5 ms·

Who Would Support Deploying the Military to Domestic Protests?

22 points by hn_acker 2y ago

hn_acker 2y ago
Key excerpts: > The U.S. public was overwhelmingly supportive of deploying the military to contain protests that might turn violent. In our hypothetical scenarios, between 60 and 75 percent of the public approved of deploying the military, while just 15 to 25 percent disapproved. This support, moreover, was consistent across party—similarly large majorities of Democrats and Republicans supported deploying the military. ... > Even in a Jan. 6-type scenario with an election on the line, U.S. voters were just as likely to favor deploying the military against protesters of their own party as protesters of the opposing party. ... > Our surveys, however, show that military officers are overwhelmingly opposed to deploying military forces into domestic unrest. In our scenarios, just 25 percent of the military approved of military deployments while 72 percent disapproved. The majority of these officers favored aggressive responses to protests—for example, sending in riot police armed with assault rifles and body armor—but felt it was inappropriate to deploy the military.
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  Control of the military transfers at noon Jan 6.
  - cperciva 2y ago
    20th, I think?
    - ttyprintk 2y ago
      Yes, that’s right
bediger4000 2y ago
The US populace has no direct experience of this. I suspect a few actual deployments will change these attitudes, but I have no idea in what way.
- ChumpGPT 2y ago
  I think they do if I'm not mistaken. The National Guard was deployed to quell student protests at Kent and ended up killing 4 students. https://www.kent.edu/may-4-historical-accuracy https://www.kent.edu/may-4-historical-accuracy Man this sounds like today doesn't it.... >Ohio Governor James Rhodes flew to Kent on Sunday morning, and his mood was anything but calm. At a press conference, he issued a provocative statement calling campus protestors the worst type of people in America and stating that every force of law would be used to deal with them.
- gregjor 2y ago
  Yes the population does have direct experience, except for those born after Jan 2021. Somewhat selective list here. Four of those happened in my lifetime, and I have direct experience with two of them because I lived in Los Angeles at the time. https://www.military.com/military-life/6-times-military-was-used-suppress-civilian-uprisings-us.html https://www.military.com/military-life/6-times-military-was-... Longer list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#Riots_and_public_disorder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili... The Federal government/President can commandeer the state militias (National Guard). Aside from the four branches of the Federal military, the Federal government has multiple agencies/forces with significant armed personnel and firepower available to them: Coast Guard, FBI, USCIS, Secret Service, IRS, etc.
  - uoaei 2y ago
    Is this some AI generated drivel? Or are you intentionally denigrating the Coast Guard? They are a branch of the military. In fact there are six now with the establishment of the Space Force. Also, yes, the National Guard was deployed on 1/6, but your own comment distinguishes the National Guard from the "military" proper, which is the subject of TFA.
    - gregjor 2y ago
      The Dept of Defense has three Executive Departments: Army, Navy, Air Force. The Marine Corps, a distinct branch of the military forces, comes under the executive direction of the Dept. of the Navy. The Coast Guard got moved to Dept. of Homeland Security in 2002, but can transfer to the Dept. of the Navy during times of war. The Space Force does not have armed forces (yet). Nor do NOAA or the Public Health Service, the other uniformed services under Federal control. I didn't list them because they would probably not get deployed with weapons against American civilians. The Joint Chiefs Of Staff consists of the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Space Force, and National Guard. The Coast Guard (since 2002) comes under DHS, which sits on the National Security Council with the Joint Chiefs, but is not administered by the Joint Chiefs/Pentagon except in times of war. So the word "military" in reference to US Federal armed forces can mean several different things. The FBI and ATF fall under the Dept. of Justice, not technically a military force, but as we saw at Waco (to give the most well-known and large-scale example), the FBI and ATF both have quite a bit of firepower at their disposal and do get deployed against American civilians. The OP asked about deploying the military but did not define what they meant -- the core armed military forces commanded from the Pentagon (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps)? National Guard? Any other armed Federal forces such as the FBI, ATF, and USCIS? National Park Service officers? Local police agencies commandeered in a crisis as happened Jan 6? I did not attempt to read the OP's mind. I think I clearly expanded on that and offered both a limited definition (the four armed forces that have a named department in the DoD) and the broader list of armed agencies under Federal control, the biggest of which is DHS, which includes the Coast Guard and USCIS, both uniformed and armed forces that may or may not qualify as "military" depending on one's understanding of that term. You could simply ask what I meant without engaging in ad hominem attacks, calling my comment drivel, or insinuating that I "intentionally denigrated" the Coast Guard when I did no such thing. You could interpret the distinction I made with the Coast Guard as pedantry, irrelevant, disrespectful, or maybe infer than I have some experience with the Coast Guard and wanted to clearly place them in the structure of the US Armed Forces, colloquially called "the military," although the Coast Guard does not define itself as a military force except in times of war. You can refer to the official US Coast Guard web site's About page for their own definition, which places the Coast Guard in the US Armed Forces, but as a protective and rescue service, not a military force that gets deployed against other nations, or US civilians. Since you attacked me personally I will mention that in my own family I have serving and retired members of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard. That includes parents, grandparents, siblings, and one of my own children.
Hatrix 2y ago
Are they planning to censor the internet and confiscate guns? Security checkpoints and searches at state lines? It never stops once it gets going.
- krapp 2y ago
  It would be hilarious if the Republican Party going full fascist turned out to be the ones who tried confiscating everyone's guns..
  - stvltvs 2y ago
    It would start with confiscating criminals' guns. Then we'd criminalize certain political groups for "domestic terrorism", e.g. protesting the cop city in Atlanta. Then we would criminalize giving aid and comfort to these groups. Then the state would have carte blanche to confiscate guns for any political opposition. The reason California has gun control is governor Reagan didn't like black leftists carrying arms.
zabzonk 2y ago
For what it is worth, the British army was deployed in the streets of Northern Ireland and killed not a few people. They probably had the support of the majority of the rest of the UK. And of course, in the USA the National Guard killed several students non-violently protesting (actually looking on) at Kent State in Ohio - listen to the Neil Young song.
- uoaei 2y ago
  Also inspired a resistance movement that now arguably has more support than the Crown itself in Northern Ireland.
  - zabzonk 2y ago
    Not at all that I want to get into this, but I do think things have calmed down a lot in NI and will probably lead to peaceful reunification eventually. Just my uninformed opinion.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 2y ago
Pundits always forget that the number one reason for the state is to enforce the monopoly on violence. People want order rather than chaos This predates democracy by millennia. Thus if there is widespread chaos and disorder, people usually want the state to step in and restore order using all its resources.
- kenjackson 2y ago
  That's why police are generally for though. Or even the national guard. Outside of MPs, the military generally isn't trained to serve the people they are put in place to restrain -- hence a lot of issues overseas when military attempts to do this. Domestically they'd have FAR less slack for any mistakes.
  - Izkata 2y ago
    The National Guard is a branch of the military though, unlike the police.
- analog31 2y ago
  "Monopoly on violence" always sounds scary, but the alternative is what... A duopoly on violence? It's worth reading Njal's Saga from Iceland. They had a government with no monopoly on violence, and the saga is essentially about an endless blood feud. Short of eliminating violence altogether, restricting it to one institution, that is democratically controlled, may be the best that we can hope for. Only a single "owner" of violence has a chance of keeping it at bay.
  - reducesuffering 2y ago
    The crux of Hobbes' Leviathan since 1651
- drewcoo 2y ago
  > People want order rather than chaos No, people want safety. But it's easier to enforce "order," so there's a bit of a bait and switch.
joyeuse6701 2y ago
A little disturbing we’re asking ourselves this question, or rationalizing why it won’t happen.
_zagj 2y ago
[flagged]
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  That was kind of a funny phrasing too, as if they were protesting racial Justice.
- jeltz 2y ago
  Yes, obviously. Not sure why that is a question. One was an attempted coup and the other was not. The addition of "justice" is a bit weird though. I would just have called them "racial protests".
  - _zagj 2y ago
    Do people forget that the BLM riots at the White House at one point resulted in Trump being taken by the Secret Service to the security bunker? https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cqg2ywRAZ94 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cqg2ywRAZ94
analog31 2y ago
I believe that a total separation of "police" and "military" is necessary for democracy. The military has a job that they need to be good at, but it's not suppressing domestic protests.
- spwa4 2y ago
  So what do we do if the police has been defunded to the point that they cannot hope to keep people safe in protests? To save money, plus intentionally, because certain parties thought that the police is the biggest problem to their safety on the streets (which may even have been true for a while, but doesn't seem to be anymore)
  - drewcoo 2y ago
    Having been to protests, the police are the threat to the people there. defunding them would improve safety.
  - xracy 2y ago
    No one is trying to do this. You're describing a fantasy world. In your head it's a nightmare, because you don't understand how society works.
    - drivingmenuts 2y ago
      Given that we just elected a serial liar, fascist fanboy, convicted rapist and a probable traitor, who can now absolve himself of all crimes, you are way too optimistic. I think we've just turned a corner into a very, very dark place.
      - throwawaymanbot 2y ago
        [dead]
    - Izkata 2y ago
      For the past several years there was a movement in the US called "Defund The Police" whose whole premise was the police did more harm than good to minority communities.
ElonChrist 2y ago
[dead]
wmf 2y ago
I've heard the US military is much better trained than most police so they might end up killing fewer protesters. Of course they'd still kill some and people don't understand counterfactuals so it doesn't matter.
- stvltvs 2y ago
  The military isn't known for training less lethal methods and crowd control. They're trained to "kill people and break things" as Limbaugh put it. Bad idea.
082349872349872 2y ago
the JCS reaction from the last time this was an urgent issue: https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/CJCS%20Memo%20to%20the%20Joint%20Force%20(02JUN2020).pdf https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/CJCS%20Memo%20to%20... (although note that JCS is advisory; it was Esper's call back then — someone should get the incoming SecDef's opinion!)
lph 2y ago
> The military’s professional norms are a check against a potential abuse of power. Right. And norms might be a bulwark for six months or two years, and then they'll crumple against relentless assault. It's the same progression we've already seen play out in many areas of government with Trump's first term.

22 points by hn_acker 2y ago

Key excerpts: > The U.S. public was overwhelmingly supportive of deploying the military to contain protests that might turn violent. In our hypothetical scenarios, between 60 and 75 percent of the public approved of deploying the military, while just 15 to 25 percent disapproved. This support, moreover, was consistent across party—similarly large majorities of Democrats and Republicans supported deploying the military. ... > Even in a Jan. 6-type scenario with an election on the line, U.S. voters were just as likely to favor deploying the military against protesters of their own party as protesters of the opposing party. ... > Our surveys, however, show that military officers are overwhelmingly opposed to deploying military forces into domestic unrest. In our scenarios, just 25 percent of the military approved of military deployments while 72 percent disapproved. The majority of these officers favored aggressive responses to protests—for example, sending in riot police armed with assault rifles and body armor—but felt it was inappropriate to deploy the military.

ttyprintk 2y ago
Control of the military transfers at noon Jan 6.
- cperciva 2y ago
  20th, I think?
  - ttyprintk 2y ago
    Yes, that’s right

bediger4000 2y ago

The US populace has no direct experience of this. I suspect a few actual deployments will change these attitudes, but I have no idea in what way.

ChumpGPT 2y ago
I think they do if I'm not mistaken. The National Guard was deployed to quell student protests at Kent and ended up killing 4 students. https://www.kent.edu/may-4-historical-accuracy https://www.kent.edu/may-4-historical-accuracy Man this sounds like today doesn't it.... >Ohio Governor James Rhodes flew to Kent on Sunday morning, and his mood was anything but calm. At a press conference, he issued a provocative statement calling campus protestors the worst type of people in America and stating that every force of law would be used to deal with them.
gregjor 2y ago
Yes the population does have direct experience, except for those born after Jan 2021. Somewhat selective list here. Four of those happened in my lifetime, and I have direct experience with two of them because I lived in Los Angeles at the time. https://www.military.com/military-life/6-times-military-was-used-suppress-civilian-uprisings-us.html https://www.military.com/military-life/6-times-military-was-... Longer list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#Riots_and_public_disorder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili... The Federal government/President can commandeer the state militias (National Guard). Aside from the four branches of the Federal military, the Federal government has multiple agencies/forces with significant armed personnel and firepower available to them: Coast Guard, FBI, USCIS, Secret Service, IRS, etc.
- uoaei 2y ago
  Is this some AI generated drivel? Or are you intentionally denigrating the Coast Guard? They are a branch of the military. In fact there are six now with the establishment of the Space Force. Also, yes, the National Guard was deployed on 1/6, but your own comment distinguishes the National Guard from the "military" proper, which is the subject of TFA.
  - gregjor 2y ago
    The Dept of Defense has three Executive Departments: Army, Navy, Air Force. The Marine Corps, a distinct branch of the military forces, comes under the executive direction of the Dept. of the Navy. The Coast Guard got moved to Dept. of Homeland Security in 2002, but can transfer to the Dept. of the Navy during times of war. The Space Force does not have armed forces (yet). Nor do NOAA or the Public Health Service, the other uniformed services under Federal control. I didn't list them because they would probably not get deployed with weapons against American civilians. The Joint Chiefs Of Staff consists of the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Space Force, and National Guard. The Coast Guard (since 2002) comes under DHS, which sits on the National Security Council with the Joint Chiefs, but is not administered by the Joint Chiefs/Pentagon except in times of war. So the word "military" in reference to US Federal armed forces can mean several different things. The FBI and ATF fall under the Dept. of Justice, not technically a military force, but as we saw at Waco (to give the most well-known and large-scale example), the FBI and ATF both have quite a bit of firepower at their disposal and do get deployed against American civilians. The OP asked about deploying the military but did not define what they meant -- the core armed military forces commanded from the Pentagon (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps)? National Guard? Any other armed Federal forces such as the FBI, ATF, and USCIS? National Park Service officers? Local police agencies commandeered in a crisis as happened Jan 6? I did not attempt to read the OP's mind. I think I clearly expanded on that and offered both a limited definition (the four armed forces that have a named department in the DoD) and the broader list of armed agencies under Federal control, the biggest of which is DHS, which includes the Coast Guard and USCIS, both uniformed and armed forces that may or may not qualify as "military" depending on one's understanding of that term. You could simply ask what I meant without engaging in ad hominem attacks, calling my comment drivel, or insinuating that I "intentionally denigrated" the Coast Guard when I did no such thing. You could interpret the distinction I made with the Coast Guard as pedantry, irrelevant, disrespectful, or maybe infer than I have some experience with the Coast Guard and wanted to clearly place them in the structure of the US Armed Forces, colloquially called "the military," although the Coast Guard does not define itself as a military force except in times of war. You can refer to the official US Coast Guard web site's About page for their own definition, which places the Coast Guard in the US Armed Forces, but as a protective and rescue service, not a military force that gets deployed against other nations, or US civilians. Since you attacked me personally I will mention that in my own family I have serving and retired members of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard. That includes parents, grandparents, siblings, and one of my own children.

Hatrix 2y ago

Are they planning to censor the internet and confiscate guns? Security checkpoints and searches at state lines? It never stops once it gets going.

krapp 2y ago
It would be hilarious if the Republican Party going full fascist turned out to be the ones who tried confiscating everyone's guns..
- stvltvs 2y ago
  It would start with confiscating criminals' guns. Then we'd criminalize certain political groups for "domestic terrorism", e.g. protesting the cop city in Atlanta. Then we would criminalize giving aid and comfort to these groups. Then the state would have carte blanche to confiscate guns for any political opposition. The reason California has gun control is governor Reagan didn't like black leftists carrying arms.

zabzonk 2y ago

For what it is worth, the British army was deployed in the streets of Northern Ireland and killed not a few people. They probably had the support of the majority of the rest of the UK. And of course, in the USA the National Guard killed several students non-violently protesting (actually looking on) at Kent State in Ohio - listen to the Neil Young song.

uoaei 2y ago
Also inspired a resistance movement that now arguably has more support than the Crown itself in Northern Ireland.
- zabzonk 2y ago
  Not at all that I want to get into this, but I do think things have calmed down a lot in NI and will probably lead to peaceful reunification eventually. Just my uninformed opinion.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 2y ago

Pundits always forget that the number one reason for the state is to enforce the monopoly on violence. People want order rather than chaos This predates democracy by millennia. Thus if there is widespread chaos and disorder, people usually want the state to step in and restore order using all its resources.

kenjackson 2y ago
That's why police are generally for though. Or even the national guard. Outside of MPs, the military generally isn't trained to serve the people they are put in place to restrain -- hence a lot of issues overseas when military attempts to do this. Domestically they'd have FAR less slack for any mistakes.
- Izkata 2y ago
  The National Guard is a branch of the military though, unlike the police.
analog31 2y ago
"Monopoly on violence" always sounds scary, but the alternative is what... A duopoly on violence? It's worth reading Njal's Saga from Iceland. They had a government with no monopoly on violence, and the saga is essentially about an endless blood feud. Short of eliminating violence altogether, restricting it to one institution, that is democratically controlled, may be the best that we can hope for. Only a single "owner" of violence has a chance of keeping it at bay.
- reducesuffering 2y ago
  The crux of Hobbes' Leviathan since 1651
drewcoo 2y ago
> People want order rather than chaos No, people want safety. But it's easier to enforce "order," so there's a bit of a bait and switch.

joyeuse6701 2y ago

A little disturbing we’re asking ourselves this question, or rationalizing why it won’t happen.

_zagj 2y ago

[flagged]

readthenotes1 2y ago
That was kind of a funny phrasing too, as if they were protesting racial Justice.
jeltz 2y ago
Yes, obviously. Not sure why that is a question. One was an attempted coup and the other was not. The addition of "justice" is a bit weird though. I would just have called them "racial protests".
- _zagj 2y ago
  Do people forget that the BLM riots at the White House at one point resulted in Trump being taken by the Secret Service to the security bunker? https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cqg2ywRAZ94 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cqg2ywRAZ94

analog31 2y ago

I believe that a total separation of "police" and "military" is necessary for democracy. The military has a job that they need to be good at, but it's not suppressing domestic protests.

spwa4 2y ago
So what do we do if the police has been defunded to the point that they cannot hope to keep people safe in protests? To save money, plus intentionally, because certain parties thought that the police is the biggest problem to their safety on the streets (which may even have been true for a while, but doesn't seem to be anymore)
- drewcoo 2y ago
  Having been to protests, the police are the threat to the people there. defunding them would improve safety.
- xracy 2y ago
  No one is trying to do this. You're describing a fantasy world. In your head it's a nightmare, because you don't understand how society works.
  - drivingmenuts 2y ago
    Given that we just elected a serial liar, fascist fanboy, convicted rapist and a probable traitor, who can now absolve himself of all crimes, you are way too optimistic. I think we've just turned a corner into a very, very dark place.
    - throwawaymanbot 2y ago
      [dead]
  - Izkata 2y ago
    For the past several years there was a movement in the US called "Defund The Police" whose whole premise was the police did more harm than good to minority communities.

ElonChrist 2y ago

[dead]

wmf 2y ago

I've heard the US military is much better trained than most police so they might end up killing fewer protesters. Of course they'd still kill some and people don't understand counterfactuals so it doesn't matter.

stvltvs 2y ago
The military isn't known for training less lethal methods and crowd control. They're trained to "kill people and break things" as Limbaugh put it. Bad idea.

082349872349872 2y ago

the JCS reaction from the last time this was an urgent issue: https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/CJCS%20Memo%20to%20the%20Joint%20Force%20(02JUN2020).pdf https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/CJCS%20Memo%20to%20... (although note that JCS is advisory; it was Esper's call back then — someone should get the incoming SecDef's opinion!)

lph 2y ago

> The military’s professional norms are a check against a potential abuse of power. Right. And norms might be a bulwark for six months or two years, and then they'll crumple against relentless assault. It's the same progression we've already seen play out in many areas of government with Trump's first term.