At What Point Will US Generals Confront the President?

At what moment will the nation's highest-ranking armed forces leaders determine that enough is enough, that their duty to the constitution and the rule of law supersedes blind loyalty to their positions and the current administration?

Expanding Armed Forces Deployment on US Territory

This question is far from academic. The administration has been significantly increasing armed forces activities within American soil during his second term. Starting in April, he began expanding the military presence along sections of the southern border by creating so-called "national defense areas". Armed forces members are now permitted to inspect, question and arrest people in these zones, dangerously blurring the distinction between martial law and police operations.

Disputed Deployments

By summer, the administration dispatched marine corps and state military units to LA against the objections of the governor, and subsequently to the capital. Similar assignments of military reserve forces, likewise disregarding the preferences of respective elected officials, are expected for Chicago and Portland, Oregon.

Legal Challenges

Needless to say, US law, under the federal statute, typically forbids the employment of military forces in police roles. A US court determined in September that the administration'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 expectation for the military to worship the commander-in-chief. Federal authorities transformed a 250th Anniversary Parade for the Army, which some viewed as unnecessary, into a personal birthday party. Both events fell on the same day. Participation at the parade was not only sparse but was dwarfed by the estimated millions of citizens who participated in "No Kings" protests nationwide on that date.

Current Events

Recently, administration leadership participated with the recently renamed defense official, the cabinet member, in an abruptly summoned gathering of the country's armed forces leadership on late September. During the meeting, administration leadership informed commanders: "We're experiencing internal threats, no different than a foreign enemy, but more difficult in numerous aspects because they don't wear uniforms." His evidence was that "Democratic leadership controls the majority of the cities that are in bad shape," even though all the cities mentioned – the Bay Area, Chicago, NYC, LA – have some of their lowest levels of violent crime in decades. Subsequently he stated: "We should use certain dangerous cities as practice locations for our military."

Partisan Transformation

Federal leadership is working to transform American armed forces into a political instrument committed to preserving executive power, a prospect which is not only anathema to American values but should also alarm every citizen. And they intend to make this restructuring into a spectacle. All statements the official stated at this widely covered and very expensive gathering could have been distributed by memorandum, and in fact had been. But the secretary specifically requires image rehabilitation. Currently better recognized for directing armed forces activities than for disclosing them. For the secretary, the highly visible lecture was a vainglorious attempt at improving his own tarnished image.

Concerning Developments

However far more significant, and considerably more alarming, was the president's suggestion of even greater numbers 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 enough is enough?

Leadership Shakeup

There's substantial basis to think that high ranking officers of the military might already be worried about getting sacked by the administration, whether for being not devoted enough to current leadership, not meeting demographic criteria, or insufficiently male, according to past actions from this administration. Within weeks of taking power, federal authorities removed the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General CQ Brown, just the second Black man to hold the position. Admiral Franchetti, the first woman to be appointed to chief of naval operations, naval forces' highest rank, was also dismissed.

Legal Structure

Federal leadership also removed judge advocates general for ground forces, navy and aerial forces, and fired Gen Tim Haugh, the head of the National Security Agency and US Cyber Command, reportedly at the request of political operative Laura Loomer, who claimed Haugh was insufficiently loyal to administration leadership. There are many more examples.

Historical Context

Although accurate that every administration does certain personnel changes upon assuming power, it's also true that the scale and mission to restructure the military during the current term is without historical parallel. As analysts observe: "No previous administration used its power in such extreme manner for concern that such action would essentially consider military leadership 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 serve independent of changes in administrative control."

Rules of Engagement

Administration officials stated that they will also now eliminate "unnecessary regulations of engagement". These guidelines, however, determine what is legal and illegal behavior by armed forces, a distinction made harder to discern as the administration reduces judicial support of armed services. Obviously, there exists significant unlawful activity in US military behavior from its inception until the present. But if one is a member of armed services, you have the authority, if not the obligation, to disobey illegal orders.

Ongoing Actions

Federal leadership is presently involved in blatantly illegal operations being carried out by the US navy. Lethal strikes are being launched against boats in the Caribbean that American authorities claims are drug smuggling boats. No evidence has been provided, and currently the administration is claiming the US is in a "non-international armed conflict" with drug cartels and individuals who were murdered by American forces in the strikes are "illegal fighters".

Legal Analysis

This is ludicrous, naturally, and recalls of the worst judicial analysis developed during the early anti-terrorism period. Although the people on those vessels were involved in narcotics trafficking, participating in the sale of illegal drugs does not rise to the standard of military combat, as noted by authorities.

Conclusion

When a state deliberately murders an individual beyond armed conflict and without due process, it constitutes of murder. This is occurring in tropical waters. Is this the direction we're moving down on urban areas of our own cities? Federal leadership may have drawn up his own military strategies for his purposes, but it's the personnel of the military who will have to implement them. With all our institutions currently on the line, encompassing the military, there's necessity for a much stronger defense against his idea of war.