35 The Story of how the Commander-in-Chief uses the US Military
The story: The conventional wisdom we Americans embrace is that our military is honorable, that it is deployed only for defensive means, and that it produces good. This story is demonstrated with the annual Pew Report, that finds in 2024 public trust in most public institutions has plummeted—the federal government, the Supreme Court and Congress, the media, Science, educational institutions—but trust in the military to work in the public’s interest remains the highest. The annual Gallup Poll also verifies ongoing confidence in the military over the last many decades, registering higher rates than all institutions except small businesses. This generous American attitude happens regardless of which party is in power and has done since the post-Vietnam, 1973 birth of the All-Volunteer Military.
My take on the story: What Americans tend to forget, though, is that the US military is NOT self-controlled. Instead, it is a tool of its civilian masters, to be used as they—and particularly the Commander-in-Chief (CINC)—chooses. This has prevailed throughout the US military’s long history, but for brevity’s sake, I’ll focus on the post-World War II era, when the American military has been deployed in instances that are not honorable, not defensive, and not good-producing. Most notably are the 1965-1973 American war in Vietnam and the American “Forever Wars” in Iraq (2003-2011) and Afghanistan (2001-2021).
Other ignoble, aggressive, and at least questionable deployments among many include events like: the 1950 attack on the US territory, Puerto Rico during the Jayuya Uprising; the secret bombings of neutral Laos and Cambodia during the 1965-1973 Vietnam War; the invasion of Grenada in 1983; the US bombing of Libya in 1986; the shooting down of an Iranian commercial airplane in 1988; the invasion of Panama in 1989; the invasion of Iraq in 1991; the attempted seizure of Somali leaders and the subsequent Battle of Mogadishu in 1993; the interference in Haiti’s politics from 1994-95; the bombing of Bosnia in 1995; the bombing of Kosovo in 1999; a drone-fired missile on Yemen in 2002; Osama Bin Laden’s 2011 assassination in Pakistan; 2017-2018 missile and drone strikes on Syria; 2020 airstrike on Iraq, killing Qasem Soleimani; 2021 airstrike on Syria, killing an al-Qaeda leader; 2021 airstrikes in Somalia; and a 2022 drone strike in Afghanistan, killing an al-Qaeda leader. These instances of ignobility are in addition the US arming its allies, most recently and visibly, Israel.
Why does the shameful use of the US military matter now, after a long history of shameful uses? Most of these acts of aggression were done secretly, behind closed doors, and far from the American public’s attention, which is not to say the acts were lawful. Many of these acts were perpetrated without the Congress’ approval, which the Constitution requires, or because the Congress had voluntarily given their power to the CINC to use the military however the CINC chooses. In 2023, Congress tried to reclaim its constitutional duty by repealing having given unlimited power to the CINC, but it stalled in the Republican-dominated House of Representatives. So the CINC still has the power to use the US military as she chooses.
Unlike his predecessors, however, who generally concealed their intents for the military, the newly-elected President of the United States and CINC has been publicly and flagrantly threatening to use the military—or refusing to disavow using military force—in ways that violate domestic and international law.
What are we Americans to make of this?
American voters were told by Trump during the campaign that he intended to use the military for his mass deportation plan instead of solving the immigration dilemma with a border security bill during the Biden administration. Clearly, his strongman aim was to use the military, not solve the immigration problem. While the Posse Comitatus Act prevents the active-duty US military from participating in law enforcement, the president can invoke the 1792 Insurrection Act—last invoked in 1992—to override the Posse Comitatus Act. So voters expected candidate-Trump to use the US military to deport millions of American residents and expected that he would invoke the archaic Insurrection Act to override the Posse Comitatus Act.
Instead of invoking the Insurrection Act, however, as in his first term, president-Trump has declared a “national emergency.” This declaration “authorizes the Secretary of Defense to move money within the department to fund construction of the border wall…[and] to call up reservists to assist the Department of Homeland Security in its border activities.” Consequently, the Defense Department is sending to the southern border an additional 1500 active-duty troops—Military Police and Engineer units—to join the 2500 Reserve and National Guard troops already there, and Air Force planes are physically moving the deportees out of the US. Maybe as many as 10K additional troops from the active-duty 82d Airborne, 10th Mountain, and 4th Infantry Divisions are expected to be sent soon, because one of Trump’s 27 executive orders—exponentially more than any president since Richard Nixon—issued on the day of his inauguration ordered the Defense Department to come up with a plan “to seal the borders and maintain the sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of the United States by repelling forms of invasion.”
Legal analysts say this order conflicts with the Posse Comitatus Act, as it uses the active-duty US military as law enforcement. Still, now that Pete Hegseth has been confirmed as the Secretary of Defense, there is no doubt he will enact Trump’s executive order with what handmaiden Hegseth calls “warriors.”
Using the active-duty US military—some of whom may be immigrants themselves—to build the border wall and deport other American residents is ignoble and unlawful. As the Army Times reports, not only is this an improper use of the military, the units deployed to the border have morale problems, indicated by alcohol and drug abuse, deaths, sexual assault, manslaughter, and car accidents.
But only after he had won the election and less than two weeks before his inauguration, Trump began to incite imperial, expansionist land-grabs that might require military force, i.e. more ignoble uses of the US military. In his January 7th press conference, he “suggested annexing Canada, seizing the Panama Canal by force, and [refusing] to rule out American military action to acquire Greenland from NATO ally Denmark.” In his January 20th inauguration speech, on the one hand, he said “The United States will once again consider itself a growing nation, one that increases our wealth, expands our territory, builds our cities, raises our expectations and carries our flag into new and beautiful horizons.” On the other, however, he referred to himself as a “peacemaker and unifier.” He concluded that “We will not be conquered. We will not be intimidated. We will not be broken, and we will not fail.”
Which is it? Imperialist or peacemaker? Can one be both? I don’t think so.
As the New York Times puts it about Trump, “He is sending a clear signal that dominance, not mutualism, is the world’s new organizing principle and that the doctrine of conquest, thought to have expired, is still valid…[a principle that] will lead to more confrontation, more brinkmanship, more war.” Meanwhile, a recent poll of military members concludes that 83% of them believe a “major military conflict” will happen in the next 3-5 years.
Annexing Canada would seem a preposterous idea and one unlikely to require military force. With Trump, though, one never knows, and he has suggested Canada join the US as its 51st state. Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau suggested recently that Trump’s threat is serious. But why would Canadians elect to become a US state when their country offers things like universal healthcare, parental leave, and non-imperialist designs? Still, Trump has threatened tariffs to force Canada’s hand. For instance, on January 23d, in his virtual appearance before the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Trump threatened Canada with a financial weapon when he said “As you probably know, I say, you can always become a state. And if you’re a state, we won’t have a deficit. We won’t have to tariff you.” Reportedly, there were gasps in the room at his public threat.
In a New Republic editorial subtitled “Yes, the president-elect really is serious about expanding the U.S. But what he mostly wants is to bully small countries that won’t fight back,” the writer comments. “For Trump, there is no difference between real strength and the appearance of strength, and acquiring land would make him look strong.” In another New Republic editorial, the writer cites a conservative National Review author: that Republicans “baying at Canada’s doorstep” have learned that making Canada the 51st state would mean inheriting “a blue-state behemoth, matching California in population … and, presumably, in reliably Democratic politics…We might think we’d annex Canada and make it more like us, but … Canada would surely make us more like it.”
As I said, though, one never knows with Trump; we can’t tell if he’s trolling or serious. That certainly gives us confidence in the Commander-in-Chief to use the military responsibly, doesn’t it?
Seizing the Panama Canal by force would be another ignoble use of the military. It took eleven years—from 1903-1914—for the United States to first, steal the isthmus and second, to build the Panama Canal, connecting the Caribbean with the Pacific. For 73 years, the US had exclusive, authoritarian control of the Canal. But after a series of conflicts over the US presence there (especially in 1964), President Carter agreed in a 1977 treaty to return territorial sovereignty to Panama by January 1, 2000. The Senate ratified the treaty with a more than two-thirds vote in 1978. (In 1979, when I was on active duty, my first orders as a Tactical Military Intelligence officer sent me to Panama. I’d even begun taking Spanish lessons in preparation for my assignment. Those orders were canceled because the US was withdrawing, and I was sent instead to West Germany. I didn’t study German.) Panama assumed total control of the Canal on December 31, 1999 with the agreements of all three presidents between the signing of the treaty and the assumption of Panamanian control: Reagan, George H. W. Bush*, and Clinton. (*Bush used the military to invade Panama in 1989.)
Newly-elected-press-conference Trump, however, insisted that the US should reclaim control of the Canal, not only because, to him, the US military is being charged extortionate amounts of money to travel through the canal, but also because, as he alleges, China is actually operating the canal. Neither is apparently true, but what is true is that China is investing in ports all over the world, including in the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed during the January 30th hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, called by Republican Senator Ted Cruz, that the ambassadorial post to Panama was left empty from 2018 to 2022, thereby enabling China to strengthen its foothold, held since 1997. “This self-reflection highlighted how American policy gaps, rather than Panamanian decisions, led to the very vulnerabilities under discussion.”
But with China as the current-day boogeyman, even mentioning China as a potential antagonist in this hemisphere seems to warrant invasion. When he was asked, January 7 press-conference Trump would not rule out military force.
Inauguration-speech Trump repeated that China controlled the Panama Canal and that was a violation of the treaty that Jimmy Carter signed in 1977, a treaty that granted the canal to Panama as part of its sovereign territory. “
We have been treated very badly from this foolish gift that should have never been made and Panama’s promise to us has been broken. The purpose of our deal, and the spirit of our treaty, has been totally violated. American ships are being severely overcharged and not treated fairly in any way, shape or form., and that includes the United States Navy. And, above all, China is operating the Panama Canal, and we didn’t give it to China, we gave it to Panama, and we’re taking it back (emphasis added).
That implies force of some type, and Trump has not mentioned his go-to weapon, tariffs.
So, invasion?
On February 2, 2025, after a threatening meeting with the US Secretary of State, the president of Panama announced he would be ending his country’s involvement with China’s Silk Road Initiative. The State Department subsequently announced that US ships would be passing through the canal free of charge. But Panama’s president refuted that. Meanwhile, Panama’s president had a phone call with the Secretary of Defense, the upshot of which suggests American troops may be stationed, once again, in Panama.
Otherwise…invasion.
Seizing Greenland would be yet another ignoble use of the US armed forces, something that has not ever been considered.
In the 19th century, Lincoln’s Secretary of State, William H. Seward—he who purchased Alaska from Russia—coveted Greenland, Iceland, and Canada. He was unsuccessful at buying any of those lands or the Virgin Islands, part of the Dominican Republic, and other small islands in the Caribbean.
In 1910, the US ambassador to Denmark proposed a trade involving the US, Denmark, and Germany, with the US gaining an “[un]exploited” Greenland. That obviously did not happen.
During World War II, Denmark signed “a defense pact allowing the US extensive military base rights in Greenland in exchange for military protection while mainland Denmark was occupied by Germany.”
After the war in 1946, and in a looming nuclear age, when Denmark tried to terminate the pact, the US offered as one of three options the “colonial bargain” to sell strategically located Greenland to the US. The Danish foreign minister replied, “While we owe much to America, I do not feel that we owe them the whole island of Greenland.”
In 1951, during the Cold War, the US and Denmark entered a new agreement—subject to NATO authorization—that the U.S. could continue operating and setting up military bases on the island. Still, the US could not claim Greenland as its own territory. The US has one remaining base there: what had been known as Thule Air Force Base is now renamed to “recognize Greenlandic cultural heritage”: Pituffik Space Base.
So from 1951 to 2019—nearly 70 years—the issue of the US acquiring Greenland had been tabled.
Before the pandemic started in Spring of 2020, however, then-president Trump suggested in 2019 that the US buy Greenland. Reportedly, it was an idea planted by a college billionaire friend, the heir to the Estee Lauder estate.
“A friend of mine, a really, really experienced businessman, thinks we can get Greenland,” Mr. Trump told his national security adviser. “What do you think?” That led to a special team being assigned to evaluate the prospects, resulting in a memo that laid out various options, including a lease proposal akin to a New York real estate deal.
And even though there was a “succession of Pentagon white papers over the last decade rais[ing] concerns about the growing intent of China and Russia in the region,” Trump never referred to buying Greenland for national security or its mineral wealth or its proximity to the Arctic and shipping lanes. Instead, it was big and he wanted it: “Look at the size of this. It's massive. That should be part of the United States.”
So that didn’t happen.
Now, as the president for a second time, Trump is again pushing this idea of the US acquiring—buying or by military force—Greenland. There are all sorts of hypotheses about why this might or should happen—climate change means previously frozen waters now thawing will open up shipping lanes; China and Russia are already trying to assert their dominance in the Arctic; the mineral wealth of the island remains untapped; and even “a way of restoring a sense of purpose to a country adrift.”
But, as in 2019, Trump himself has never said this is why he wants Greenland to be part of the United States. At once he cites, during his January 7 press conference, “national security” and on January 25, a protectively selfless “It has nothing to do with the United States, other than we’re the one that can provide the freedom.” Both Greenland and Denmark have refused to sell the island to Trump.
Trump says, though, that “I think we’re going to have it.” (Note the “have.”) What Trump may be incapable of understanding, though, is that even Greenlandic people cannot privately own land there, the urge to promote collectivism is so strong. On January 27, 2025, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Danish Parliament member representing Greenland, Aaja Chemnitz, issued a joint statement:
The United States, like Denmark, should recognize that the future will be defined by partnership, not ownership… To ensure our alliance reaches its full potential, Americans must view Greenland as an ally, not an asset. Open for business, but not for sale.
Meanwhile, following a “fiery phone call” between the Danish Prime Minister and Trump when she refused his demands (as she refused him in 2019) to sell Greenland, on January 27, Denmark allocated $2.05B more to boost its military presence in the Arctic.
Does this mean Denmark fears an invasion by a NATO ally: the United States?
And now add to the growing list of potential ignoble uses of the US military by the current CINC: a US military takeover of Gaza and “cleansing” it of Palestinians.
So what?
Trump doesn’t care about national security.
He cares more about how his personal manliness is perceived.
From my point of view as a scholar of war culture and gender, Trump is a masculinist who values above all a specific kind of masculinity. His version of masculine gender prioritizes domination, authoritativeness, win-at-all-costs, bullying, and intimidation; that is what the MAGA people say garners “respect.” See his official portrait for an example of how this version is supposed to look.
Trump also applies this version of masculinism to people who populate his administration. Like so many Americans who use “sex” and “gender” interchangeably, though, Trump does not understand the difference between the two. Trump himself stated in his inauguration address that “There are only two genders: male and female.” That is, he confuses “sex”—the “complex cluster of multiple traits” that lead physicians to designate a child as male, female, or intersex at birth (and sometimes later)—and “gender”—or the socially constructed, learned performance of a body designated as female or male. Subsequently, gender can vary by culture and change over time. I can say that as a “soldiergirl” in US military culture, even though I have a body designated female at birth, I have always been expected to value and perform masculinity over femininity.
Trump apparently—from his recent Executive Order—has a binary and contrary-to-science understanding of sex and gender. Though the EO specifies that sex and gender cannot be used interchangeably, to him and his cohort, the EO conflates them: there are only females and males (not intersex) who are feminine and masculine (not non-binary or transgender). By nature—and not social construct—females are naturally feminine and males are naturally masculine. Trump’s masculinism, therefore, excludes females because according to his equation, females who try to assert their authority that only naturally belongs to males, in Trump’s terms, are “nasty.”
But in Trump world there seem to be exceptions to this rule that dominant masculine males rule and subservient feminine females obey, because not all males by Trump’s lights can perform this version of masculinity. For all his bluster about being a primo deal maker, Trump does not value diplomacy. Diplomacy—actually having to work through differences and potentially compromise—does not line up with the zero-sum masculinism Trump values. Diplomacy is, instead, a feminine trait.
It’s no surprise, then, that Trump nominated to be his chief diplomat and Secretary of State “Little Marco” Rubio, a petty and juvenile nickname Trump applied during the 2016 campaign. “Little” conveys all that Trump despises and fears: little in stature, little in celebrity, little in action, little in, well, you know…and not dominant or intimidating.
It’s also no surprise that Trump has almost no apparent legislative agenda and is instead exclusively issuing executive orders, a number that even in this short time, exceeds all presidents on record. Constructing laws, after all, would require having to work things out with one’s co-equal colleagues. Instead, Trump dominates those colleagues through commands/executive orders and unquestioned fealty.
Trump’s version of masculinism—domination, authoritativeness, win-at-all-costs, bullying, and intimidation—also explains his threats to Panama, Canada, Greenland, and now Gaza, since more than one pundit has opined that this is a move on countries that are unlikely to be able to or want to push back on Trump’s commands. He is unwilling to negotiate, which would reveal femininity; they should just accede to his masculine demands.
It’s finally no surprise that Trump nominated Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense. It seems what qualified Fox-pundit Hegseth in Trump’s eyes—and in the eyes of the Senate Republicans who voted to confirm Hegseth—is his prizing the same sort of masculinism that Trump does. Hegseth’s version describes US (male) servicemembers as “warriors,” and promotes a Christian nationalism “that not only expects women to be subservient to men and should not be permitted to vote, it also hopes for theocracy and a Christian crusade against Muslims.”
But even as Secretary of Defense, junior-officer and Fox-pundit Hegseth is, in fact, subordinate and beholden to the Commander-in-Chief. Hegseth’s rise to this position with great responsibility for the nation’s defense is only because Trump nominated him. Past Secretaries have earned authority either from long-time experience in the military or in civilian executive leadership, so they could legitimately push back on the CINC’s impulses. Hegseth, however, does not have this authority, having spent little time in the National Guard and not having been a successful executive in a large company.
What Trump has in his Secretary of Defense is a thoroughly dominated yes man.
And despite inauguration-speech-Trump’s pledge that he would be a “peacemaker and unifier,” that is why the United States is likely to, once again, engage in not honorable, not defensive, and not good-producing uses of its military. Instead, as Bret Stephens opines in “Is This the End of Pax Americana,” “We are now behaving not as a Great Power — with ‘great’ entailing moral considerations — but as a Big Power, one that frightens other countries, including our shaken friends.”