The United States today stands upon the precipice of what might be the most bitter and divisive presidential election since the election of 1860 that precipitated the Civil War. Before the electoral votes are tallied and our next President is selected, it is possible one of this country’s two political parties – or perhaps both - will appeal to the U.S. military to consummate the transition of power and validate the result for their candidate. This would be entirely contrary to our nation’s history where military officers are supposed to be politically agnostic and pledge their allegiance to the Constitution, not to politicians or political parties.
This does not mean an American general will be invited to cross the political Rubicon. But two opposite and intractable political forces make this scenario increasingly possible, spoiling the peaceful transition of presidential power for the first time since our Republic’s founding.
First, if the polling is to be believed, Mr. Trump is the odds-on favorite to win in November. But if history is any guide, the weeks after Election Day will see “mail in” and other late-appearing ballots flood key jurisdictions and erode the Election Night result. If there is another “red mirage” and the result favors Mr. Biden (or Ms. Harris, or Mr. Newsom, or whomever the Democratic Party nominates as its candidate), Americans who already believe the 2020 election was a sham may lose what faith remains in our political system.
Against this backdrop and his accumulated experience with Washington politics, it is conceivable Mr. Trump will refuse to concede the election, and that tens of millions of Americans will support him.
It is equally conceivable if he loses, Mr. Biden will not relinquish the White House to a man Democrats and the Washington Establishment deem uniquely unfit for office and an existential threat to peace and democracy everywhere.
Second, it appears Mr. Biden’s administration is curating the highest levels of the American military with generals and admirals who are less interested in fighting foreign conflicts than winning domestic cultural ones. Exhibit A is former Chief of Staff Mark Milley, widely applauded for a willingness to come to grips with his “white rage,” but who suffered no consequence for presiding over one of the worst routs in our nation’s history. In fact, none of the generals responsible for the Afghan debacle were fired and none resigned in protest. Milley’s successor, C.Q. Brown, is cut from the same cloth. Maybe even more so. General Brown’s military is apparently focused on ideas of “equity” and “diversity” more than “lethality,” “merit,” and “capability”.
Recommended
These two factors; an inconclusive and disputed election combined with a politically partisan senior officer corps are on a collision course.
If this sounds like something from a dystopian novel, remember this idea already entered the political dialogue in the 2020 election cycle.
Hillary Clinton, a reliable indicator for the direction of the wind in the Democratic Party’s sails, advised that “Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances because I think this is going to drag out…”
Vice President Al Gore echoed her views and said, shockingly, the military will intervene if President Trump refuses to accept the election results of the 2020 election.
Mr. Biden, tracking Mr. Gore and Mrs. Clinton’s statements, said he “is absolutely convinced” the military “will escort him from the White House with great dispatch” if President Trump refuses to accept the results of the November election.
More recently, Mr. Biden has conceptually doubled-down by publicly scoffing at Americans who cling to their AR-15s because they’ll need an F-15 to fight the government.
Freudian slips? Hardly. Mr. Biden is thinking about the use of force against his fellow citizens. So are Mr. Gore and Mrs. Clinton. It’s not a stretch to think other high-ranking Democrats are too.
Which puts us back on the banks of the Rubicon.
Will an American general follow orders issued by the “current” president, Mr. Biden, for the military to act against Mr. Trump if he refuses to accept the results in November? Judges and bureaucrats in Colorado, Illinois, and Maine have already shown they are willing to employ the Civil War-era concept of “insurrection” to keep Mr. Trump from appearing on the ballot. Will “Ultra MAGA” crowds who gather on the National Mall to protest the election be deemed “insurrectionists” in the Confederate mold and a threat to national security that justifies a military response?
If they are, would Mr. Trump then be declared the leader of a second “insurrection?”
On the available evidence, the answer to these questions is “Yes.” From there, it’s not much of an analytical jump to think the military could be called to quell the “insurrection” wherever it occurs and act against those who foment and support it.
F-15s against AR-15s, indeed.
Conversely, would General Brown, an officer overtly and enthusiastically aligned with the current administration, ignore orders issued by President-elect Trump on the theory he was not “lawfully appointed” Commander-in-Chief or some similar interpretation of his constitutional duty? Before answering that question recall during the political turmoil in 2020 his predecessor, General Milley, took the extraordinary and constitutionally anomalous step of notifying his People’s Liberation Army counterpart the U.S. military would not strike China even if ordered to do so by the Commander-in-Chief. When later asked about General Milley’s calls to the Chinese, Mr. Biden effectively endorsed them. Milley certainly isn’t alone, and it isn’t hard to imagine other officers at the highest levels are similarly willing to abandon their oaths of office and the established constitutional order for partisan political purposes.
The politicization of the officer corps is a dangerous development because it inevitably interjects men with guns into the political process. This recent development in the military must be curbed and actively discouraged. Until it is, let’s hope the American officer corps and 240 years of tradition can withstand pressure to cross the Rubicon, because the invitation to do so is surely coming. It will mark the beginning of the end of the American Experiment if they do.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member