A new directive recently issued calls for the National Guard to maintain a ready detachment with the goal of maintaining public security and dampening civil unrest. History reflects that a certain leader has long desired his own unique force – a collective of armed personnel that he could mobilize to silence detractors, challenge his adversaries, and broadly apply the menace of violence to enforce his will. This backdrop helps explain why, in his initial term, he routinely used social media to post warnings about ‘policemen, cyclists, and military personnel’ poised to execute violent acts on his behalf. This context lends itself to the executive order he signed very recently, entitled ‘FURTHER PROCEDURES TO ADDRESS THE LAW AND ORDER EMERGENCY IN THE CAPITAL’.
Although this directive primarily focuses on the leader’s consolidation of control over local law enforcement, it conceals certain ominous language that commands Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to ‘guarantee the readiness of a standing National Guard rapid response unit that shall be equipped, prepared and prepared for immediate nationwide dispatch.’ This team would stand ready ‘to aid federal, state, and local law enforcement in subduing civil unrest and maintaining public safety and order.’ This decision appears to bring to life a Department of Defense strategy reported by The Washington Post just a few weeks earlier. It proposes a squad of 600 soldiers be prepared for dispatch to any location within the nation at the leader’s behest.
This strategy hinted the force would be utilized to dampen demonstrations or civil disorder. The incorporation of it into an executive order ostensibly aimed at tackling common criminality implies the idea is being taken a step further. However, a fundamental issue remains, the National Guard is not a law enforcement agency. It is a military entity primarily governed by the authority of state administration. National Guard troops are not typically trained to quell protests, patrol streets, or apprehend individuals for petty offenses such as open container violations.
Moreover, in the United States, a crucial precedent has been set that separates the role of the military from that of domestic policing. The roles undertaken by police and military personnel are fundamentally distinctive. Police officers are mandated to maintain harmony while upholding citizen rights, whereas soldiers are tasked with eliminating enemy combatants. The suggestion of habitual domestic deployment of the military was largely considered a grave concern by those first establishing the nation.
Under the direction of Hegseth, it can be reasonably presumed that troop units will consist of soldiers whose loyalty is primarily to the leader. However, the plan for rapid dispatch is predicted to face legal objections. Previous deployments represented the first time in U.S. history that a leader federalized and mobilized Guard troops within a state contrary to the opposition of that state’s governor. This scheme effectively attempts to normalize this breach in traditional procedure as an enduring component of federal policy.
Concerns similar to those of retired Major General Randy Manner — the former second in command of the National Guard and the deputy commanding general of Army units in the Middle East — were recently expressed to a correspondent from MSNBC. He questioned, ‘Shouldn’t the idea of the U.S. military patrolling our city streets disturb every individual in the United States?’ He went on to express his concern stating, ‘Military personnel, who are prepared to take lives, are not trained in law enforcement — on our streets. This should alarm every single person in the country.’
The leader and Hegseth have exerted significant effort to remove individuals harboring such views from the Department of Defense. Here’s hoping they overlooked a few.
The post National Guard Ready Unit: A New Tool for a Leader’s Control? appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
