, and considerably more alarming, was administration leadership's foreshadowing of even greater quantities of military personnel on US city streets. So, we reconsider the original concern: at what point will the nation's top military brass decide that limits have been reached?
Leadership Shakeup
There's every reason to think that senior members of the military might have concerns about getting sacked by this president, either for being not devoted enough to current leadership, insufficiently white, or not fitting gender expectations, based on previous decisions from federal leadership. Within weeks of assuming office, federal authorities dismissed the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General CQ Brown, only the second African American to occupy the position. Admiral Franchetti, the initial female to be named to chief of naval operations, naval forces' highest rank, was also removed.
Legal Structure
Federal leadership also removed military lawyers for the army, navy and aerial forces, and dismissed Gen Tim Haugh, the head of intelligence services and digital operations, reportedly at the request of political operative Laura Loomer, who claimed Haugh was not devoted enough to administration leadership. Exist numerous additional instances.
Historical Context
While it's true that every administration does some house cleaning upon taking office, it's equally correct that the extent and objective to restructure armed forces during this administration is without historical parallel. As experts observe: "No earlier presidency exercised its power in this dramatic fashion for concern that doing so would effectively treat the senior officer corps as akin to political operatives whose career commitment is to transition with changes of administration, rather than career public servants whose work ethic is to serve independent of changes in administrative control."
Operational Guidelines
The secretary claimed that they intend to also currently eliminate "unnecessary regulations of engagement". Those rules, though, determine what is lawful and unlawful behavior by the military, a distinction made more difficult to identify as the administration decimates judicial support of the military. Obviously, there has been significant illegality in US military behavior from its inception until today. But if one is a member of armed services, there exists the right, if not the obligation, to refuse illegal orders.
Current Operations
Federal leadership is currently engaged in blatantly illegal operations being conducted by the US navy. Deadly attacks are being launched against boats in tropical waters that American authorities asserts are drug smuggling boats. No evidence has been presented, and currently federal leadership is claiming the US is in a "non-international armed conflict" with narcotics organizations and the people who were murdered by American forces in attacks are "unlawful combatants".
Legal Analysis
This is absurd, of course, and recalls of the worst legal reasoning developed during initial anti-terrorism era. Even if the people on those boats were participating in drug smuggling, being involved in the sale of a controlled substance does not meet the criteria of military combat, as observed by authorities.
Final Thoughts
When a state deliberately murders a person beyond armed conflict and lacking legal procedure, it's a form of homicide. It's already happening in the Caribbean Sea. Is that the direction we're headed down on the streets of our own cities? The administration may have drawn up his own military strategies for specific objectives, but it's the members of armed forces who will have to carry them out. As all American systems currently on the line, encompassing the military, there's necessity for a much stronger protection against his idea of war.
