The idea of troops in U.S. streets for an extended period of time -- an extreme measure even when temporary -- has now become close to a sacred consensus.
National Guard soldiers assemble near the U.S Capitol two days after the inauguration of U.S. President Joe Biden, on January 22, 2021 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Paul Hennessy/NurPhoto via Getty Images) Washington, DC has been continuously militarized beginning the week leading up to Joe Bidens inauguration, when 20,000 National Guard troops were deployed onto the streets of the nations capital. The original justification was that this show of massive force was necessary to secure the inauguration in light of the January 6 riot at the Capitol.
But with the inauguration over and done, those troops remain and are not going anywhere any time soon. Working with federal law enforcement agencies, the National Guard Bureau announced on Monday that between 5,000 and 7,000 troops will remain in Washington until at least mid- March.
Type your email
Subscribe The rationale for this extraordinary, sustained domestic military presence has shifted several times, typically from anonymous U.S. law enforcement officials. The original justification the need to secure the inaugural festivities is obviously no longer operative.
So the new claim became that the impeachment trial of former President Trump that will take place in the Senate in February necessitated military reinforcements. On Sunday, Politico quoted four people familiar with the matter to claim that Trumps upcoming Senate impeachment trial poses a security concern that federal law enforcement officials told lawmakers last week requires as many as 5,000 National Guard troops to remain in Washington through mid- March.
The next day, AP, citing a U.S. official, said the ongoing troop deployment was needed due to ominous chatter about killing legislators or attacking them outside of the U.S. Capitol. But the anonymous official acknowledged that the threats that law enforcement agents are tracking vary in specificity and credibility. Even National Guard troops complained that they have so far been given no official justifications, threat reports or any explanation for the extended mission nor have they seen any violence thus far.
It is hard to overstate what an extreme state of affairs it is to have a sustained military presence in American streets. Prior deployments have been rare, and usually were approved for a limited period and/or in order to quell a very specific, ongoing uprising to ensure the peaceful segregation of public schools in the South, to respond to the unrest in Detroit and Chicago in the 1960s, or to quell the 1991 Los Angeles riots that erupted after the Rodney King trial.
Deploying National Guard or military troops for domestic law enforcement purposes is so dangerous that laws in place from the countrys founding strictly limit its use. It is meant only as a last resort, when concrete, specific threats are so overwhelming that they cannot be quelled by regular law enforcement absent military reinforcements. Deploying active military troops is an even graver step than putting National Guard soldiers on the streets, but they both present dangers. As Trumps Defense Secretary said in response to calls from some over the summer to deploy troops in response to the Black Lives Matter and Antifa protests: The option to use active duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort, and only in the most urgent and dire of situations."
Are we even remotely at such an extreme state where ordinary law enforcement is insufficient? The January 6 riot at the Capitol would have been easily repelled with just a couple hundred more police officers. The U.S. is the most militarized country in the world, and has the most para-militarized police force on the planet. Earlier today, the Acting Chief of the Capitol Police acknowledged that they had advanced knowledge of what was planned but failed to take necessary steps to police it.
Future violent acts in the name of right-wing extremism, as well as other causes, is highly likely if not inevitable. But the idea that the country faces some sort of existential armed insurrection that only the military can suppress is laughable on its face.
Recall that ABC News, on January 11, citing an internal FBI bulletin obtained by ABC News, claimed that starting this week and running through at least Inauguration Day, armed protests are being planned at all 50 state capitols and at the U.S. Capitol. The news outlet added in highly dramatic and alarming tones:
The FBI has also received information in recent days on a group calling for storming state, local and federal government courthouses and administrative buildings in the event President Donald Trump is removed from office prior to Inauguration Day. The group is also planning to storm government offices in every state the day President-elect Joe Biden will be inaugurated, regardless of whether the states certified electoral votes for Biden or Trump.