Some are quietly pushing back against the president's threat to send troops to states without governors' consent.
The president had barely finished his remarks in the Rose Garden late on Monday afternoon, when senior retired and currently serving U.S. military officers weighed in on his threat to deploy military units to help end the nationwide demonstrations resulting from the killing of George Floyd.
While declaring he was an “ally of all peaceful protesters,” Trump described the disturbances as “domestic acts of terror” and called on local law enforcement officials to “dominate the streets” to end them. But Trump’s payoff quote sounded more like an explicit threat than a political ploy: “If a city or state refuses to take the actions necessary to defend the life and property of their residents,” he announced, “then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.”
Trump’s proposal was immediately controversial, and particularly in the U.S. military. Some currently serving and retired military officers supported what he said, but many others were infuriated—a marked contrast to the months-long reign of silence among senior officers on the subject of Donald Trump on internet discussion networks. Was Trump’s statement a mistake? “Huge,” a senior retired Army general officer told me. “A lot of troops agreed with Trump when he [said] he wanted to end the ‘dumb wars in the Middle East.’ Not sure they will agree with him when he tells them to fight wars in the Midwest.”
This senior officer’s remarks followed a nearly public show of discomfort with an earlier statement from Secretary of Defense and West Point graduate Mark Esper. During Trump’s Monday afternoon discussion with state governors on how best to quell the protests, the defense secretary weighed in with his own solution. “The sooner that you mass and dominate the battlespace the sooner this dissipates and we can get back to the right normal,” Esper said during the conversation, which was later leaked to the media.
Within hours, retired senior officers and former Pentagon officials provided a scathing response to Esper that reflected the views of many inside the building. “When his secretary of defense says that they have to ‘dominate the battlespace’ it means equating Americans to an enemy and waging war on your own citizens,” Ray Mabus, Navy secretary under former President Barack Obama told Politico.
“This is just a really bad look and, honestly, I think it’s an embarrassment. It’s unnecessarily inflammatory. We should be looking for a way to deescalate the situation, not make it worse,” retired Col. Kevin Benson, a West Point graduate and former director of the Army’s School of Advanced Military Studies, told TAC. “It made my head spin. What in the world is the Secdef doing talking about our own cities as battlespaces?”
Pentagon officials have since defended Esper’s statement, telling reporter Paul D. Shinkman that Esper was “using the terms that we have,” and that “nothing should be read into the use of that term to denote anything other than it’s a common term to denote the area that we are operating in.”
Despite this, senior military officers claim that, at the very least, the appearance of Esper and J.C.S Chairman Mark Milley walking just behind Trump in the wake of his Rose Garden address signaled their agreement with his threat to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 to dampen the civil disturbances that have roiled the country. The nearly universal view among legal experts is that Trump may well be within his rights to do so.
But many military officer offer this cautionary warning. “The statement is controversial and it’s premature,” a Pentagon civilian familiar with the legal ramifications of such an action told me. “So far at least, no one has asked for help.”
According to the act, the president has the authority to deploy the military to states that are unable to put down insurrections or are defying federal law. But according to Pentagon officials, the act has been used sparingly and only when local law enforcement authorities, or a state’s National Guard, are unable to respond effectively to quell riots or enforce federal law—and only after the president issues a proclamation “ordering the insurgents to disperse within a limited time.”
U.S. Presidents have invoked the act, sending troops into the South during Reconstruction, to enforce desegregation orders in the 1950s and to help put down civil disturbances, as George H.W. Bush did in 1992 when he ordered the military to help Los Angeles authorities respond to civil disturbances after the police beating of Rodney King.
In fact, the 1992 Los Angeles incident is commonly cited by senior military officers who argue that the act be used sparingly. “Bush’s order deploying the military to L.A. came as a complete surprise,” one senior officer recalls. “We were running around trying to buy up every map of L.A. we could lay our hands on.”
But military officers also confirm that the simple appearance of federal troops on American streets has had a calming effect, at least historically. When troopers of the 82nd Airborne Division deployed to Detroit after four days of rioting (as close to an open “rebellion” as any disturbance in U.S. history), attacks against the police and National Guard ceased. “The appearance of actual soldiers who know what they’re doing seems to signal the seriousness of the situation,” a retired Colonel who consults regularly on military matters with the J.C.S. says. “That was certainly true in Detroit and it was true in L.A. It’s almost like everyone said, ‘hey, let’s do something else tonight.’”
There is little disagreement with that sentiment, even if the retired community scratched their head over a tweet issued by Sen. Tom Cotton: “If local law enforcement is overwhelmed, if local politicians will not do their most basic job to protect our citizens,” Cotton said, “let’s see how these anarchists respond when the 101st Airborne is on the other side of the street.” The statement brought an eye roll from one retired officer. “[I’m] not sure we want to test that premise,” he said.
As crucially, senior Pentagon officials concede that one of the problems faced by any military units deployed domestically is that it is increasingly difficult to distinguish them from highly militarized and mechanized local and state law enforcement units—a national problem that the disturbances have highlighted. Additionally, senior military officers worry that what federal troops can do and what the president thinks they can do might well be two different things, a view that has highlighted the growing civil-military divide that is now a feature of Trump’s presidency.
One senior military officer was outspoken in his opposition to Trump’s use of the military for domestic purposes, citing J.C.S. Chairman Mark Milley’s appearance, in camouflage, alongside Trump when the president crossed Lafayette Square on his way to St. John’s Church. “I watched this and thought, ‘what the hell are you doing?”
The problems may, in fact, go much deeper—as even Trump supporters in the military, and in the highly influential senior retired military community, wonder whether currently serving officers would push back against a Trump directive that military units be deployed without the express request of local authorities. “No can do. It’s that simple. This has to be a legal order,” one of the retired senior officers with whom I spoke emphasized. “And I would bet the military will quietly, but firmly hold Trump to that. ‘You want us to go into these cities, fine, but you have to cross the ts and dot the i’s or we’re not going to do it.”
Another officer with a lifetime of service, including in U.S. war zones, was even more outspoken, speculating that the military is so uneasy with Trump that sending the military into a domestic battleground would come at a high political cost. “If Milley doesn’t want the military to be seen as Trump’s Praetorian Guard, they [senior military officers] better be ready to resign.”
#1: noone222 To: Ada (#0)
In Trump's defense the situation is bad enough without appearing to be at the ready to kill everyone. Trump had to allow the States to act in their own best interest and that of the people of each State. If the State officials fail to exercise prudent acts to stop the violence and destruction then Trump has every right to do so.
Trump is the President while I'm not. I would have already given shoot to kill orders for anyone looting, burning, vandalizing, or assaulting innocent bystanders or peaceful protesters.
noone222 posted on 2020-06-03 08:32:16 Reply Private Reply
#2: Fred Mertz To: noone222 (#1)
There is no need for that.
Tramp said the right thing saying governors of some states didn't do their duties.
Tramp said he'd step in if it continued with federal forces and the military.
I'm no law enforcement embracer, but in this case he's right.
Fred Mertz posted on 2020-06-03 08:43:47 Reply Private Reply
#3: noone222 To: Fred Mertz (#2)
If you're speaking about civilians taking the law into their own hands I'd say it's a last resort when there isn't sufficient official action being taken.
noone222 posted on 2020-06-03 09:02:12 Reply Private Reply
#4: Fred Mertz To: noone222 (#3)
No, civilians don't need to take the law into their own hands.
Most of us are law abiding.
Fred Mertz posted on 2020-06-03 11:36:54 Reply Private Reply
#5: Cynicom To: Ada (#0)
Ada...Third sentence in...nationwide demonstrations resulting from the killing of George Floyd. .....
See anything wrong there????
Cynicom posted on 2020-06-03 11:52:57 Reply Private Reply
#6: Ada To: Cynicom (#5)
No.
Ada posted on 2020-06-03 14:25:25 Reply Private Reply
#7: Cynicom To: Ada (#6)
Killed......is by object or intent.
Cynicom posted on 2020-06-03 16:34:20 Reply Private Reply
#8: Ricky To: Ada (#0)
Should Be Played 20 times per day on Every Channel
Chris Rock - How not to get your ass kicked by the police!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8
Ricky posted on 2020-06-03 16:42:21 Reply Private Reply
#9: NeoconsNailed To: Cynicom (#7)
NeoconsNailed posted on 2020-06-03 16:57:51 Reply Private Reply
#10: NeoconsNailed To: Ada, All (#0)
Only one thing was needed in the current crisis -- police chiefs (or sheriffs, or mayors or whoever) to give a shoot to kill order on looting and destroying.
There's no contest or discussion about it. Like the pre-1965 immigration laws the and other nice simple things that used to work perfectly, this used to be the universal policy in America. It stops looters and destroyers cold.
The Masonic brethren running everything don't want solutions that work, though. 'Order via chaos' has always been the M.O. -- the 'order' being a demented, perverted Bizarro kind, of course.
NeoconsNailed posted on 2020-06-03 17:05:32 Reply Private Reply
#11: Cynicom To: NeoconsNailed (#9)
Skool...English class was required
Cynicom posted on 2020-06-03 17:06:48 Reply Private Reply
#12: Cynicom To: NeoconsNailed (#9)
My English teacher was correct.
Cynicom posted on 2020-06-03 17:13:44 Reply Private Reply
#13: NeoconsNailed To: Cynicom (#12)
NeoconsNailed posted on 2020-06-03 17:24:32 Reply Private Reply
#14: Cynicom To: NeoconsNailed (#13)
Cynicom posted on 2020-06-03 17:28:23 Reply Private Reply
#15: NeoconsNailed To: Cynicom (#14)
Are you agreeing with me that he's almost certainly still alive, or that somebody other than the police killed him?
NeoconsNailed posted on 2020-06-03 17:54:08 Reply Private Reply
#16: Cynicom To: NeoconsNailed (#15)
Proper use of English language.
I passed with D average.
Cynicom posted on 2020-06-03 18:57:10 Reply Private Reply
#17: NeoconsNailed To: Cynicom (#16)
NeoconsNailed posted on 2020-06-03 19:04:21 Reply Private Reply
#18: Cynicom To: NeoconsNailed (#17)
Same English lesson will tell one that word,,,YOU...is accusatory in nature unless accompanied by a modifier. Therefore YOU...should be used with caution.
English lesson, I passed with a D.
Cynicom posted on 2020-06-03 19:10:25 Reply Private Reply
#19: Ada To: Cynicom, neoconsnailed (#7)
The airplane crash killed everyone on board. Unless it was TWA 800, they were not murdered.
Ada posted on 2020-06-03 21:11:40 Reply Private Reply
#20: Cynicom To: Ada (#19)
He DIED. A jury will decide if he was KILLED.
Even the Coroner and Baden said, "he died".
Cynicom posted on 2020-06-03 21:20:33 Reply Private Reply
#21: BTP Holdings To: Ada (#19)
The same thing happened to Flight 191 at Chicago-O'Hare 41 years ago.
They lost an engine because maintenance men pulled a shortcut trying to save time and took the engine and engine mount off in one piece and not separately as specified in the manual. ;)
BTP Holdings posted on 2020-06-03 21:27:56 Reply Private Reply
#22: NeoconsNailed To: Cynicom (#18)
NeoconsNailed posted on 2020-06-03 22:18:00 Reply Private Reply
#23: StraitGate To: NeoconsNailed (#22)
Who's "we" NN? You got a little Nazi in your pocket?
(Oh, sometimes I kill me!)
StraitGate posted on 2020-06-03 22:25:56 Reply Private Reply
#24: Cynicom To: NeoconsNailed, All, We (#22)
"""WE"""
Name second person???? Perhaps there is a second person here, short on language and social discourse ability?
Cynicom posted on 2020-06-04 02:02:18 Reply Private Reply
#25: NeoconsNailed To: Cynicom (#24)
That still won't help you, because either way it's what Chauvin put Floyd thru that killed him either way -- if the TV version of events is to be believed. And everybody here seems to be believing that in view of (e.g.) the fact that I put up 3 pages on why it's a hoax and they got no comments and few views.
NeoconsNailed posted on 2020-06-04 08:17:06 Reply Private Reply
#26: NeoconsNailed To: Cynicom (#20)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-glioblastoma-the- cancer-that-killed-john-mccain-so-deadly/
NeoconsNailed posted on 2020-06-04 08:19:52 Reply Private Reply
#27: BTP Holdings To: NeoconsNailed (#26)
Dr. Otto Warburg discovered a cure for cancer. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine. But Hitler refused to allow him to pick it up because of the war.
If he never picked it up he forfeited and it was awarded to someone else.
The AMA suppressed all of this to keep people on expensive and ineffective chemotherapy.
There are just as many incompetent doctors that kill people as there are diseases. ;)
BTP Holdings posted on 2020-06-04 08:37:59 Reply Private Reply
#28: NeoconsNailed To: BTP Holdings (#27)
Where dijew hear that? It doesn't sound at ALL like the real Uncle Adolf.
NeoconsNailed posted on 2020-06-04 09:51:31 Reply Private Reply
#29: BTP Holdings To: NeoconsNailed (#28)
I was reading where Warburg was making speeches against the Nazis. The SS wanted to take him to the camps. But they received a personal call from Hitler telling them, "Allow him to go back to his work."
Hitler had polyps on his vocal chords when younger and he was deathly afraid of cancer. ;)
BTP Holdings posted on 2020-06-04 15:44:59 Reply Private Reply
#30: NeoconsNailed To: BTP Holdings (#29)
NeoconsNailed posted on 2020-06-04 16:20:50 Reply Private Reply
#31: X-15 To: Ada (#0)
I don't recall reading about any "troubled military leaders" when Pres. Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne into Little Rock in 1957....
X-15 posted on 2020-06-04 17:20:13 Reply Private Reply
#32: BTP Holdings To: X-15 (#31)
That was to enforce desegregation. I was just a little tyke when that happened. ;)
BTP Holdings posted on 2020-06-04 18:04:48 Reply Private Reply
#33: Cynicom To: BTP Holdings (#32)
I was there during desegregation. Of 75 flight crews, we had one black and one Jew among 800 men. Blacks drove the trucks, Jews did the office paperwork. There were many Latinos of all ranks, never any problem.
Cynicom posted on 2020-06-04 18:18:09 Reply Private Reply
#34: FormerLurker To: Cynicom, NeoconsNailed (#18)
Does it matter what the modifier is?
What if the modifier is the work "suck"?
Does the phrase "Thou do suck" carry the same weight?
Sorry, couldn't resist.. LOL
FormerLurker posted on 2020-06-04 18:34:45 Reply Private Reply