WHERE ARE OUR MILITARY LEADERS?

Where Are the Generals and Admirals?

Our senior military leaders took an oath the moment they put on a commission: to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  That oath is not a line in a program. It is the ultimate, binding duty of every officer. When the Commander-in-Chief contemplates using the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or federalized Guard as a tool to intimidate, suppress, or police American citizens, that duty becomes a line officers must either hold or cross.

The law and the traditions of the profession are clear. The Posse Comitatus Act and American legal practice have long prohibited the routine use of federal military forces for domestic law enforcement.  The Insurrection Act is a narrow exception, a statutory doorway that requires specific legal steps and that has historically been invoked only in genuine, extraordinary emergencies.  Recent deployments and public statements about sending troops to American cities have rightly generated legal scrutiny and public alarm because they test these limits.

And make no mistake about the legal obligation facing officers: military personnel are bound to obey lawful orders and must refuse unlawful ones. The Uniform Code of Military Justice, military legal doctrine, and informed legal counsel all make that distinction, and servicemembers and commanders who receive orders that violate law have a duty to question and, where necessary, disobey.

So why, when the rhetoric from the White House and allied political forces explicitly celebrates domination and the use of force against internal opponents, have so many generals remained quiet or deferential? Why has the professional military voice mainly been muted as the executive branch flirts with turning the armed forces into a political hammer? The answer cannot be timidity alone. The truth is uglier: institutional caution, cultural deference to civilian control, career incentives, and the fear of being accused of politicking all combine to create a dangerous silence. But those institutional habits cannot trump the Constitution.

This is the moment when senior officers must choose between two equally stark alternatives:

1. Defend the Constitution in word and deed. Publicly, plainly, and repeatedly remind the nation that the oath is to the Constitution, not to any man. Internally, insist on formal legal reviews before any domestic deployment; require written legal certifications consistent with the Insurrection Act and other statutes; and refuse orders that lack a lawful basis. Where necessary, offer counsel to civilian leaders explaining the constitutional limits and the legal and moral consequences of unlawful use of force.
2. Remain silent and complicit and thereby enable the erosion of the republic. Silence in the face of unlawful orders becomes, in effect, assistance. The military’s unique capacity for organized force makes its neutrality the last line of defense for democracy. If that firewall is voluntarily dismantled, the rest of our institutions will not hold.

There are concrete, non-violent acts available to generals who accept their oath as supreme:

• Speak plainly to the American people. A public statement, testimony before Congress, or op-ed from a retired four-star with no partisan language but a clear constitutional warning would change the public calculus. The country deserves to hear that its professional officers will not be a tool for partisan repression.

• Demand written legal authority. Refuse to plan or execute deployments until the Department of Defense receives an appropriate, documented legal certification that is subject to independent legal review. The Insurrection Act and federal statutes require more than vague claims of “protecting federal property.”

• Use non-violent means of institutional resistance. If ordered to take an unlawful action, commanders have the duty to refuse and, if necessary, resign rather than carry it out. Resignation rather than illegal action preserves personal honor and warns the public that the military will not obey lawless commands.

• Support corrective legislation and oversight. Work with civilian leaders and Congress to close legal loopholes that dangerously blur the line between policing and military force. Congressional reform of domestic deployment authorities would protect both civil liberties and good order.

To the generals and admirals who still hold command and influence: the training you received, the oath you swore was not theoretical. It exists for this precise emergency. The civilian leaders who drafted the Constitution expected the professional military to protect the nation from foreign enemies while abstaining from becoming an instrument of domestic tyranny. That delicate balance depends on your courage.

If you fear being accused of politics, remember this: refusing to execute an unlawful order is not politics; it is fidelity to the law. Saying “no” to an illegal command is not a coup; it is obedience to the Constitution. When the President or any civilian official asks you to cross the line into domestic repression, the only honorable answer is to remind them publicly and unambiguously that your first loyalty is to the document that created and legitimized the military in the first place.

We do not call on generals to seize power. We call on them to refuse the unlawful seizure of power by others. We call on them to be the guardians of the republic they pledged to serve. The American people deserve nothing less.

William James Spriggs