Vote's open!
The CFC actually has vanishingly few Constitutional restraints on the use of military force. Generally, foreign deployments need to be approved by Congress -- you
are a parliamentary system -- but the Executive has exceptionally broad latitude within whatever constraints Congress has authorized. For instance, the authorization of force for the Erie War was, "We the Congress grant the President and their subordinate officers authority to prosecute the ongoing war with the Northern Confederation of Victoria." This on top of the existing emergency powers separately granted. Which is not typically how such authorizations are worded. Even the AoF for Iraq 2003 was more tightly phrased.
A good part of the reason the authorizations are that broad is because the Commonwealth was directly born out of a colossal provocation of the Victorian state, in the form of massacring a lot of what Victoria claimed to be aid workers. The Commonwealth was born into a broad, multipartisan consensus that they were going to have to be fighting
multiple existential conflicts, possibly before they were able to set up a unified taxation scheme. A benchmark of which you have fallen short only because the Battle of Detroit and Operation Foil were part of the same conflict. So yeah, the Constitution is extremely quiet about the Executive's bounds on the use of military force save that the Congress must have authorized it in some fashion.
(The expectation is that, once times are calmer, the Constitution shall be revised to reflect a new security environment where maximizing the President's fast-twitch response time on deploying a division of regulars to high-intensity combat is no longer the most relevant factor. This is expected because -- and it has been
literal years since this came up -- the Constitution goes for Conventions every thirty years under the current drafting.)
((There is also a mess of cultural things bound up in this where -- scars of Trump or not -- Americans culturally
expect the head of state to demonstrate vigorous and effective leadership, and thus despite the American Leadership Party's demands to strengthen the Presidency, the Commonwealth President is
already an abnormally powerful head of government/state by parliamentary standards. Not to mention how abnormal having a single, combined head of state and government is for parliamentary systems, but that there is another American expectation of political leadership, with the sheer fact of having won a popular election leading to the -- normative, our current era is very unusual -- investiture of the very legitimacy of the American state within the person who is also the head of government.))
4x are operational, another 4x can be brought back to life with grease work and supplies, and who knows if we can resurrect the last 9 outside of a proper factory refurb(the GM knows).
You have four, you will eventually have eight. The remainder were just disassembled instantly and written off as spare parts. Their parts were stored in their own hangars to help with organization, but parts are all they are at this point.
I'm pretty sure the militia division was reorganized as part of the military training reform. It's members saw combat, fought alongside other commonwealth troops, there is no good reason to leave them as militia.
As noted, that was the Detroit militia; your territorial militias remain pretty practically hardwired to their mustering points.
Apparently the state capitals of Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska and Oklahoma, and both Dakota's were recaptured by the Old US.
Did these events happen?
And do these territories have any unique scars left from their unique shared experience.
I do have some efforts by the central government to retain control, yes. They just didn't really...work...in the end.
And not in particular. The federal interventions were mostly blips on the radar, in the end.
