When Will US Military Leaders Confront Trump?

When exactly will the nation's top military officers decide that they've reached their limit, that their duty to constitutional principles and the rule of law takes precedence over unquestioning obedience to their positions and the current administration?

Expanding Armed Forces Deployment on US Territory

This concern is far from academic. The president has been significantly increasing military operations within United States territory during the current term. Starting in April, he began increasing the armed forces deployment along portions of the southern border by creating so-called "security zones". Military personnel are now permitted to inspect, question and arrest people in these areas, significantly obscuring the separation between military authority and police operations.

Disputed Military Assignments

During the summer months, federal authorities sent marines and national guard units to Los Angeles contrary to the objections of the governor, and later to the capital. Similar assignments of military reserve forces, also against the preferences of local elected officials, are expected for the Windy City and Portland, Oregon.

Constitutional Concerns

Obviously, American legislation, under the federal statute, generally prohibits the use of armed services in civilian law enforcement roles. A federal judge ruled in last fall that the administration's troop deployment in LA violated the act, but operations persist. And there's continuing pressure for armed forces to follow orders.

Personality Cult

More than following orders. There's expectation for the military to venerate the commander-in-chief. The administration transformed a 250th Anniversary Parade for the Army, which many considered excessive, into a personal 79th birthday celebration. Both events fell on the same day. Participation at the event was not only limited but was dwarfed by approximately 5 million people who joined "anti-authoritarian demonstrations nationwide on that date.

Recent Developments

Recently, administration leadership participated with the recently renamed secretary of war, the cabinet member, in an abruptly summoned meeting of the country's military commanders on late September. At the gathering, the president told the leadership: "We're experiencing internal threats, no different than external adversaries, but more difficult in many ways because they're not identifiable." His evidence was that "Democratic leadership controls the majority of the cities that are in bad shape," even though each metropolitan area mentioned – the Bay Area, the Illinois city, NYC, Los Angeles – have some of their lowest rates of violent crime in generations. And then he stated: "We ought to utilize certain dangerous cities as practice locations for armed forces."

Political Reshaping

The administration is attempting to reshape the US military into a political instrument committed to maintaining executive power, a prospect which is not only contrary to our tradition but should also alarm all Americans. And they plan to make this reorganization into a spectacle. Everything the official stated at this widely covered and costly gathering could have been distributed by memorandum, and actually had been. However the secretary in particular needs image rehabilitation. He is better recognized for directing military operations than for disclosing them. For the secretary, the highly visible presentation was a vainglorious effort at enhancing his personal tarnished image.

Concerning Developments

However far more significant, and infinitely more troubling, was administration leadership's foreshadowing of increased quantities of military personnel on American streets. So, we reconsider my initial question: when will the nation's senior military leadership determine that enough is enough?

Leadership Shakeup

There's substantial basis to think that senior members of armed forces might have concerns about getting sacked by this president, whether for being insufficiently loyal to the administration, not meeting demographic criteria, or not fitting gender expectations, according to past actions from this administration. Within weeks of assuming office, federal authorities removed the chairman of military command, General CQ Brown, just the second African American to occupy this role. Adm Lisa Franchetti, the initial female to be named to chief of naval operations, the US Navy's highest rank, was also dismissed.

Judicial Framework

The administration also eliminated military lawyers for ground forces, maritime forces and air force, and dismissed Gen Tim Haugh, the head of intelligence services and digital operations, according to accounts at the suggestion of political operative Laura Loomer, who asserted Haugh was not devoted enough to administration leadership. Exist many more examples.

Historical Context

Although accurate that every administration does some house cleaning upon assuming power, it's also true that the extent and mission to reorganize the military during this administration is unprecedented. As analysts observe: "No earlier presidency used authority in such extreme manner for fear that doing so would essentially consider the senior officer corps as similar to partisan political appointees whose career commitment is to transition with political shifts, rather than career public servants whose work ethic is to perform duties independent of changes in political leadership."

Rules of Engagement

The secretary stated that they will also now eliminate "stupid rules of engagement". These guidelines, though, determine what is legal and illegal behavior by the military, a distinction made harder to discern as federal leadership reduces judicial support of the military. Obviously, there has been plenty of illegality in US military behavior from their establishment until the present. But if you are a member of the military, there exists the authority, if not the duty, to disobey unlawful commands.

Ongoing Actions

The administration is presently involved in blatantly illegal operations being conducted by the US navy. Deadly attacks are being initiated against vessels in the Caribbean that American authorities claims are narcotics trafficking vessels. No proof has been presented, and now federal leadership is stating America is in a "non-international armed conflict" with drug cartels and the people who were murdered by American forces in attacks are "illegal fighters".

Legal Analysis

This is ludicrous, naturally, and recalls of the worst legal reasoning developed during the early anti-terrorism period. Although individuals on those vessels were involved in drug smuggling, participating in distribution of illegal drugs does not meet the criteria of engaging in hostilities, as noted by authorities.

Conclusion

When a state intentionally kills a person outside of military engagement and without due process, it's a form of murder. It's already happening in the Caribbean Sea. Is this the direction we're headed down on urban areas of American municipalities? Federal leadership may have created his own military strategies for specific objectives, but it's the personnel of armed forces who will have to implement them. As all American systems presently at risk, including the military, we need enhanced defense against this vision of war.