At What Point Will American Military Leaders Stand Up To the President?

At what moment will the nation's top armed forces leaders determine that they've reached their limit, that their duty to the constitution and legal governance overrides blind loyalty to their positions and the current administration?

Expanding Armed Forces Deployment on American Soil

This concern isn't merely theoretical. The administration has been rapidly intensifying military operations within American soil during his second term. Starting in April, he initiated expanding the armed forces deployment along sections of the US-Mexico border by creating so-called "national defense areas". Military personnel are now authorized to search, question and detain people in these areas, dangerously blurring the distinction between martial law and civilian law enforcement.

Disputed Deployments

During the summer months, federal authorities sent marines and state military units to LA against the objections of state leadership, and later to the capital. Similar deployments of military reserve forces, likewise disregarding the wishes of respective elected officials, are anticipated for the Windy City and the Oregon city.

Constitutional Concerns

Needless to say, US law, under the federal statute, typically forbids the employment of armed services in civilian law enforcement functions. A federal judge ruled in last fall that the president's military assignment in LA violated this law, but operations persist. And the expectation remains for armed forces to comply with directives.

Personal Celebration

More than obeying commands. There's pressure for armed services to venerate the president. The administration transformed a 250th Anniversary Parade for the Army, which some viewed as unnecessary, into an individual 79th birthday celebration. The two occasions coincided on one date. Attendance at the event was not only sparse but was dwarfed by the estimated millions of citizens who joined "No Kings" demonstrations across the country on that date.

Current Events

Most recently, administration leadership joined newly titled secretary of war, Pete Hegseth, in an abruptly summoned meeting of the nation's armed forces leadership on 30 September. During the meeting, administration leadership told commanders: "We're experiencing invasion from within, no different than external adversaries, but more difficult in many ways because they're not identifiable." His evidence was that "Democrats run the majority of the cities that are in poor condition," even though each metropolitan area referenced – the Bay Area, Chicago, NYC, Los Angeles – have some of their lowest rates of serious offenses in decades. Subsequently he declared: "We ought to utilize certain urban areas as practice locations for armed forces."

Political Reshaping

Federal leadership is working to transform American armed forces into a political instrument dedicated to maintaining administrative control, a prospect which is not only contrary to American values but should also alarm all Americans. And they intend to make this reorganization into a public display. All statements the secretary stated at this widely covered and very expensive gathering could have been issued by memorandum, and actually was. But the secretary in particular requires a rebrand. He is much less known for directing armed forces activities than for leaking them. For the secretary, the very public presentation was a vainglorious effort at enhancing his own damaged reputation.

Concerning Developments

But much more important, and infinitely more troubling, was administration leadership's foreshadowing of increased quantities of military personnel on American streets. So, I return to the original concern: when will the nation's senior military leadership determine that limits have been reached?

Leadership Shakeup

There's substantial basis to believe that senior officers of the military might already be worried about being dismissed by the administration, either for being not devoted enough to the administration, not meeting demographic criteria, or insufficiently male, according to past actions from federal leadership. Within weeks of assuming office, the administration dismissed the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General CQ Brown, only the second African American to occupy the position. Adm Lisa Franchetti, the initial female to be appointed to chief of naval operations, naval forces' top position, was also dismissed.

Judicial Framework

Federal leadership also removed judge advocates general for the army, navy and air force, and fired Gen Tim Haugh, the head of intelligence services and digital operations, according to accounts at the request of political operative Laura Loomer, who asserted Haugh was insufficiently loyal to administration leadership. Exist many more examples.

Unprecedented Scale

Although accurate that each presidency does certain personnel changes upon assuming power, it's equally correct that the extent and mission to reorganize the military during the current term is unprecedented. As experts note: "No earlier presidency used authority in such extreme manner for fear that doing so would effectively treat military leadership as similar to partisan political appointees whose professional ethos is to transition with changes of administration, rather than career public servants whose professional ethos is to perform duties regardless of shifts in administrative control."

Operational Guidelines

The secretary claimed that they intend to also currently eliminate "unnecessary regulations of engagement". These guidelines, though, determine what is lawful and unlawful conduct by the military, a line made more difficult to identify as the administration decimates the legal wing of the military. Obviously, there has been plenty of illegality in US military behavior from their establishment until today. But if one is a member of armed services, there exists the authority, if not the duty, to disobey unlawful commands.

Ongoing Actions

Federal leadership is currently engaged in blatantly illegal operations being carried out by the US navy. Lethal strikes are being launched against vessels in tropical waters that American authorities claims are drug smuggling vessels. No proof has been presented, and now federal leadership is stating America is in a "non-international armed conflict" with drug cartels and individuals who were killed by the US in the strikes are "unlawful combatants".

Legal Analysis

This is ludicrous, of course, and recalls of the poorest legal reasoning created during the early anti-terrorism era. Although individuals on those boats were involved in drug smuggling, being involved in distribution of illegal drugs does not rise to the standard of engaging in hostilities, as noted by authorities.

Final Thoughts

If a government intentionally kills an individual beyond armed conflict and lacking legal procedure, it constitutes of murder. This is occurring in the Caribbean Sea. Is this the direction we're moving down on the streets of American municipalities? The administration may have drawn up his own battle plans for specific objectives, but it's the personnel of the military who will have to implement them. With all our institutions presently at risk, including the military, there's necessity for enhanced defense against this vision of war.