At What Point Will US Generals Confront the President?

At what moment will the nation's highest-ranking armed forces leaders determine that they've reached their limit, that their allegiance to the constitution and legal governance overrides blind loyalty to their positions and the sitting president?

Expanding Military Presence on American Soil

This concern is far from academic. The administration has been significantly increasing military operations within American soil during his second term. Starting in April, he began expanding the armed forces deployment along portions of the US-Mexico border by establishing so-called "security zones". Armed forces members are now authorized to inspect, question and arrest individuals in these areas, significantly obscuring the distinction between martial law and civilian law enforcement.

Controversial Military Assignments

By summer, federal authorities sent marines and state military units to Los Angeles against the objections of state leadership, and later to Washington DC. Similar deployments of military reserve forces, likewise disregarding the wishes of respective state governors, are expected for the Windy City and Portland, Oregon.

Constitutional Concerns

Needless to say, US law, under the federal statute, generally prohibits the use of armed services in police functions. A US court determined in last fall that the president's troop deployment in Los Angeles violated this law, but the actions continue. And there's continuing pressure for armed forces to comply with directives.

Personal Celebration

More than following orders. There's expectation for the military to worship the commander-in-chief. The administration transformed a 250th Anniversary Parade for military forces, which many considered unnecessary, into an individual birthday party. The two occasions coincided on one date. Attendance at the event was not only limited but was overshadowed by the estimated 5 million people who joined "No Kings" protests nationwide on that date.

Current Events

Recently, the president joined newly titled secretary of war, the cabinet member, in an abruptly summoned meeting of the country's armed forces leadership on 30 September. At the gathering, the president told commanders: "We're experiencing invasion from within, no different than a foreign enemy, but challenging in numerous aspects because they don't wear uniforms." His evidence was that "Democrats run most of urban areas that are in poor condition," even though all the cities referenced – the Bay Area, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles – have some of their lowest levels of violent crime in decades. Subsequently he declared: "We ought to utilize some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military."

Partisan Transformation

The administration is attempting to reshape the US military into a partisan force dedicated to maintaining executive power, a development which is not only contrary to American values but should also concern every citizen. And they plan to make this reorganization into a spectacle. All statements the secretary said at this widely covered and costly gathering could have been distributed by written directive, and in fact had been. But the secretary in particular needs image rehabilitation. He is much less known for leading armed forces activities than for disclosing them. For this official, the very public lecture was a self-aggrandizing effort at enhancing his personal damaged reputation.

Concerning Developments

However much more important, and considerably more alarming, was the president's suggestion of increased numbers of military personnel on US city streets. So, we reconsider the original concern: when will America's senior military leadership determine that enough is enough?

Personnel Changes

There's substantial basis to think that senior members of the military might already be worried about being dismissed by this president, whether for being insufficiently loyal to the administration, not meeting demographic criteria, or not fitting gender expectations, based on previous decisions from this administration. Shortly of assuming office, the administration dismissed the leader of military command, Air Force Gen CQ Brown, just the second Black man to hold this role. Adm Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to be appointed to chief of naval operations, the US Navy's top position, was also dismissed.

Legal Structure

The administration also eliminated judge advocates general for the army, maritime forces and aerial forces, and dismissed Gen Tim Haugh, the director of intelligence services and digital operations, according to accounts at the request of far-right activist Laura Loomer, who claimed Haugh was not devoted enough to administration leadership. There are many more examples.

Unprecedented Scale

While it's true that each presidency does certain personnel changes upon taking office, it's equally correct that the scale and objective to reorganize the military during the current term is unprecedented. As experts observe: "No previous administration exercised its power in such extreme manner for fear that such action would essentially consider the senior officer corps as similar to political operatives whose career commitment is to come and go with changes of administration, rather than career public servants whose work ethic is to serve regardless of changes in administrative control."

Rules of Engagement

The secretary claimed that they intend to also currently eliminate "unnecessary regulations of engagement". Those rules, however, define what is legal and illegal behavior by armed forces, a line made harder to identify as the administration reduces judicial support of the military. Obviously, there has been plenty of unlawful activity in American armed forces conduct from their establishment until the present. But if you are part of the military, there exists the authority, if not the duty, to disobey illegal orders.

Ongoing Actions

The administration is presently involved in blatantly illegal acts being conducted by the US navy. Lethal strikes are being initiated against boats in the Caribbean that American authorities asserts are narcotics trafficking boats. No evidence has been provided, and currently the administration is claiming America is in a "non-international armed conflict" with drug cartels and individuals who were murdered by the US in the strikes are "illegal fighters".

Expert Opinion

This is absurd, of course, and recalls of the worst legal reasoning created during initial War on Terror period. Even if the people on those vessels were involved in drug smuggling, being involved in distribution of a controlled substance does not rise to the criteria of engaging in hostilities, as observed by authorities.

Final Thoughts

When a state intentionally kills an individual beyond military engagement 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 urban areas of American municipalities? The administration may have drawn up personal military strategies for his purposes, but it's the personnel of armed forces who will have to carry them out. As all American systems currently on the line, encompassing the military, we need a much stronger defense against this vision of conflict.