Could 'lead to bloodshed': Military experts fear Trump’s use of soldiers against civilians

13 January

After winning the 2024 election, Donald Trump doubled down on his promise to declare a national emergency, invoke the Insurrection Act and use the U.S. military for mass deportations. And the president-elect has also said he would use the military to quell possible protests if they turn violent.

But many of the president-elect's critics think that using the Insurrection Act in the ways that Trump has proposed is a very bad idea, including some veterans.

Politico's Michael Hirsh examines the opposition to Trump's Insurrection Act proposal in an article published on January 13.

Hirsh reports, "One fear is that domestic deployment of active-duty troops could lead to bloodshed given that the regular military is mainly trained to shoot at and kill foreign enemies. The only way to prevent that is establishing clear 'rules of engagement' for domestic deployments that outline how much force troops can use — especially considering constitutional restraints protecting U.S. citizens and residents — against what kinds of people in what kinds of situations. And establishing those new rules would require a lot more training, in the view of many in the military community."

The last U.S. president who invoked the Insurrection Act was Republican George H.W. Bush during the Los Angeles riots in 1992. Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Marvin Covault, who commanded the "Joint Task Force L.A." that year, told Politico that he was careful to avoid deadly force and cautioned soldiers that they were "deployed in the civilian world."

Covault warned, "Everything I hear is that our training is in the shitter. I'm not sure we have the kind of discipline now, and at every leader level, that we had 32 years ago. That concerns me about the people you're going to put on the ground…. If we get fast and loose with rules of engagement or if we get into operations without a stated mission and intent, we're going to be headline news — and it's not going to be good."

U.S. Naval Academy historian Brian VanDeMark has strong reservations about the using the military in response to large protests.

VanDeMark told Politico, "Soldiers are trained predominately to fight, kill and win wars. Local police and state police are far better trained to deal with the psychology of crowds, which can become inherently unpredictable, impulsive and irrational. If you're not well trained to cope, your reaction might be inadequate and turn to force."

An attorney who, according to Hirsh, has "studied many cases of military-civilian conflict," fears that the incoming Trump Administration could abuse the Insurrection Act.

The attorney told Politico, "I think things are going to be bad, really bad. This is going to be worse than last time. Trump is angry. He desperately wants to turn on his TV and see guys in uniform on the streets."

Read the full Politico article at this link.

From Your Site Articles