Deployed military personnel in Los Angeles, including California National Guard troops and Marines, are expressing deep dissatisfaction with their assignment amidst ongoing protests against the Trump administration. Conversations with family members reveal a troubling sentiment among these service members; they feel uncomfortable being utilized as tools in a political conflict that they never sought to be part of.
Three advocacy organizations—voices for military families—report a stream of troubling messages from service members. They emphasize that the majority share an unease about participating in domestic policing operations, which greatly diverge from their expected duties. Sarah Streyder from the Secure Families Initiative, dedicated to representing military families, conveyed a profound sense of discontent: “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.” Families are not only worried about their loved ones’ safety but also about how their military service is being leveraged to justify potentially controversial actions.
Chris Purdy, affiliated with the Chamberlain Network that seeks to enable veterans to protect democratic values, echoed this distress, stating, “Morale is not great”—a sentiment underscored by multiple sources.
The situation escalated when President Trump unilaterally ordered the deployment of 4,000 National Guard members to Los Angeles, bypassing California’s Governor Gavin Newsom. The President claimed that the city faced imminent danger from violent protests, describing it as “obliterated” without military intervention. Yet, the protests—sparked initially by aggressive federal actions toward undocumented immigrants and exacerbated by the troop deployment—have predominantly been peaceful, limited in scope around federal buildings in downtown Los Angeles.
Despite the atmosphere of unrest, the National Guard’s engagement appears minimal. During the largest demonstration, they were effectively sidelined, remaining confined to staging areas, guardedly watching rather than actively participating in crowd management. Their deployment has included guarding buildings and assisting federal law enforcement with immigration enforcement, stripped of any arrest authority.
Governor Newsom condemned the buoyant military presence in LA, labeling it a “provocation” and asserting that the service members are being misused. Disturbing photographs emerged, showing National Guard troops sleeping uncomfortably on concrete docks without proper bedding or amenities. Reports indicated that these troops arrived unequipped with adequate food and water supplies, raising serious concerns about their welfare during this contentious assignment.
Public sentiment reflected disapproval regarding these military deployments and the broader context of Trump’s immigration policies. Various polls revealed a significant portion of the populace disagreeing with the national guard and Marine involvement, aligning with a general disdain for Trump’s tactics regarding immigration.
Though active service members cannot publicly voice their opinions due to legal restrictions, advocates like Streyder have relayed numerous indirect complaints from families. One illustrative remark from a National Guard member described the assignment as “shitty” compared to previous deployments focused on community support, such as wildfire management or aiding vaccination efforts during the pandemic. This contrasting perspective underscores the unique nature of the current mission, marked by a sense of disillusionment among personnel.
Marines from Twentynine Palms have similarly voiced trepidation about their role in the situation. Marine Corps veteran Janessa Goldbeck described conversations where troops felt they were being manipulated as political pawns, complicating their long-standing apolitical stance. The overall sentiment among Marines appears to be that their involvement is unwarranted, given the current context of protests.
This conversation leads to a deeper examination of military engagement in domestic law enforcement. Advocates argue that the current assignment conflates civilian and military responsibilities, undermining the foundational principle that military personnel should not be engaged in politically charged situations. “The military is a tool that should be used as a last resort, not a first response,” Streyder asserted.
Similar discontent extends beyond California, as seen in Texas, where National Guard units faced their own complications from political deployments. Under Governor Greg Abbott’s directives, deployments frequently blurred the lines of responsibility, leading to significant morale issues, leaving service members feeling undervalued and misdirected.
The inherent risks of integrating military personnel with local police forces fuel further safety concerns. The distinctly different training and operational philosophies that govern military and law enforcement can lead to potentially dangerous misunderstandings. A historical reference to the 1992 Los Angeles riots illustrates this tension; miscommunication between military personnel and police could have resulted in severe consequences—a reminder that domestic crowd control does not fall under military expertise.
Advocates highlight the necessity of maintaining clear boundaries between military operations and civilian law enforcement. The current situation, they argue, risks undermining this critical separation, a principle deeply embedded in military culture.
In conclusion, the sentiments expressed by deployed troops in Los Angeles signify a broader discontent within the armed services regarding their use in politically motivated missions. As these service members navigate this turbulent political climate, family voices echo their concerns. The disparate treatment of military personnel and operational confusion only exacerbate their unease, with advocates emphasizing the necessity for separation between civic and military responsibilities. The ramifications of this deployment extend beyond California, indicating a troubling trend in the use of military assets within the United States.
Source link
