Bhopinder Singh | As The ‘No Kings’ Movement Sweeps America, Can US Troops Stay Aloof?

The United States of America, after living through well over a year of President Donald Trump’s administration in his second term at the White House, appears gripped by the “No Kings” protests aimed at defending and protecting their democratic and constitutional values. Rooted in the American Revolution when 13 colonies broke away from British rule under King George III, it was a protest idea to call-out leaders acting “above the law”.

Today, millions of Americans are invoking that metaphor to suggest that President Donald Trump is overstepping his constitutional limits with an expansive view of his presidential and personal powers. Vital institutions of checks and balances like the judiciary, all federal agencies and the US Congress are either getting diminished or severely compromised. Mr Trump’s brazen unilateralism in initiating, conducting, and commentating on the war with Iran exemplifies his hubris. The Reuters Ipsos poll notes that now 59 per cent of Americans oppose the war (37 per cent support), while a CNN poll notes a similar 59 per cent, and in other polls, well over 60 per cent believe that the Trump administration has gone too far, making it one of the most unpopular US military conflicts in the early stages. But President Trump viciously attacks any disagreement with him by claiming, “I am the one that makes the decision”; as if any contrary view has no space in the “new normal” of US democracy. His chilling post in 2022 about his desire to “terminate the Constitution” was an unheeded warning of his mindset.

The US armed forces have traditionally been a totally apolitical institution and are naturally in the spotlight during any time of military conflict. While the US President is indeed commander-in-chief of the armed forces, presidential conduct too must abide by the mandated constitutional restraint, and therefore the legal obligation of the US military to refuse unconstitutional orders of any kind. While Mr Trump is fully empowered to conduct an unpopular war, many of his actions are increasingly coming under “grey areas” of constitutionality. Was there a US Congress authorisation for the full-scale escalation of the conflict? Did the approval of targeting of non-military actors violate any tenet of law? Did Mr Trump’s unsubstantiated claim of “imminent threat” to the United States mainland establish the necessary justification in legal terms? Has there been a potential violation of the War Powers Resolution (necessitating notification to Congress on the status of war within timelines)? But, like all insecure authoritarians, Mr Trump routinely drums up fear-mongering, jingoism, and dog-whistling, against anyone opposing his imperial ways.

Earlier, tensions between the US armed forces and Donald Trump had publicly manifested with the fracas between President Trump and the then chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, when the topmost serving general had warned against any deployment of active-duty troops domestically, under the Insurrection Act, as desired by Mr Trump. Even earlier, Gen. Milley had apologised for his inadvertent role in the infamous Lafayette Square photo-op, which in the informed opinion of the general had compromised the apolitical stand of the US armed forces. On his retirement, Gen. Mark Milley was to frame a prophetically relevant warning that has suddenly become relevant yet again: “We don’t take an oath to a king or a queen, or to a tyrant or a dictator. And we don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator. We don’t take an oath to an individual. We take an oath to the Constitution, and we take an oath to the idea that is America, and we’re willing to die to protect it”.

Today, with no endgame at sight, the United States is paying dearly for its misinformed endeavour and bravado in Iran. The already groaning American economy is further saddled with a $1 billion per day bill, and a projected $1 trillion cost, overall. At least 13 American military “body bags” have already returned home, and the asymmetric threat as promised by the Iranians has just about started. The equipment and infrastructural losses to the American military with the purported downing of jets and attacks on bases is yet to be calculated. US household budgets will be further squeezed with the inflationary impact, fall in real wages, increase in borrowing costs and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has warned of inflation reaching 4.2 per cent, up from an earlier expectation of three per cent. All this potential pain, disruption and mayhem to the global order, as well as to the American citizenry, is because the imperious Donald Trump insists on his “king-like” ways.

Mr Trump had tried to fill the US military with his loyalists in a leadership purge at the start of his second presidential term, but most of the uniformed careerists remain avowedly non-partisan and constitutionalists. As the direct folks in the proverbial line-of-fire by Mr Trump’s decisions, it is only a matter of time that someone like Gen. Mark Milley may stand up to express telling “concern”. Even the otherwise restrained fraternity of veterans (especially during ongoing military ops) are voicing unmistakable suggestions of overreach and recklessness by President Trump. A highly decorated and revered veteran like Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis, a former secretary of defence to Mr Trump, has candidly admitted that the US “does not have many good options in its war on Iran”.

The previous rounds of “No Kings” rallies in October had drawn nearly seven million protesters, but this time the unilateralism of Mr Trump is hitting average Americans even harder. So far, the serving US military leadership has remained tight-lipped, but the groundswell of opinion and the accompanying situation may soon trigger voices of concern, echoing the “No Kings” sentiments and spirits in their ranks as well.

The writer is a retired lieutenant-general and a former lieutenant-governor of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Puducherry