When a government shows a clear and repeated pattern of abuses aimed at total control, the Declaration of Independence states that it’s the duty of the people to replace it. In reality, this duty falls primarily on the military, as they are uniquely capable of confronting entrenched corruption. For any military intervention to be legitimate, it must be transparent, demonstrating clear evidence of restoring lawful governance and protecting constitutional rights. The Counterinsurgency Warfare Manual emphasizes that successful operations rely on public trust, accountability, and sustained engagement. Q, a military psychological operation, actively raises public awareness of ongoing, repeated abuses, helping citizens recognize that military action is meant to defend constitutional order, not seize power. Crucially, intervention is justified only when there is a sustained effort to subvert the Constitution, not isolated incidents.

Any arguments?