Will the Military Save Us? A Deep Dive
The Fear Behind the Question
The question emerges frequently during group chats, family dinners, or late-night conversations, especially among those feeling anxious about the state of affairs: “Will the military stop him?” It’s a question born out of fear, the fear of an authoritarian regime that might disregard democratic principles. Yet, the answer, backed by research and historical context, reveals a startling reality: the military is unlikely to act against orders from the commander-in-chief, even if those orders are unconscionable.
Personal Experience and Data Points
Having served in the Air Force, I don’t need to speculate on this issue. While my perspective provides a personal lens, my experience is one of many. Recent findings illuminate this reality starkly. A pivotal study published in 2018 by political scientists Aurel Croissant, David Kuehn, and Tanja Eschenauer in the Journal of Democracy analyzed forty cases where authoritarian leaders faced mass protests. Their conclusion? “In nonviolent mass protests against dictators, the military is the ultimate arbiter of regime survival.”
Military Loyalty vs. Defection: The Statistics
The researchers segmented their findings into distinct outcomes: in nineteen instances, the military sided with the regime, helping to suppress the populace. Fifteen times, they defected to the protesters’ side. And in six cases, coups occurred, replacing one form of authoritarianism with another. The conditions for military defection are specific and limited.
The data reveal that militaries that have not previously engaged in gross human rights abuses are more likely to support protesters. Conversely, when a military has been complicit in such abuses, they often remain loyal to the regime. For example, Portugal’s military, alienated by years of colonial wars, turned against the dictatorship in 1974, while Romania’s army initially attempted repression during the 1989 protests before realizing the regime’s end was near.
America’s Long History of Military Complicity
Where does the U.S. military fit into this narrative? For decades, it has been entangled in a complex legacy marred by human rights abuses. Incidents such as the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam, the secret bombings in Cambodia, and abuses at Abu Ghraib have woven a quilt of complicity that spans more than seventy years of militaristic endeavors. Each atrocity deepens the bond of loyalty between the military and the regime in power.
The Fallacy of Historical Examples
Many invoke historical instances as reassurances that the military can act as a bulwark against tyranny. Moments like James Schlesinger’s intervention with military commanders during Nixon’s administration or General Mark Milley’s back-channel calls to reassure China are often cited. However, scrutiny reveals that none of these instances reflect outright refusal of unlawful orders; rather, they represent well-managed friction within a system primarily committed to obedience.
Purging Dissent: A System Under Transformation
The current military leadership landscape is troubling. As of late 2025, significant firings and purges have occurred within the military ranks, often targeting those who question orders or the legality of actions taken. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s rationale for these dismissals underscored a critical shift in command: eliminating “roadblocks” for compliance.
This trend reflects a broader strategy aimed at diminishing dissent within the military apparatus, thus ensuring heightened adherence to directives, irrespective of legality or moral implications.
The Mechanisms of Compliance
With each purge, the structures that would typically facilitate resistance are systematically dismantled. Legal advisors, the voices of caution regarding unlawful orders, have been sidelined or removed. Threats of polygraph tests and public firings serve as stark reminders to service members about the consequences of questioning directives. This signals a chilling environment where compliance trumps conscience.
The Reality of Obedience
Surveys indicating that a significant percentage of military personnel understand their duty to disobey unlawful orders may sound reassuring, but the reality is more complex. Historical evidence—such as Milgram’s obedience experiments—demonstrates that individuals often comply with authority figures, even when such compliance conflicts with their moral convictions. What the military tells pollsters about resisting orders is one thing; what they do in practice is another matter entirely.
Lessons from the Past: Kent State
Echoing this narrative, the Kent State incident of May 4, 1970, serves as a harrowing reminder of military consequences on American soil. National Guardsmen’s violent response to peaceful student protests resulted in four deaths and numerous injuries— a stark illustration of what can transpire under authority orders.
The Present-Day Military Deployment
Fast forward to June 2025, and the military’s role at home has only expanded. Thousands of troops have been deployed in cities across the United States, raising significant ethical and legal concerns. The establishment of a “Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force” indicates an unsettling alignment between military power and civil authority, further entrenching the military into domestic crises.
Historical Accountability and Authoritarianism
The architects of U.S. military strategy have been at work for decades, shaping an institution that increasingly mirrors authoritarian principles in service of elite interests. Individuals responsible for actions leading to war crimes often evade accountability, solidifying a culture that prioritizes loyalty to leadership over adherence to law.
The Missing Pieces of Resistance
When traditional pillars of democracy falter, who remains as a last resort? The answer lies in grassroots mobilization—community-driven efforts, local organizing, mutual aid, and city-level resistance to counteract an authoritarian slide. The understanding that no institutional cavalry will arrive is paramount; the responsibility falls onto us—ordinary citizens—to build a more resilient and just society.
Final Reflection on Individual Agency
Ultimately, if you seek the military’s intervention against tyranny, you may be waiting indefinitely. Instead, it’s essential to recognize the importance of self-organization and community resilience. We are left not with an institution poised to intervene but with each other, working collaboratively to safeguard our democracy and hold power accountable. The message is clear: understanding the military’s role is critical, but our greatest strength lies in our collective action.