At What Point Will American Generals Confront Trump?

At what moment will America's top military officers determine that enough is enough, that their allegiance to the constitution and legal governance overrides unquestioning obedience to their jobs and the sitting president?

Expanding Armed Forces Deployment on US Territory

This question isn't merely theoretical. The president has been rapidly intensifying military operations within United States territory during his second term. Starting in April, he began increasing the armed forces deployment along portions of the US-Mexico border by establishing what are termed "national defense areas". Armed forces members are now authorized to inspect, interrogate and arrest people in these zones, significantly obscuring the distinction between martial law and civilian law enforcement.

Disputed Military Assignments

By summer, federal authorities sent marines and national guard units to LA contrary to the objections of the governor, and later to the capital. Comparable deployments of national guard forces, also disregarding the wishes of respective state governors, are anticipated for Chicago and the Oregon city.

Legal Challenges

Obviously, US law, under the Posse Comitatus Act, typically forbids the employment of military forces in police functions. A federal judge ruled in last fall that the president's military assignment in LA violated this law, but operations persist. And there's continuing pressure for the military to comply with directives.

Personality Cult

More than obeying commands. There's pressure for armed services to worship the president. Federal authorities transformed a historical celebration for military forces, which many considered excessive, into an individual 79th birthday celebration. Both events coincided on one date. Attendance at the parade was not only sparse but was overshadowed by approximately 5 million people who joined "No Kings" demonstrations across the country on the same day.

Recent Developments

Recently, the president joined newly titled defense official, the cabinet member, in a suddenly called meeting of the nation's military commanders on late September. At the gathering, administration leadership informed commanders: "We're experiencing internal threats, similar to external adversaries, but challenging in numerous aspects because they're not identifiable." The justification was that "Democratic leadership controls most of the cities that are in poor condition," even though all the cities referenced – the Bay Area, Chicago, NYC, Los Angeles – have historically low levels of serious offenses in decades. And then he stated: "We should use some of these urban areas as practice locations for our military."

Partisan Transformation

Federal leadership is working to transform American armed forces into a partisan force committed to preserving administrative control, a prospect which is not only anathema to American values but should also concern every citizen. And they intend to make this reorganization into a public display. Everything the official said at this widely covered and very expensive gathering could have been distributed by memorandum, and actually was. However the official in particular requires image rehabilitation. Currently better recognized for leading armed forces activities than for disclosing them. For the secretary, the very public presentation was a self-aggrandizing effort at improving his personal tarnished image.

Concerning Developments

However much more important, and considerably more alarming, was the president's suggestion of increased numbers of troops on US city streets. So, we reconsider the original concern: when will the nation's senior military leadership decide that limits have been reached?

Leadership Shakeup

There's every reason to believe that high ranking members of armed forces might already be worried about getting sacked by the administration, whether for being insufficiently loyal to current leadership, insufficiently white, or not fitting gender expectations, based on past actions from this administration. Within weeks of assuming office, federal authorities removed the chairman of military command, Air Force Gen CQ Brown, only the second Black man to hold this role. Adm Lisa Franchetti, the initial female to be named to chief of naval operations, naval forces' top position, was also removed.

Legal Structure

Federal leadership also eliminated judge advocates general for ground forces, maritime forces and aerial forces, and dismissed Gen Tim Haugh, the director of the National Security Agency and US Cyber Command, reportedly at the suggestion of far-right activist Laura Loomer, who claimed Haugh was insufficiently loyal to the president. Exist many more examples.

Historical Context

While it's true that every administration does certain personnel changes upon taking office, it's equally correct that the scale and objective to restructure the military during the current term is without historical parallel. As experts note: "No previous administration used its power in this dramatic fashion for concern that doing so would essentially consider the senior officer corps as akin to political operatives whose professional ethos is to come and go with changes of administration, rather than professional officials whose professional ethos is to perform duties independent of shifts in administrative control."

Rules of Engagement

The secretary stated that they will also currently get rid of "stupid rules of engagement". Those rules, however, determine what is legal and illegal conduct by armed forces, a distinction made harder to identify as the administration reduces the legal wing of the military. Obviously, there has been significant illegality in US military behavior from its inception until today. But if one is part of the military, you have the right, if not the obligation, to refuse illegal orders.

Ongoing Actions

Federal leadership is presently involved in clearly unlawful acts being carried out by the US navy. Deadly attacks are being launched against vessels in the Caribbean that the US asserts are drug smuggling boats. No evidence has been provided, and now federal leadership is stating America is in a "non-international armed conflict" with drug cartels and individuals who were murdered by American forces in the strikes are "unlawful combatants".

Expert Opinion

This is absurd, naturally, and is reminiscent of the poorest judicial analysis developed during the early anti-terrorism era. Although individuals on those boats were participating in drug smuggling, being involved in distribution of a controlled substance does not meet the standard of military combat, as noted by authorities.

Final Thoughts

When a state intentionally kills a person beyond military engagement and without due process, it constitutes of murder. This is occurring in the Caribbean Sea. Is that the direction we're moving down on urban areas of American municipalities? Federal leadership may have created personal military strategies for specific objectives, but it's the personnel of armed forces who will have to implement them. With all our institutions currently on the line, including armed services, we need a much stronger protection against this vision of war.