When the plan was announced by Former President Donald Trump for the U.S. military to aid the law enforcement in American cities, several officials raised internal concerns. There was uncertainty regarding adequate training for the troops being deployed and warnings regarding the implications of such actions. These implications included socially, politically, and operation-wise long-lasting effects. Records show that these issues were especially pertinent when planning for operations in places like MacArthur Park, Los Angeles.
An internal document sheds light on the risks entailed with using troops to guard agents, who were implementing Trump’s harsh immigration policies within the park. The risk was evaluated as ‘extremely high’ not only for civilians but also for the troops and for the reputation of the armed forces. A number of risks were considered, such as protests turning into a full-blown riot and possibilities of miscommunication among the troops which can lead to ‘fratricide’. Risks also included accidental harm to civilians, including children, which was a crucial part of the operations planning document.
These internal military reports and exchanges were brought to light during a court hearing of a lawsuit filed by California Governor Gavin Newsom. This paints an unfiltered picture of the thought processes and concerns military commanders had when Trump disregarded a long-respected tradition of not using the military for domestic law enforcement, especially against the wishes of local officials.
Since 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines were sent to Los Angeles to suppress protest surrounding immigration arrests, Trump has also dispatched the National Guard to Washington and is pondering over extending the military presence in other cities. The military response in Los Angeles was coordinated with the help of military lawyers, who outlined the rules of escalation and engagement to better manage the risks associated with the deployment.
An undated document, labeled ‘Los Angeles Civil Unrest SRUF’ (Standing Rules for the Use of Force), discloses that due to the significant implications of a military operation in the domestic realm, the consequences of a few soldiers’ errors could be far-reaching and impact not only the social and political climate but also operational matters.
The deployment of National Guard troops during a crisis, like a natural disaster, is a common procedure and is controlled by the state governors. However, the troops in Los Angeles were put into federal service by the president. Governor Newsom alleged that their role has been law enforcement-oriented, which contradicts an 1878 law known as the Posse Comitatus Act. On the contrary, the Trump administration argued that their role was only to protect federal buildings and personnel, including immigration officials.
The court is yet to deliver its verdict regarding the matter. A spokesperson for Governor Newsom declared that the lawsuit’s proof suggests that the deployment was essentially political posturing and was intended to oppress our communities. Only a handful of troops are still remaining.
Once the troops were sent to Los Angeles, Trump vowed to ‘liberate’ the city. Against this backdrop, Army officials were internally debating whether the ‘civil disturbance training’ of three hours was adequate given the prevailing circumstances in the city. ‘Is this training sufficient in lowering the risk exposure given Los Angeles’ current state? This is an impartial question’, asked a U.S. Army officer to fellow officers. However, no responses to this question were disclosed in the court documents.
To tackle the risks, military planners conducted dry runs at a base in Los Alamitos, California, and provided training based on the rules of engagement.
The operation in MacArthur Park eventually lasted for an hour and it seemed to proceed without incident. The city’s mayor later dismissed the operation as a ‘political stunt’.
The Department of Homeland Security did not directly comment on the circumstances of the MacArthur Park operation or provide specifics regarding any consequent arrests. However, it did disclose that its Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol units had made over 5,000 arrests in Los Angeles since June.
While the planning stages for the operation in the park were still ongoing, military leaders were already distributing their insights gleaned from Los Angeles to officers in other regions likely to be affected by similar deployments.
A national security professor voiced his concerns about such deployments as well. He stated, ‘Placing soldiers in these intense situations puts them in a severely precarious position — there is also a risk that such actions can tarnish the reputation of the U.S. military and erode the wide-ranging support it enjoys among the American populace’.
The document outlining the rules for engagement ended with a ‘cautionary tale’ featuring a Marine who was involved in a joint operation with Border Patrol agents in Texas in 1997. The Marine ended up fatally shooting a teenager who was holding a rifle. Despite never facing legal consequences, three grand juries conducted investigations into the shooting.
The incident from Texas remains a compelling lesson about the scrutiny that military personnel actions are subjected to when they resort to force. Their decisions, actions and the rules they abide by could potentially face extensive external examination from various levels.
The post Former President Trump’s Controversial Troop Deployment: Uncovered Internal Concerns appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
