Troops and marines deeply troubled by LA deployment: ‘Morale is not great’
Troops and marines deeply troubled by LA deployment: ‘Morale is not great’
Several service members told advocacy groups they felt like pawns in a political game and assignment was not necessary
Several service members told advocacy groups they felt like pawns in a political game and assignment was unnecessary
California national guards troops and marines deployed to Los Angeles to help restore order after days of protest against the Trump administration have told friends and family members they are deeply unhappy about the assignment and worry their only meaningful role will be as pawns in a political battle they do not want to join.
Three different advocacy organisations representing military families said they had heard from dozens of affected service members who expressed discomfort about being drawn into a domestic policing operation outside their normal field of operations. The groups said they have heard no countervailing opinions.
“The sentiment across the board right now is that deploying military force against our own communities isn’t the kind of national security we signed up for,” said Sarah Streyder of the Secure Families Initiative, which represents the interests of military spouses, children and veterans.
You're viewing a single thread.
this is a good thing to hear
Similar when they were doing border patrol in Texas.
Military training is kinda big on threat identification and assessment. You don't have to like the military to appreciate some of the stuff you can learn from it.
Protesting is not a threat to America. It's a threat to the people who are in charge.
That’s why it’s essential we keep it peaceful while we increase our numbers. If we are non-violent, we cannot be determined to be a domestic threat, and it’s the military’s duty to protect us.
If we are non-violent, TACO will just say "They're violent!" and a majority of this country, including our military, will believe him. Things can only go downhill from here.
Arm yourselves.
And if we're still non-violent, someone will join who isn't and ensure some violence exists. It's Plan 1A in the dictator playbook.
Yup, that too. There is no happy ending.
It's not the military's duty to protect protestors. Just as the police have no obligation to protect and serve citizens.
I wholeheartedly agree with regards to the cops and ICE.
But I actually completely disagree on that statement being applied to the NG and Marines.
I’d argue that the armed forced have a rather explicit duty to protect their own fellow citizens as best they can.
And if some dipshit commander orders the marines or CANG to actually open fire on US civilians, I really do think that the E4 mafia might have something to say about that, and that the commissioned officers and cops and ICE fascists might very quickly find themselves staring down the barrels of the deployed troops.
Put another way: if active duty troops are ordered to fire on unarmed protesters, I would not at all be shocked if the enlisted and noncoms refuse the orders and mutiny, up to and including fragging the officers who gave the orders if they keep pushing.
Orangeboi et al seem to think the troops are robots. They’re absolutely not.
I really hope you're right
One way or another, I feel like we’re all gonna see the answer to that question before this bullshit settles down in any meaningful way
It’s not the military’s duty to protect protestors.
The path of enlistment starts like this:
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same
Peaceful protest is our constitutional right.
The swearing-in of the President starts with something very similar, if not identical.
And yet, here we are.
Just because Trump isn't performing his duty doesn't mean that he doesn't have a duty.
My point was that that also applies to the military. Just because they have a duty to uphold the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that they will perform that duty.
Police rules of engagement is shockingly 0, cops kill anyone for any reason if they perceive even the slightest chance of a threat to themselves. The military has a rigorous 5-6 steps for using increasing amounts of violence from shouting to actually firing.
Maybe they can identify the actual threat and neutralize him.
You means the person(s) funding all of this?
/s
It's not. Unhappy people can lash out. You put a bunch of angry people on the riot control line, and they might start hitting people. It's all downhill from there.
Low morale/dissatisfaction =/= anger. They’re more likely to be uncomfortable and unwilling to use violence against protesters, especially since they are significantly more trained to identify threats than police are. They know these protesters are not a threat, and all their training and rules of engagement tell them to not engage.
While I generally agree that dissatisfaction != anger, soldiers who are repeatedly given orders they know are bullshit and that they strongly disagree with typically tend to get pissed at the people issuing those orders.
"Man we don't want to be here this is stupid, guess I'll just fucking murder a bunch of people to feel better"
MobHerd mentalityYou're making a lot of wild leaps from "I don't feel good about being here and being used life this" to "I want to hit people!" even if they did, the people they want to hit are the ones who sent them there. And that's also good.