What Will US Military Do in an Election Crisis?
CIVIL WAR CHRONICLES - Welcome to my new series on the potential for civil conflict in America, how it might come about, and how we can prevent it.
"You need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons…" JOE BIDEN, July 2021.
Well, in response to Biden, it’s not nearly that simple.
CIVIL WAR 2.0 – ANALYSIS
This is a controversial topic I have been following for a few years now. I was even censored by Big Tech for even discussing the issue online.
But the issue is real and it just doesn't go away. In my view, the upcoming 2024 election will only increase the danger, regardless of who wins.
We just had our first, and maybe only, presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. Most impartial observers saw it as a missed opportunity for Trump to score a knock out, and Harris did much better than expected.
Some say it was a win for Harris. Others disagree. But, more importantly, many criticized the debate’s ABC moderators for being openly biased against Trump, ‘fact-checking’ him in real-time, while giving Harris mostly a free pass.
Some considered it a three-way tag team against Trump. Either way, the debate will only fuel anger and frustration among Trump supporters while reinforcing their belief that the establishment media is actively in the tank for Democrats, especially Harris.
This can only add to the possibility of a contested election. And a political crisis that could rope in the military.
One expert recently wrote: “With the heightened risk of political violence in 2024 fueled by hyper-partisanship, some senior military leaders are currently having to reflect on their apolitical role within the U.S. constitutional structure.”
Back in 2021, retired two-star U.S. Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, along with two other retired generals, Antonio Taguba, and Steven Anderson, echoed that concern when they co-authored an op-ed about the fear that a coup supported by the military could succeed after the 2024 elections.
They noted:
How could a coup play out in 2024?
The real question is does everybody understand who the duly elected president is? If that is not a clear-cut understanding, that can infect the rank and file or at any level in the U.S. military.
And we saw it when 124 retired generals and admirals signed a letter contesting the 2020 election. We're concerned about that. And we're interested in seeing mitigating measures applied to make sure that our military is better prepared for a contested election, should that happen in 2024.
So, one key question during a contested national presidential election or crisis, is what will our senior military, Regular and Guard, leaders do?
Will all our senior service leaders (Joint Chiefs of Staff) and combatant commanders agree on who is the legitimate president?
What about the heads of the states’ National Guard forces, the politically appointed Adjutant Generals who report to their governors?
Whose orders will they follow? And what orders will they follow? Will they let their State Guards’ be federalized?
Meanwhile, what are the relevant laws and statutes that these leaders will need to apply in a crisis?
The answer to these questions will likely decide if, and how, a civil conflict unfolds in America.
In his thoughtful analysis, ‘The Anonymous Military Leaders with the Weight of the Election on Their Shoulders,’ Paul Rasmussen, an Associate Professor with the U.S. Naval War College gives a substantive overview of the these issues.
Rasmussen writes: “Lawmakers fear the military could be drawn into the politics of the 2024 election. In a recent congressional letter to the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top civilian and military leaders were reminded not to use the military illegally to carry out unlawful orders.”
He adds: “Regardless of who wins the election, federal and state senior military leaders may face decision-making dilemmas critical to the future of U.S. democracy.”
Rasmussen continues: “The Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with the 54 state Adjutant Generals, represent the upper echelons of the U.S. military who interact with civilian authorities and are the anonymous leaders who may encounter ethical dilemmas during the upcoming election.”
He then explains the “Key considerations in this reflection include the structure of the Constitution, the norms of U.S. civil-military relations, and various laws enacted by Congress that define the domestic role of the U.S. military. These laws include the Hatch Act, the Insurrection Act, the Posse Comitatus Act [PCA], National Guard authorities, and other guidelines.”
These would all come into play during a political crisis, testing how apolitical our military really is.
Rasmussen notes that, “Although these frameworks might appear straightforward, they may prove quite challenging to apply in some extraordinary circumstances.”
Then there is the million dollar question - What about the National Guard?
We have already seen controversies arise when Trump wanted to federalize the Guard and send it to quell BLM riots in 2020. Likewise, more controversy erupted when the DC Guard did not deploy to the Capitol on Jan.6, 2021.
More recently, we see the Texas Guard actively at odds with Biden’s politicized Border Patrol and other Homeland Security agencies, over Biden’s unwillingness to protect our southern border.
Conflicts like this could escalate under the right conditions.
The U.S. has 54 National Guards units, including those in Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia. Each unit is led by The Adjutant General (TAG) who is appointed by and reports directly to the Governor. They serve as both military advisor and operational commander for state forces.
“Examining the National Guard’s structure, roles, and responsibilities sheds light on its potential domestic use, especially in Civil Disturbance Operations (CDO).”
Rasmussen explains:
“Although the National Guard is linked to the National Guard Bureau for planning, doctrine, and funding, it typically operates under State Active Duty (SAD) authority to support local and state entities. Often to train, or in response to national disasters, guard forces also are mobilized for Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA). Here they are federally funded but remain under the Governor’s control in a Title 32 status. Under Title 32 and SAD, they are exempt from the PCA.”
However, even among the 54 National Guards, there are unique aspects of the DC National Guard (DCNG) that make it potentially problematic.
With Washington being a federal district rather than a state, command responsibilities are assigned directly to the President, with authority delegated to the Chief of Staff of the Army through the Secretary of Defense. The 2,700-member DCNG is led by a Commanding General (appointed by the President) rather than a TAG.
These distinctions are significant and must be considered when thinking about this issue..
Rasmussen comes to the following conclusions:
Checks and balances are the bedrock of our democracy. Typically, the military is not considered one of these checks. Unfortunately, in today’s environment the military (whether it likes it or not) needs to consider its role as a possible check when asked to respond to civil disobedience.
Military members are trained to follow lawful orders and face penalties for disobedience. However, deciding whether to obey or shirk an order and when to engage in “strategic communications” presents complex challenges, such as loyalty, career risks, and identifying the legal boundaries of orders from a President, a Governor, or commanding officer.
The National Guard is not as apolitical as some think as the TAG position is essentially a political appointment. This situation could raise questions about state versus federal control, creating challenging post-election scenarios.
Congress has granted the President broad powers under the Insurrection Act, which are not restricted by the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA). Coupled with the unique structure of the DC National Guard, this creates potential loopholes in the checks and balances system.
While military leaders generally have strong character traits, the situational factors in Civil Disturbance Operations could complicate decision-making. The verbal expression of disobeying or challenging orders may be perceived by some as insubordination and could even raise concerns about a coup.
This is just a summary of Rasmussen’s analysis, and the tip of the iceberg of this topic, but it highlights real questions and issues that our senior leaders will likely face after this election and future ones.
How they all respond could decide whether our significant political differences will be resolved peacefully or by other means.
Paul Crespo is the President of the Center for American Defense Studies, Managing Editor of American Liberty Defense News, and Managing Partner of SPECTRE Global Risk. As a Marine Corps officer, he led Marines, served aboard ships in the Pacific and jumped from helicopters and airplanes.
He was also a military attaché with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) at U.S. embassies worldwide.
He later ran for congress, taught political science, wrote for a major newspaper and had his own radio show. A graduate of Georgetown, London and Cambridge universities, he brings decades of experience and insight to the issues that most threaten our American liberty – at home and abroad.
In the end this may be decided by an armed citizenry hopefully this will remain an armchair discussion
There are 3 possible scenarios -
1, a fair election and a peaceful transition of power.
2, Trump wins but the democrats refuse to relinquish power leading to a civil war.
3, the election appears rigged to favor democrats and this leads to civil war. (2 and 3 depends on a public willing to take that step.)
I don't think there is much of a chance of 1 happening, giving the democrats track record starting with Dailey of Chicago and ramping up with their activities over the last 8 years at least. Democrats have already instigated open insurrection in Portland, Seattle, and other cities. That leaves 2 and 3 and it's a tossup on each. As your article says, what the military does will be the deciding factor. If troops follow their Oath and higher command are smart the regular Army and Marines will it sit out and let the politicians fix the conflict. Guard probably will anyway, at least on a national scare. Their Oath is to their State mostly. Air Force, Space Force, and Navy really don't have much to bring. Army and Marines will be the players. I'd predict that, in the case of civil war, some units of battalion size will support one side and some the other, just as some states will. I am sure democrats are making plans (they did contact some division commanders after 2020 to try and counter-act an imagined refusal to step down by Trump) on both contingencies. I doubt Republicans have done any planning at all. And I'm positive there are plans sitting in vaults on what the military will do for the JCS to tap.
Alot depends on the intention of each party to sustain the Constitution as the Law of the Land and the integrity of the United States. If those 2 elements are ignored then there are several options open to the democrats, from using Antifa or Antifa-like irregulars to accepting military assistance from foreign powers, RU and PRC.
Just my thoughts.