[ad_1]
In mid-June, current and former military leaders strongly opposed calls by US President Trump to send US troops to quell nationwide protests against racial inequality sparked by a brutal incident in Minneapolis, where a white police officer killed the black George Floyd.
What would sending troops to quell the protests mean for the United States? Foreign Policy asked six military experts and security experts.
Americans can quickly find an “enemy”
John Allen, President of the Brookings Institution, General of the US Marine Reserve. USA And former commander of the NATO International Security Assistance Force and the US Force. USA In Afghanistan
Every member of the US Army. Whether active, a National Guard or Reserve soldier is sworn in “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies abroad and at home.”
This is his solemn oath on which his service to the United States is based. History has repeatedly shown that there are, in fact, periods when threats or unrest within a country reach a level where federal military intervention is needed to ensure peace.
But now is not one of those moments.
If the military in the United States assumed primary responsibility for law enforcement in the country, I fear that the American people could soon, unintentionally, become that “enemy.”
This is simply not acceptable, especially in this horrible moment of national grief caused by the assassination of George Floyd and pressure from COVID-19. And that’s certainly not what is needed from the American national leadership.
Sending troops against American citizens sends the wrong message at the wrong time and, ethically, goes against everything that Americans, as a nation, stand for. There are many things built into the card, so we can’t go wrong.
Donald trump
The call for the use of force must come from the governors.
Former Brigadier General and Senior Psychiatrist, US Army USA Loree Sutton, who is currently seeking the office of Mayor of New York
In almost 40 years of my service to the state as a psychiatrist in the US Army. The US, Reserve General and New York City Commissioner, I have learned to respect the trust, common sense, and legitimacy upon which the character and habits of principled leadership depend. Those responsible for managing American property, her daughter and son, know the moral consequences and personal agony of having to send troops into trouble.
The use of force must be considered with extreme caution and in common sense, even when necessary, reasonable and proportionate. If power is perceived differently at any level, local, state or federal, the structure of civil society begins to crumble.
Therefore, the question we should ask has more to do with whether federal forces should be dispatched to calm internal unrest, but whether the facts that exist at any time need further confirmation. And this decision must be made by the country’s governors, exercising their legal powers to do so. If so, federal soldiers must remain in their posts and camps.
Let the police and the National Guard take care of that
Dana Pittard, Commanding General of the US Army Reserve. USA And co-author of The Caliphate: America’s War on ISIS and the Dawn of the Strike Cell
This is certainly not the case when two former commanders of the US Army General. The US, General Martin Dempsey and Admiral Mike Mullen, with whom I have worked, feel the need to speak out against the use of the military on US soil to address a local crisis. This year, our country is going through a difficult period: a pandemic, unprecedented unemployment, as well as this advance of what has been accumulating for some time.
There have been cases where we have used the military to deal with internal crises in consultation with state governors. I don’t think we’re in that situation right now. Today, the police can deal with this, and the National Guard, by the way, is ready to respond to civil unrest.
The rhetoric of a repulsive leader, but not unprecedented.
Richard K. Betts, Director of the Saltzman Institute for Military and Peace Studies at Columbia University, Assistant to the Council on Foreign Affairs and author of the book American Force: Dangers, Delusions, and the Dilemmas in National Security External relationships)
Ironically, racists and rightists initially vehemently opposed the deployment of federal troops to quell local unrest, and now anti-racists and liberals condemn President Donald Trump’s attempt to do so. Some even claim that it would be illegal.
It was the White South and the Democratic Party that passed a law in 1878 that prohibited the use of federal military forces to enforce the law in the states (Posse Comitatus Act). This completed the transformation of the old confederation and ensured the obedience of African Americans. However, the legal ambiguity remained. The Rebellion Act of 1807 allowed the use of federal military forces and was used repeatedly, often to protect vulnerable black citizens.
In 1863, over a hundred African Americans were killed in so-called recruitment riots in New York. They were later suppressed by US soldiers and Marines along with troops from the state reserve. In 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower deployed some elements of the 101st Airborne Division and the Arkansas Federalized National Guard to protect schools from desegregation in Little Rock.
Five years later, John F. Kennedy sent military units to quell the white riots in protest of integration at the University of Mississippi. His successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, sent troops to quell the Detroit riots in 1967, and in 1968 he sent troops to quell Washington. George H.W. In 1992 Bush sent troops and marines to Los Angeles. In some of these cases, there was more violence than we see now, and in some cases less.
As usual, Trump’s rhetoric and actions are truly repulsive and disturbing, and his desire to use the military is unnecessary as long as the police and National Guard can cope. However, talking about the military’s illicit use to enforce the law would run counter to many historical precedents, and in many cases, more justice has been awarded than Trump’s contempt.
Our allies look with pale faces and mourning for our country
Harold Hongju Koh, professor of international law at Yale Law School, founder and editor of Just Security, worked as a legal advisor at the State Department from 2009 to 2013
At this crucial moment for personal political gain, the President of the United States used religion, the military, and the rule of law to play a masquerade that is completely unethical. He violated an essential biblical instruction to love one another and not consider each other as the embodiment of evil. It violates the basic principle of the military that civilian leaders do not send US troops to attack other citizens on US soil who peacefully exercise their constitutional rights.
And it violated the Basic Law and the instructions of the Constitution to respect “the right of the people to assemble peacefully and demand that the government consider and defend the complaint.” Congress did not authorize, and in fact even prohibited, the deployment of US troops on the streets of the United States, especially when citizens are acting legally by demanding the investigation of serious allegations of police brutality.
American allies around the world are looking with faded faces and crying for their revered country, humiliated by their leaders. At this historic moment, when we need strong leadership to resolve the toxic combination of pandemic, economic depression, and racial discord, it is a real pity that the General Staff, the Attorney General, and Republican lawmakers are allowing this unpleasant performance to take place. Don’t you have the decency, the will, the self-esteem and the love for this country?
Using the military for a political position would have the opposite effect
Peter Feaver, Professor of Political Science and Public Policy at Djuko University
There are several examples in which the National Guard and even the military have mobilized to calm public discontent. But even when law enforcement officers can no longer cope and the governors ask for help, a difficult mission usually awaits troops who don’t want to interfere. In the current situation, the governors did not ask for help.
President Trump is pushing federal units into a politically delicate situation and appears to be doing so for political reasons: a desire for politically damaging reports that the President is hiding in the White House basement, with more favorable images of him having control of everything.
Using the military as a “backdrop” to pose for journalists is what every administration has done in the modern era, but it comes at a high cost. In such cases, the military is involved in disagreements with the parties, and public opinion on the military’s competence and credibility as an institution is also affected.
If citizens are truly threatened and the police can no longer cope, then the public will surely be satisfied with the help of the military. However, if the army is used only to support the political position, the opposite result can be achieved.
[ad_2]
