On public radio NPR, US Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley said there was no question of the army intervening in electoral affairs. Interview ...

United States: "The Chief of Staff wanted to say that the army would never be political"

Donald Trump alongside his Chief of Staff Mark Milley on April 1, 2020. AP Photo / Alex Brandon

Text by: RFI Follow

5 mins

On public radio NPR, US Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley said there was no question of the army intervening in electoral affairs.

Interview with Corentin Sellin, historian and specialist on the United States.

Publicity

20 days before the US presidential election, the campaign is in full swing and a lot of rumors are agitating Washington.

Corridor rumors tell that the outgoing Donald Trump would be ready to cling to power in the event of defeat and would refuse a peaceful transition.

Hypothesis unverifiable but sufficiently credible that, in an infrequent declaration, the army feels obliged to clarify its role and reaffirm its apolitical character.

RFI: Why is the army leaving its reserve and swearing that it will not side with either of the two presidential candidates?

Corentin Sellin: It

all goes back to

the Lafayette Square incident

in the summer, when Donald Trump wanted to make an outing when he was faced with demonstrations after the death of George Floyd.

That day, militarized forces - even if they were not necessarily active military forces - cleared Donald Trump's path brutally enough, so that he could go to the church located a few dozen meters away. of the White House.

These images had shocked a lot, especially since he was accompanied by certain heads of the American army in uniform.

We saw there the possibility, for the president, of instrumentalizing the armed forces.

From that moment, there was a reorganization on the part of the military hierarchy, in particular the Chief of Staff, Mark Milley, who meant that the army would never be political, that it remained a neutral institution, and that, of course, it would never get involved in an electoral conflict.

It was made necessary by this scene which marked the United States a lot in the month of June.

That the army wishes to reaffirm its neutrality now, 20 days before the election, is not the sign that it is especially afraid of being placed in the position of arbiter at the end of the presidential election?

It is necessarily linked, but the great military leaders are careful to remember that, in the current climate of tension, in the event of post-electoral unrest, they cannot under any circumstances be used for operations to maintain order.

This is the role of local, state and municipal police forces.

Voting operations are organized in 50 states, in different ways each time, and the primary people responsible for maintaining order in this context are the local authorities.

Of course, in the event of a major problem, it might be up to the federal police, supervised by the Ministry of Justice, to intervene.

But the intervention of this federal police would suppose, at

a minimum

, disturbances throughout the territory.

We know that a watch cell has been created within the Ministry of Justice, which seems to betray an anxiety about possible clashes, but the first response will always be the responsibility of the city or the State.

As for the army, it can only intervene in a very specific context: the president should be able to invoke the anti-insurgency law of 1807 and certain provisions of this law, but here we are really talking about political fiction.

We read, here and there, that Donald Trump would not want to cede power and would ambition to maintain himself against all odds.

Does the American Constitution give him the means to extend his term in one way or another?

No.

Donald Trump's term ends on January 20, 2021 at noon.

Either way, if he was declared a loser, he would have absolutely no way of staying in the White House.

The whole problem lies in contesting the result.

Obviously, on this point, he has a margin, since he can attempt legal action to contest the results, or contest the method of establishing the results, in particular on the inclusion of postal voting.

We also know that Donald Trump is an extremely litigious personality, he has always been so in his private affairs, and this also corresponds to an announcement he had already made four years ago, in the event of a defeat in the face of Hillary Clinton.

At the time, he made it clear that if he lost he would challenge the outcome.

However, federal courts, in their unanimous jurisprudence, are extremely cautious about getting involved in electoral disputes.

It will have to provide much stronger evidence and contestation than those it has already produced so far on, for example, the issue of postal voting.

United States: "The Chief of Staff wanted to say that the army would never be political"

United States: "The Chief of Staff wanted to say that the army would never be political"

You may like

Trends 24h

Latest