When exactly will America's highest-ranking armed forces leaders determine that enough is enough, that their duty to constitutional principles and legal governance supersedes unquestioning obedience to their jobs and the current administration?
Growing Military Presence on American Soil
This concern is far from academic. The president has been rapidly intensifying armed forces activities within United States territory during the current term. Beginning last spring, he initiated increasing the armed forces deployment along sections of the US-Mexico border by creating what are termed "national defense areas". Armed forces members are now permitted to inspect, question and detain individuals in these zones, significantly obscuring the separation between military authority and civilian law enforcement.
Controversial Deployments
During the summer months, federal authorities dispatched marine corps and national guard units to LA against the wishes of the governor, and subsequently to the capital. Comparable assignments of military reserve forces, likewise disregarding the wishes of local state governors, are anticipated for Chicago and the Oregon city.
Legal Challenges
Needless to say, US law, under the federal statute, generally prohibits the employment of military forces in police functions. A federal judge determined in last fall that the president's military assignment in Los Angeles violated the act, but operations persist. And there's continuing pressure for the military to follow orders.
Personality Cult
More than following orders. There's pressure for armed services to worship the commander-in-chief. Federal authorities transformed a 250th Anniversary Parade for military forces, which many considered unnecessary, into a personal 79th birthday celebration. The two occasions fell on the same day. Attendance at the event was not only limited but was overshadowed by approximately millions of citizens who participated in "No Kings" demonstrations nationwide on the same day.
Recent Developments
Recently, administration leadership participated with newly titled defense official, the cabinet member, in an abruptly summoned meeting of the country's armed forces leadership on late September. At the gathering, the president told the leadership: "We're experiencing internal threats, similar to a foreign enemy, but more difficult in many ways because they don't wear uniforms." His evidence was that "Democrats run the majority of urban areas that are in bad shape," even though each metropolitan area mentioned – the Bay Area, Chicago, NYC, LA – have some of their lowest rates of serious offenses in decades. Subsequently he stated: "We ought to utilize some of these urban areas as training grounds for armed forces."
Partisan Transformation
Federal leadership is attempting to reshape the US military into a partisan force committed to preserving administrative control, a prospect which is not only anathema to our tradition but should also alarm all Americans. And they plan to make this restructuring into a spectacle. Everything the official said at this widely covered and very expensive gathering could have been distributed by written directive, and actually was. However the secretary in particular requires a rebrand. He is much less known for leading military operations than for disclosing such information. For the secretary, the very public presentation was a self-aggrandizing effort at enhancing his personal damaged reputation.
Concerning Developments
However far more significant, and infinitely more troubling, was the president's suggestion of even greater quantities of troops on American streets. Therefore, I return to my initial question: at what point will America's senior military leadership determine that enough is enough?
Leadership Shakeup
There's substantial basis to believe that high ranking members of the military might already be worried about being dismissed by the administration, either for being insufficiently loyal to the administration, not meeting demographic criteria, or not fitting gender expectations, based on previous decisions from federal leadership. Within weeks of assuming office, the administration removed the leader of the joint chiefs of staff, Air Force Gen CQ Brown, just the second African American to hold this role. Admiral Franchetti, the first woman to be named to navy leadership, the US Navy's top position, was also removed.
Judicial Framework
Federal leadership also eliminated judge advocates general for the army, maritime forces and aerial forces, and fired Gen Tim Haugh, the director of intelligence services and US Cyber Command, reportedly at the suggestion of political operative Laura Loomer, who asserted Haugh was insufficiently loyal to administration leadership. There are many more examples.
Unprecedented Scale
While it's true that each presidency does certain personnel changes upon assuming power, it's also true that the extent and objective to restructure armed forces during this administration is unprecedented. As analysts observe: "No earlier presidency exercised authority in this dramatic fashion for fear that doing so would effectively treat the senior officer corps as akin to partisan political appointees whose professional ethos is to transition with changes of administration, rather than career public servants whose professional ethos is to serve independent of changes in political leadership."
Rules of Engagement
The secretary claimed that they intend to also now eliminate "stupid rules of engagement". These guidelines, though, define what is lawful and unlawful conduct by armed forces, a line made harder to identify as federal leadership decimates judicial support of armed services. Clearly, there has been plenty of 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 duty, to disobey illegal orders.
Ongoing Actions
Federal leadership is presently involved in clearly unlawful acts being carried out by the US navy. Deadly attacks are being initiated against vessels in the Caribbean that the US asserts are narcotics trafficking vessels. No evidence has been provided, and currently federal leadership is stating the US is in a military engagement with narcotics organizations and individuals who were killed by American forces in the strikes are "illegal fighters".
Expert Opinion
This is ludicrous, of course, and recalls of the poorest legal reasoning created during initial anti-terrorism era. Although individuals on those boats were participating in narcotics trafficking, being involved in distribution of illegal drugs does not meet the standard of engaging in hostilities, as noted by legal experts.
Conclusion
When a state deliberately murders an individual beyond military engagement and without due process, it's a form of homicide. It's already happening in the Caribbean Sea. Is that the path we're headed down on urban areas of our own cities? The administration may have created his own battle plans for specific objectives, but it's the personnel of the military who will have to carry them out. As all American systems currently on the line, encompassing the military, there's necessity for enhanced defense against his idea of war.
