logo
Keeping Politics Out of the Military

Keeping Politics Out of the Military

The Atlantica day ago

Our security is dependent on those who are willing to fight our foreign enemies and die for their country. We honor them and their families because their bravery and courage protect our democracy. We respect our military precisely because its role in defending the nation means that the military does not get involved in politics. If we allow the president to politicize the military, that will undermine the trust of the American people in our national security. The mobilization of the National Guard in California has raised concerns about whether the reason for its deployment was based on real threats to law and order, or on political differences between the governor of California and the president of the United States.
To protect the role of the military, the U.S. has historically made clear in its laws that federal troops should not be used for civilian law enforcement. In 1878, President Rutherford Hayes signed the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars the military from doing the work of law-enforcement officers. Even the statutes that authorize the president to activate the National Guard make clear that troops are to be limited to responding to 'invasions' or 'rebellions.' The U.S. is not facing either an invasion or a rebellion.
Respect for the military's role is crucial for our democracy. That is why the law is designed to ensure that our armed forces are not politicized or misused. This rule-of-law tenet is the fundamental difference between a free society and an autocracy. Tyrants use the military as a pawn to solidify power, put down protests, and arrest opponents. Russian President Vladimir Putin has incurred as many as a million casualties among the soldiers he sent into Ukraine for his dictatorial goal of restoring the supposed greatness of the Soviet Union. Putin has found an ally in another ruthless autocrat, North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Un, who has sent forces to help Russia's fight in Ukraine. In China, the primary purpose of the military is to protect those in power. In each case, the tyrant demands—for his own survival—that the loyalty of the military is solely to him, not to the nation, let alone the people.
Tom Nichols: Trump is using the National Guard as bait
Doing a dictator's bidding is not how the military works in America. Our service members swear an oath of loyalty to the Constitution, not to the president. They follow the orders of the president as their commander in chief, but may do so only if those orders are legal and pursuant to the Constitution. Their job demands training, skill, and courage, certainly. The job also requires the capacity to make decisions based solely on the goal of accomplishing a national-security mission, not appeasing political leaders. As secretary of defense, I was a party to the kinds of tough decisions our military has to make. That judgment must not be damaged by those who seek to use it for political purposes.
At the Pentagon, I bore the vital responsibility of deciding on the deployment of our men and women in uniform, and whether to put them in harm's way. The concern that some of those deployed would not return from a mission was always uppermost in my mind. Whenever we lost a serving soldier, I would receive a report and see their name. On those occasions, I personally wrote a condolence note to their family. The list of fallen warriors was also sent to the White House so that the president could do the same and convey the nation's gratitude to the family for the sacrifice that their loved one had made.
Admiral Bill McRaven, the head of Special Operations Command at the time, made clear to me that every military judgment must be based on doing what's right to accomplish the mission. As the director of the CIA, I was in charge of the covert operation to hunt down the al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden at his secret compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. McRaven was the Afghanistan-based operational commander of the raid, in which two teams of Navy SEALs flew 150 miles at night. As they were about to land, residual heat from the day caused one of their helicopters to stall out and make a hard landing that left its tail stuck on one of the compound's walls. I called McRaven to ask what was going on. He was decisive in his response. 'I have called in a backup helicopter, and we will proceed with the mission breaching through the walls,' he said. 'The mission will go on.' I gave my approval. The mission was successful: The man who had masterminded the 9/11 attacks was finally eliminated. The kind of split-second judgment that McRaven showed is what our military is trained to do.
In the recent success of the U.S. forces that were deployed to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, the military did a great job of planning and execution. America has the strongest military force on Earth, but all of the technologically advanced weapons, planes, ships, and equipment would not be worth much without the skill and training of our service men and women. At outposts throughout the world, they are our front line of defense. They are our national security.
To maintain that security demands that we protect and respect the constitutional purpose they serve. If a president deliberately misuses the military for partisan reasons, he is weakening America's safety. Leadership of a military devoted to defending our nation is an honored role that goes back to George Washington and the creation of the Continental Army 250 years ago. During that long history, Americans have learned that presidential parades do not define their military; what does is their respect for the military's mission of protecting national security. Trust in the military is indivisible from trust in the Constitution. Both must remain inviolable.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

At least 35K Ukrainian children abducted since start of war, forced into Putin's ‘Russification' programs
At least 35K Ukrainian children abducted since start of war, forced into Putin's ‘Russification' programs

New York Post

time2 hours ago

  • New York Post

At least 35K Ukrainian children abducted since start of war, forced into Putin's ‘Russification' programs

As least 35,000 Ukrainian children are believed to be missing – abducted by Russian troops and forced into indoctrination programs since the start of the Kremlin's brutal three-year invasion. The children all had the misfortune to live behind what are now Russian lines — the regions of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson in the southeast of Ukraine. 7 These children from an orphanage in the Donetsk region of Ukraine were brought to a camp in Russia. AP Some were orphans — abducted from care homes or from the battlefield after the death of their parents, Ukrainian authorities said. Other parents were tricked into sending their children on school trips to Crimea, billed as a retreat to escape the fighting, only to never hear from them again, according to reports. 7 Many of the children from the Ukrainian city of Mariupol are believed to have been abducted. Anadolu Agency via Getty Images It's believed the kids captured have been forced into 'Russification' programs — kept in so-called 're-education camps,' according to experts at the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab. The US research team has been working to keep track of Ukrainian children that have disappeared since the start of Russia's 2022 war on Kyiv and has identified dozens of these camps — at least 13 in Belarus and 43 in Russian-annexed Crimea and across mainland Russia. 7 Two Ukrainian children at a camp in Russia. AP There, the kids are being indoctrinated into Russian strongman Vladimir Putin's vision, raised to speak Russian — not Ukrainian — and forced to sing the Russian national anthem daily. Some of the children forcibly removed from their homes were as young as four months, according to researchers. Other kids have reportedly been sent to Kremlin-backed military boot camps, training to fight for Moscow in the brutal war against their own country. 7 Shocking footage on Russian TV showed Ukrainian children assembling weapons. Newsflare Shocking images from Russian state television have shown young Ukrainian boys and girls assembling and firing assault rifles, all while the Russian flag and a portrait of the Russian tyrant loomed in the background. The Kremlin, meanwhile, has claimed to have abducted a staggering 700,000 Ukrainian children from the occupied territories. 7 The Kremlin paraded children taken from Mariupol to mark the first anniversary of the start of Putin's war. Russians have been open about what they've called 'rehoming' Ukrainian children, who have been portrayed as having been abandoned by their families. Moscow's state television has aired news segments where kids arriving from Ukraine are gifted teddy bears by their adopted Russian families. Even the Kremlin's Children's Rights commissioner, Maria Lvova-Belova, has publicly bragged about adopting a boy from the city of Mariupol, which was seized by Russian forces in 2022 following a bloody, months-long siege. 7 Ukrainians have protested for the release of the children taken to Russia. Any attempts to recover the children has been met with stiff resistance from the Kremlin, which has even refused to give Ukrainian authorities a list of their names, according to the Yale team. Only a few hundreds of those forcibly removed were able to escape or return home, with the help of Ukrainian organizations like Bring Kids Back. 7 People in Belgium lighting candles for the children abducted from Ukraine. Getty Images

At Supreme Court, steady wins for conservative states and Trump's claims of executive power
At Supreme Court, steady wins for conservative states and Trump's claims of executive power

Los Angeles Times

time3 hours ago

  • Los Angeles Times

At Supreme Court, steady wins for conservative states and Trump's claims of executive power

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court term that ended Friday will not be remembered for blockbuster rulings like those recent years that struck down the right to abortion and college affirmative action. The justices scaled back their docket this year and spent much of their energy focused on deciding fast-track appeals from President Trump. His administration's lawyers complained too many judges were standing in the way of Trump's agenda. On Friday, the court's conservatives agreed to rein in district judges, a procedural victory for Trump. What's been missing so far, however, is a clear ruling on whether the president has abided by the law or overstepped his authority in the U.S. Constitution. On the final two days of term, the court's conservative majority provided big wins for Republican-leaning states, religious parents and Trump. The justices gave states more authority to prohibit medical treatments for transgender teens, to deny Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood clinics and to enforce age-verification laws for online porn sites. Each came with the familiar 6-3 split, with the Republican appointees siding with the GOP-led states, while the Democratic appointees dissented. These rulings, while significant, were something short of nationwide landmark decisions — celebrated victories for the Republican half of the nation but having no direct or immediate effect on Democratic-led states. California lawmakers are not likely to pass measures to restrict gender-affirming care or to prohibit women on Medicaid from obtaining birth control, pregnancy testing or medical screenings at a Planned Parenthood clinic. The new decisions echoed the Dobbs ruling three years ago that struck down Roe vs. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion. As the conservative justices noted, the decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health did not outlaw abortion nationwide. However, it did allow conservative states to do so. Since then, 17 Republican-led states in the South and Midwest have adopted new laws to prohibit most or all abortions. On this front, the court's decisions reflect a 'federalism,' or states-rights style of conservatism, that was dominant in decades past under President Reagan and two of the court's conservative leaders, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Both were Arizona Republicans (and in O'Connor's case, a former state legislator) who came to the court with that view that Washington holds too much power and wields too much control over states and local governments. With the nation sharply divided along partisan lines, today's conservative court could be praised or defended for freeing states to make different choices on the 'culture wars.' The other big winner so far this year has been Trump and his broad claims of executive power. Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has asserted he has total authority to run federal agencies, cut their spending and fire most of their employees, all without the approval of Congress, which created and funded the agencies. He has also claimed the authority to impose tariffs of any amount on any country and also change his mind a few days later. He has dispatched National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles against the wishes of the governor and the mayor. He has asserted he can punish universities and law firms. He has claimed he can revise by executive order the 14th Amendment and its birthright citizenship clause. So far, the Supreme Court has not ruled squarely on Trump's broad assertions of power. But the justices have granted a series of emergency appeals from Trump's lawyers and set aside lower court orders that blocked his initiatives from taking effect. The theme has been that judges are out of line, not the president. Friday's ruling limiting nationwide injunctions set out that view in a 26-page opinion. The conservatives agreed that some judges have overstepped their authority by ruling broadly based on a single lawsuit. The justices have yet to rule on whether the president has overstepped his power. Justice Amy Coney Barrett summed up the dispute in a revealing comment responding to a dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' she wrote. Missing from all this is the earlier strain of conservatism that opposed concentrated power in Washington — and in this instance, in one person. Last year offered a hint of what was to come. A year ago, the court ended its term by declaring the president is immune from being prosecuted for his official acts while in the White House. That decision, in Trump vs. United States, shielded the former and soon-to-be president from the criminal law. The Constitution does not mention any such immunity for ex-presidents charged with crimes, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said a shield of immunity was necessary to 'enable the the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.' Since returning to the White House, Trump has not been accused of exercising 'undue caution.' Instead, he appears to have viewed the court's opinion as confirming his unchecked power as the nation's chief executive. Trump advisors say that because the president was elected, he has a mandate and the authority to put his priorities and policies into effect. But the Supreme Court's conservatives did not take that view when President Biden took office promising to take action on climate change and to reduce the burden of student loan debt. In both areas, the Roberts court ruled that the Biden administration had exceeded its authority under the laws passed by Congress. Away from Washington, the most significant decision from this term may be Friday's ruling empowering parents. The six justices on the right ruled parents have a right to remove their children from certain public school classes that offend their religious beliefs. They objected to new storybooks and lessons for young children with LGBTQ+ themes. In recent years, the court, led by Roberts, has championed the 'free exercise' of religion that is protected by the 1st Amendment. In a series of decisions, the court has exempted Catholic schools and charities from laws or regulations on, for example, providing contraceptives to employees. Friday's ruling in a Maryland case extended that religious liberty right into the schools and ruled for Muslim and Catholic parents who objected to new LGBTQ+-themed storybooks. At first, the school board said parents could have their young children 'opt out' of those classes. But when too many parents took the offer, the school board rescinded it. The clash between progressive educators and conservative parents reached the court when the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty appealed on behalf of the parents. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the parents believed the books and stories offended their religious beliefs, and he ordered school authorities to 'to notify them in advance whenever one of the books in question is to be used ... and allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.' This decision may have a broader impact than any from this term because it empowers parents nationwide. But it too has limits. It does not require the schools to change their curriculum and their lessons or remove any books from the shelves. The conservatives fell one vote short in a case that could have brought about a far-reaching change in American schools. Split 4 to 4, the justices could not rule to uphold the nation's first publicly funded, church-run charter school. In the past, Roberts had voted to allow students to use state tuition grants in religious schools, but he appeared uncertain about using tax money to operate a church-run school. But that question is almost certain to return to the court. Barrett stepped aside from the Oklahoma case heard in April because friends and former colleagues at the Notre Dame Law School had filed the appeal. But in a future case, she could participate and cast a deciding vote.

Trump cancels U.S.-Canadian trade talks over tech taxes
Trump cancels U.S.-Canadian trade talks over tech taxes

UPI

time3 hours ago

  • UPI

Trump cancels U.S.-Canadian trade talks over tech taxes

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney meets with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office at the White House on May 6. Trump on Friday suspended trade talks due to Canada's new Digital Services Tax. File Photo by Francis Chung/UPI | License Photo June 28 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump cited potential Canadian taxes on U.S. tech companies as his reason for ending trade talks with Canada on Friday. The tech taxes on Amazon, Google, Meta and other U.S. tech firms are due on Monday, and Trump said it is a deal-breaker. "We have just been informed that Canada ... has just announced that they are putting a Digital Services Tax on our American technology companies," Trump said in a Truth Social post on Friday. He called the tax a "direct and blatant attack on our country" and accused Canada of "copying the European Union, which has done the same thing." "We are hereby terminating all discussions on trade with Canada, effective immediately," Trump said. His administration in the coming week will notify Canadian officials of the tariff that it will have to pay to do business in the United States, Trump added. Trump last week attended the G7 economic trade summit hosted by Canada and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and sought common ground on trade talks, The Washington Post reported. Officials at U.S. tech firms oppose the Canadian tax, the amount of which is based on the revenues generated by Canadians' use of e-commerce sites, social media and the sales of data. All tech companies that generate more than $14.59 million from such services would be subject to the new 3% Digital Services Tax. The tax is retroactive to 2022 and could cost U.S.-based tech firms up to $3 billion, NBC News reported. Upon learning of Trump halting trade talks, Canadian officials on Friday limited U.S. steel imports and placed a 50% surcharge on steel imports that surpass the quota. Canadian Finance Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne said the surcharge will help to protect Canadian steel against what he called "unjust U.S. tariffs." He said the Canadian government is prepared to take additional actions, if necessary.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store