When Will US Generals Confront Trump?

At what moment will America's highest-ranking armed forces leaders decide that they've reached their limit, that their allegiance to constitutional principles and the rule of law supersedes blind loyalty to their jobs and the current administration?

Growing Military Presence on US Territory

This question is far from theoretical. The president has been rapidly intensifying armed forces activities within American soil during the current term. Starting in April, he began expanding the armed forces deployment along portions of the southern border by establishing what are termed "national defense areas". Armed forces members are now permitted to search, question and arrest people in these areas, dangerously blurring the separation between military authority and police operations.

Disputed Deployments

By summer, the administration sent marines and national guard units to Los Angeles against the objections of state leadership, and later to the capital. Similar assignments of national guard forces, likewise disregarding the wishes of respective elected officials, are expected for Chicago and the Oregon city.

Constitutional Concerns

Obviously, American legislation, under the federal statute, typically forbids the use of military forces in civilian law enforcement functions. A US court ruled in last fall that the administration's troop deployment in Los Angeles violated the act, but the actions continue. And the expectation remains for armed forces to follow orders.

Personal Celebration

Not just obeying commands. There's pressure for the military to venerate the president. The administration converted a historical celebration for military forces, which many considered unnecessary, into an individual 79th birthday celebration. The two occasions coincided on one date. Participation at the event was not only limited but was dwarfed by the estimated 5 million people who participated in "anti-authoritarian demonstrations across the country on the same day.

Current Events

Recently, administration leadership joined the recently renamed defense official, the cabinet member, in an abruptly summoned gathering of the country's military commanders on late September. During the meeting, administration leadership informed the leadership: "We're facing invasion from within, no different than a foreign enemy, but more difficult in numerous aspects because they don't wear uniforms." His evidence was that "Democrats run the majority of the cities that are in bad shape," even though all the cities referenced – San Francisco, the Illinois city, NYC, Los Angeles – have historically low levels of serious offenses in decades. Subsequently he declared: "We should use certain dangerous cities as training grounds for armed forces."

Political Reshaping

The administration is attempting to reshape the US military into a political instrument dedicated to preserving executive power, a development which is not only contrary to our tradition but should also concern every citizen. And they plan to make this restructuring into a public display. All statements the secretary stated at this widely covered and costly gathering could have been distributed by memorandum, and in fact had been. However the secretary in particular requires image rehabilitation. Currently much less known for leading armed forces activities than for leaking them. For the secretary, the very public presentation was a vainglorious attempt at enhancing his personal tarnished image.

Concerning Developments

However much more important, and infinitely more troubling, was the president's foreshadowing of increased quantities of military personnel on US city streets. Therefore, we reconsider my initial question: at what point will America's senior military leadership decide that enough is enough?

Leadership Shakeup

There's every reason to think that high ranking officers of armed forces might have concerns about being dismissed by the administration, whether for being not devoted enough to current leadership, insufficiently white, or insufficiently male, based on past actions from this administration. Shortly of taking power, 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 appointed to chief of naval operations, the US Navy's top position, was also removed.

Judicial Framework

The administration also removed military lawyers for ground forces, maritime forces and air force, and dismissed Gen Tim Haugh, the director of the National Security Agency and US Cyber Command, reportedly at the request of far-right activist Laura Loomer, who claimed Haugh was not devoted enough to administration leadership. Exist numerous additional instances.

Unprecedented Scale

While it's true that every administration does certain personnel changes upon assuming power, it's also true that the extent and mission to reorganize armed forces during the current term is without historical parallel. As experts observe: "No previous administration exercised its power in this dramatic fashion for fear that such action would essentially consider military leadership as akin to partisan political appointees whose professional ethos is to transition with political shifts, rather than professional officials whose professional ethos is to perform duties independent of shifts in political leadership."

Rules of Engagement

Administration officials claimed that they intend to also currently eliminate "stupid rules of engagement". Those rules, though, determine what is legal and illegal conduct by the military, a distinction made harder to identify as federal leadership reduces the legal wing of the military. Clearly, there exists plenty of unlawful activity in US military behavior from their establishment until today. But if one is part of armed services, you have the right, if not the duty, to disobey illegal orders.

Current Operations

Federal leadership is currently engaged in clearly unlawful acts being carried out by naval forces. Lethal strikes are being launched against vessels in the Caribbean that American authorities asserts are drug smuggling vessels. No evidence has been presented, and currently federal leadership is stating America is in a "non-international armed conflict" with drug cartels and individuals who were killed by American forces in attacks are "unlawful combatants".

Legal Analysis

This is absurd, of course, and is reminiscent of the poorest legal reasoning created during initial anti-terrorism era. Although the people on those vessels were participating in narcotics trafficking, being involved in the sale of illegal drugs does not meet the criteria of engaging in hostilities, as noted by legal experts.

Final Thoughts

When a state intentionally kills an individual beyond military engagement and without due process, it's a form of murder. This is occurring in the Caribbean Sea. Is that the direction we're headed down on urban areas of our own cities? The administration may have drawn up his own battle plans for his purposes, but it's the members of the military who will have to implement them. As all American systems presently at risk, including armed services, there's necessity for enhanced protection against this vision of conflict.