Undaunted: The outspoken veterans

Unequivocal, courageous veterans who have come out and denounced Trump’s dangerous maneuver deserve our praise

Retired Major General Randy Manner, former Acting Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau, did what every politician, retired military official, and prominent figure should do when he spoke out to condemn the unnecessary, dangerous, and constitutionally unsound nationalization of our National Guard and their deployment (along with active-duty Marines) to the streets of Los Angeles.

Speaking to NPR (which Donald Trump would like to defund), he explained, “There's at least two primary unintended consequences for the average American, no matter whether you live in a blue county or a red county.” First, he argued Trump “absolutely is trying to intimidate the average peaceful demonstrator, because most of those demonstrators are actually peaceful.” In addition to “suppressing freedom of speech,” Trump is trampling on the rights of California. “A duly elected governor is elected by the people to guide the state, protect the people,” he said. “And unfortunately, here we have a federal authority coming in and suppressing that governor and the people of a particular state.”

These quintessentially conservative principles—protection of the 1^st Amendment and federalism—once had the support of the Republican Party. No more. Beyond that, Trump is putting the wrong forces in a place where they have not been trained to operate.

Manner pointed out that the governor could deploy these guardsmen if needed, though Gavin Newsom has reiterated numerous times that they were not necessary. Moreover, “It’s important to note that the National Guard is not trained on a ready-to-go situation for doing civil disturbance. It requires additional training on literally sitting in the armory and working things out.” The unnecessary deployment of manpower is costly, depriving the military of funds and personnel to do its actual job. “It is something that the president will have to reallocate and the secretary of defense will reallocate from other programs that would obviously affect readiness or military construction,” he said.

Since there is no widespread rioting and Los Angeles remains calm, boasting “sunny skies, peaceful streets, no hint of civil unrest or the federal government’s aggressive, militarized response”, it is far from clear what—if anything—all these troops are doing. Unlike the hysterical, sensationalist TV coverage, accurate reports affirm:

Despite Trump’s assertions that Los Angeles was beset by widespread lawlessness, a chaos he insisted could be quelled only by thousands of National Guard troops and Marines, the protests that have unfolded here since Friday in response to immigration raids have been mostly confined to a few downtown blocks.

They have featured sporadic violent clashes, which intensified as the sun set and organized rallies dispersed, prompting the mayor to impose a curfew for downtown Tuesday night. Overall, though, the crowds have not been especially large, and life in much of this sprawling metropolis has continued uninterrupted.

And for this, Trump is diverting forces from their assigned national security duties? Maybe, just maybe, the American people have perceived that this is another dangerous, useless, expensive stunt. It certainly does not appear to be helping his image. The latest Quinnipiac poll shows Trump's approval down to 38 percent, while his ratings on immigration and deportation are underwater by double digits.

Manner asked what every self-proclaimed supporter of the troops should be questioning: “[W]hat is the impact on readiness for the entire military when we start taking large formations like this out of the existing infrastructure?” Yet Republicans seem not to care. All they can do is cheer the unprecedented manipulation of national security to suit Trump’s ego, political agenda, and thirst for vengeance against Blue America.

In a separate interview with MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace, Manner stressed how unprecedented Trump’s actions were. “We would have never imagined ever doing this in this situation, to impede free speech, to impede what, quite frankly, for the majority of the people, has been peaceful demonstrations.” He reiterated how dangerous this was. Then he rightly put the onus on Congress to do its job: “Congress has got to step up and insist they have the authority to fund these kinds of operations.”

A group of military vets (former secretaries of the U.S. Army and Navy and retired four-star admirals and generals [who] served under each president from John F. Kennedy to Barack H. Obama) filed an amicus brief in California denouncing Trump’s action.

“Domestic deployments that fail to adhere to these long-established guardrails threaten the Guard’s and active-duty military’s core national security and disaster relief missions; place deployed personnel in dangerous situations for which they lack appropriate training, thus posing safety concerns for personnel and the public alike; and risk inappropriately politicizing the military, leading to additional risks to recruitment, retention, morale, and cohesion of the force,” they wrote.

Other retired military leaders have also spoken out. Former defense secretary Chuck Hagel (a veteran infantryman as well) denounced Trump’s misuse of forces. He dubbed the move a “grotesque overreach of federal authority” that was “clearly politicizing our military.”

Additional military vets include Retired Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré (“This is not normal”); Rear Admiral James McPherson (Ret.), Former U.S. Undersecretary of the Army (“Combat Marines are trained and exercise in just that, engaging in ground combat. They’re not trained and they do not exercise in crowd control or de-escalation or things like that”); and Retired Major General David Baldwin (“The National Guard works best when it’s under state control and can work hand in glove with its law enforcement partners at the state and local level. Federalization of the Guard creates a lot of challenges.”) Retired General Barry McCaffrey said bluntly, “This is a manufactured crisis.” He stressed, “We don’t want the U.S. Armed Services involved in domestic law.”

Each of these patriotic veterans has served their country in high-ranking military (and in some cases, civilian) roles. They are well-versed in military and constitutional law, in the necessity of a non-political military loyal to the Constitution—not to an individual—and in the dangers of overreacting to a minor civil disturbance. They have set an example for their peers, and frankly, for members of Congress who also took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Where are other retired vets and lawmakers? Is partisan advantage and/or cowardice going to silence others who carry similar stature to educate the public?

The unequivocal and courageous veterans who have denounced Trump’s dangerous maneuver deserve our praise. Their outspokenness comes at a critical time, when too many Republicans are cheering for a police state (“Tar and feather” the governor of California, demanded the Speaker of the House?!) and too few Democrats are speaking out, for fear of being labeled anti-military or pro-illegal immigrants.

Today, we salute the undaunted veterans who have chosen to lead.