Military – Deployment?

January 20, 2017  – The Senate confirmed Trump’s nomination of General James Mattis to be Secretary of Defense. General Mattis has had an exemplary career as a Marine, including significant combat experience, has been highly decorated, and remains a most respected commander in the military.

December 20, 2019 – After serving under much conflict with Trump, Mattis resigned, stating “Because you have a right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours…” After many months of the period he describes as “the duty of silence”, Mattis says this, “He is more dangerous than anyone could ever imagine.”

              The role of the military following the supposed “election” is unclear. The short version follows:

December 2024 – The military does not intervene in the growing chaos following the election.

Longer version might look like this::

December 2024 – As the election controversy escalated in the previous 3 weeks, the role of the military comes into question. That the military is not used to interfere with the civilian government is a core American principle, as is embodied in the Posse Comitatus Act. The military leaders and advisors to President Biden respect that principle as fundamental.

By law, the one relevant exception is found in the Insurrection Act, which states in part that the President may deploy troops to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy…” in a state that “…opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.” This was enacted following the Revolutionary War with revision following the Civil War. (Trump intends to use the Act broadly).

As the post-election chaos increases, Biden and his military advisors have several meetings. These men have unquestioned honor, integrity, and loyalty to the United States and the President. And these qualities are found in most of the men and women who serve. As with the population and large, there is also a significant faction in which they are not. Rather, many who have an elevated need to fight, to bully, are naturally drawn to the military (as well as law enforcement).

Also of significance is that the military demands a uniquely structured environment. To a great extent, our human nature finds comfort in structure. Departing from that structure is discomforting, stressful, and decidedly un-military.

Points of debate in the meetings among the military advisors include the following:

1. The role of the military is to defend the United States from external attacks.
2. There are many in the hierarchy and ranks who are Trump followers. The potential division within the military could be substantial, and could possibly play out in the course of any immediate action;
3. However, the stakes are clear as evidenced by the widespread election interference, the current combustive environment, and Trump’s history of incitement. Trump’s thinly veiled calls for renewed violence have resulted in clashes in Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Tallahassee, and second assault on the Capitol Building in Washington D.C.
4. Allowing a sham election to determine the next president condemns the country to autocracy (dictatorship).
5. The best solution is for the rule of law in the United States to prevail – ultimately to be decided by the Supreme Court.

In the end, the advisors and President Biden decide to use military intervention only to prevent “hotspot” violence, and not to intervene in the election question.