Several Republican-led states have recently dispatched National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., following assertions from President Donald Trump regarding a ‘crime emergency’ in the capital. The deployments have sparked concerns among lawmakers and military officials alike, particularly from former National Guard official Major Gen. Randy E. Manner, who fear that the Guard is being politicized in a manner which may have lasting implications.
Manner voiced his apprehensions during an interview, pointing out that the visible presence of military vehicles and armed personnel creates an aura of intimidation among civilians, particularly communities of color.
‘Military vehicles in front of public buildings and the idea of them constantly there with weapons, that is absolutely called intimidation,’ stated Manner, who previously served as the acting vice chief of the National Guard Bureau.
Despite ongoing protests and legal challenges, President Trump has pushed for an expanded federal presence in D.C., despite data from the Justice Department indicating that violent crime rates in the city were at a 30-year low in the previous year.
Recently, Republican governors from various states—including West Virginia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, Ohio, and Tennessee—have justified sending their National Guard members to the capital, aligning their rationale with Trump’s claims about crime in D.C.
For instance, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster has stated that his state’s troops are present in D.C. to ‘support President Trump in his mission to restore law and order.’
Conversely, Vermont Governor Phil Scott, also a Republican, made a clear stance against the deployment, stating that sending troops to D.C. would not be an acceptable use of the National Guard.
Similarly, Democratic Governor Laura Kelly of Kansas, chair of the Democratic Governors Association, urged state leaders to counter any inclination to send troops, framing such a move as yielding to a politically motivated agenda.
Manner argues strongly against the appropriateness of deploying troops to D.C., asserting that the National Guard’s training is not aligned with policing duties. He emphasized that their primary responsibilities lie in support operations, which include providing assistance in times of domestic crises such as natural disasters, rather than conducting law enforcement.
‘This is absolutely a law enforcement operation in the very best of cases,’ Manner elaborated. ‘It does not require National Guardsmen or active duty military. No matter what anyone says, this does not meet the criteria for deployment.’
In emphasizing the negative consequences of using the National Guard in this capacity, Manner expressed concerns about military readiness. He explained that deploying troops to D.C. diverts personnel away from their units, diminishing their preparedness for overseas deployments or responding to natural disasters.
‘The sad thing is this is a political prop. Our young soldiers and airmen are political props,’ he reflected, criticizing the implications of such deployments on the lives of active service members.
He highlighted the sacrifices that National Guard members make, noting that many earn more in their civilian jobs than in military service, leading to issues around morale and commitment.
In light of these events, Manner is also concerned about the long-term perception of the National Guard among the American populace. Drawing on his extensive experience, he compared the current situation to the post-9/11 era when National Guardsmen were stationed at airports to foster a sense of security. He stated unequivocally that, unlike the reassurance intended during that time, the presence of military personnel on civilian streets poses a risk to democratic norms.
‘It is absolutely the way that dictatorships run, not democracies,’ Manner stressed.
Amidst the ongoing discussions surrounding the mission and engagement rules of these deployed troops, Manner indicated that the briefings provided to service members—though necessary—are insufficient for the gravity of potential policing actions.
‘Every soldier is supposed to have a plastic card in their pocket that explains exactly what they’re supposed to do. This is a very potentially dangerous situation. Again, it’s a police action, not a military action,’ he stated, reinforcing the disconnection between the National Guard’s training and the tasks they are being assigned in D.C.
As the situation evolves, the involvement of the National Guard in domestic law enforcement remains a contentious issue, drawing critiques that underscore the importance of maintaining the separation between military and civilian law enforcement duties. Concerns over the implications for military readiness and the proper role of the National Guard emphasize the need for a thorough examination of these deployments in the context of American democracy and civil rights.
In summary, as states contribute National Guard troops to support a politically charged agenda surrounding law and order, the ramifications of such actions continue to raise alarms over the potential for political manipulation of military forces and the impact on community relations.
image source from：npr
