Protests Against Racism, Police
Brutality, Killings and Impunity Continue
Conflicting Authorities in Conflict with Today's Conditions
- Voice of Revolution -
Washington, DC, May 30, 2020
In the United States, the many conflicts between
President Trump and the military are increasingly
on open display. So too are those between Trump
and state-level authorities, like Governors. These
public conflicts, especially in relation to
authority to use force, are indications of how
sharp the conflicts among the ruling factions have
become. They are also serving to further undermine
the legitimacy of the claims of these authorities,
whether military, federal or state, to have and
control the monopoly on the use of force in the
name of society.
The military is not supposed to publicly
criticize the Commander-in-Chief, as that in
itself calls into question his authority. Yet when
Trump threatened to call out the military to
suppress the broad and continuing resistance to
racist police killings and government impunity,
not only did retired Generals speak out, but so
did active duty soldiers. Indeed, opposition was
such that the Military Times, a voice of
the military, carried an article specifically
giving voice to those opposing such use of the
military.
An Army captain openly spoke of refusing orders
saying, "I oppose these missions, but if they are
to happen, I want to be there to make sure they
are done the right way, including providing
medical care to those who need it and refusing to
carry out unlawful or unethical orders."
An Army staff sergeant said: "I'm totally against
using our active duty military personnel for any
type of riot control." "My main reason is my
troops are not trained in crowd control tactics,
they are trained to meet and defeat with deadly
force any enemy of the U.S. who is attacking us,"
he added and fears that such deployments could
result in the deaths of demonstrators. In
addition, a number of national guard already
deployed at the state level did refuse orders to
join in repressing demonstrators.
All this open opposition is an indication that
Trump is failing to unite the military
bureaucracy, a main responsibility of the
president in order to preserve the union and
prevent conflicts among the contending authorities
from breaking out into more open violent civil
war. The military bureaucracy is a massive force,
part of the state machinery that persists from one
president to the next. It has within it its own
conflicts, such as those between the Navy, Army,
Marines and Air Force as well as their various
intelligence forces and contention with the many
other intelligence agencies, such as the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security
Agency (NSA). In the past, imperialist war has
been used by presidents to unite the bureaucracy,
as occurred when George Bush invaded Iraq. Paul
Wolfowitz, a Defense Department official and
architect of the war said it was not for purposes
of eliminating weapons of mass deconstruction, as
there were none, but rather to unite the military
bureaucracy. But Trump's efforts to do the same,
using Syria as one example, have so far failed. On
the contrary, the conflicts have become more open
as the existing arrangements of government no
longer function. As well, with the broad anger
about the government's response to the COVID-19
pandemic and ongoing resistance, the people are
increasingly rejecting those in authority as unfit
to govern.
Growing Conflicts Between Federal and State
Governments
National Guard amass on Seattle street, June 4,
2020.
The problem of preserving the union in the face
of these many conflicting authorities within and
between the executive and the military, is also
showing itself in conflicts between the federal
and state governments, including state governors.
As resistance spread and persisted across the
country demanding justice for George Floyd and all
the many other racist police killings, Trump
threatened governors and mayors saying, "If a city
or state refuses to take the actions that are
necessary to defend the life and property of their
residents, then I will deploy the United States
military and quickly solve the problem for them."
Governors immediately spoke out against him. Both
California Governor Newsom and New York Governor
Cuomo said "no thanks." Illinois Governor Pritzker
said, "I reject the notion that the federal
government can send troops into the state of
Illinois." He said Trump's "rhetoric is inflaming
matters," "it's making things worse," and that "we
need to call for police reform." Michigan Governor
Whitmer called the president's remarks "dangerous"
and said they should be "gravely concerning to all
Americans," as they would "only lead to more
violence and destruction." Governor of
Massachusetts Baker, a Republican, said "At so
many times during these past several weeks, when
the country needed compassion and leadership the
most, it was simply nowhere to be found."
Washington Governor Inslee also rejected Trump's
threat. Oregon Governor Brown said, "You don't
defuse violence by putting soldiers on the
streets." Nevada Governor Sisolak, in rejecting
federal intervention said "As the
Commander-in-Chief of the Nevada National Guard I
can state, categorically, that they have done
their duty to protect all Nevadans, and will
continue to do so."
The governors are not rejecting use of force
against the people's just demands; they are
asserting their claim to authority in their states
and demanding a limit to armed federal
intervention. In fact, most had already acted to
violently repress the resistance by calling out
the National Guard at their disposal. California
and Illinois were among the first to do so, as did
Washington, Minnesota, and more than 30 states.
Many were armed with automatic weapons, others
were not. New York's Cuomo said he had 13,000
troops on standby.
 Forces at the
disposal of Governors include thousands of
National Guard troops, as well as state troopers.
In coordination with mayors, they dispose of huge
militarized police forces. Large cities like New
York City, Chicago and Los Angeles have virtually
their own armies, with command centres, tanks,
helicopters, grenade launchers, chemical weapons
such as tear gas, heavily armed SWAT teams,
special Emergency Response Teams for protests, and
more. Trump's threat created a situation where the
state National Guard and police would come in
direct conflict with the federally mobilized
troops -- something the rulers want to avoid and
likely why Trump's threat remained just that.
However the growing disunity and threat to the
union these conflicts represent remains.
States like California and New York can easily
become their own countries and indeed Cuomo
regularly promotes New York as the Empire State.
Regions like the Midwest and Northeast could too.
As well, the claims by governors about reform,
that "rhetoric" was inflaming matters, that
federal troops would mean "more violence and
destruction," while state and local forces somehow
would not, certainly rang hollow given the
repeated police violence in city after city, large
and small. While these various authorities are in
conflict with each other, they are all becoming
more antagonistic than ever to the people, despite
trying to appear to be on their side.
The existing authorities are unable to solve any
problem and threaten more violence and
destruction, both at home and abroad. Authority is
in conflict with Conditions and blocking the
advance of society, as evidenced in the violent
repression of the broad resistance movement. This
movement is finding a way forward and taking
initiative to develop fundamental change, a
democracy of the people's own making that empowers
them to govern and decide.
For Your Information
Extracts of Military Times Article
Though defence officials have clarified that any
troops will be on site as a show of presence and
deterrence, rather than making arrests or
deploying weapons against protesters, President
Donald Trump's comments have raised alarms that
the White House is politicizing the military by
threatening to deploy service members to break up
peaceful protests against what prosecutors have
alleged was the murder of George Floyd on May 25
by a Minneapolis police officer.
"I am mobilizing all federal and local resources,
civilian and military, to protect the rights of
law abiding Americans," Trump said June 1 at the
White House, citing the Insurrection Act
of 1807. "Today I have strongly recommended to
every governor to deploy the National Guard in
sufficient numbers that we dominate the streets.
Mayors and governors must establish an
overwhelming presence until the violence is
quelled."
To clarify, Trump had not mobilized federal and
local resources nor invoked the Insurrection Act,
as police forces and National Guard troops are
operating under the orders of their mayors and
governors.
The mission is not unlike the one some active
duty and National Guard troops have been doing
along the U.S.-Mexico border for nearly two years,
assisting Customs and Border Patrol with
surveillance and security, but not physically
detaining anyone.
But the optics of the situation have quickly
turned sour for many current service members, who
shared their perspectives with Military Times.
Of 33 responses from active-duty and reserve
component troops reviewed before publication, 30
were opposed to the use of troops to respond to
protests.
"Using the military to put down protests and
supplement the botched efforts of the police to
control these protests, particularly through
unlawful uses of force, will only further inflame
the protests," a National Guard noncommissioned
officer said. "This is escalation, not
de-escalation. Embroiling the military due to the
inaction and failings of the police only serves to
conflate the two, and would put both military
members and civilians at greater risk. Cracking
down with authoritarianism does nothing but
further politicize the military and erode the
trust the public has in us. There is no winning in
this scenario." [...]
Aside from the message deploying active-duty
troops might send, others questioned whether they
are necessary.
"I don't think active-duty military deployments
are necessary, especially in DC," an active-duty
Army captain wrote. "I believe the president is
deploying the military for political reasons and
our reputation will be irreparably damaged by the
association."
Specifically, Defense Secretary Mark Esper
authorized an 82nd Airborne Division infantry
battalion, the Fort Bragg, North Carolina-based
16th Military Police Brigade's headquarters and
the 91st Military Police Battalion from Fort Drum,
New York, to mobilize to the DC area.
But on June 3 he clarified in a Pentagon briefing
that he does not believe it's necessary to employ
them in a law enforcement role.
"The option to use active duty forces in a law
enforcement role should only be used as a matter
of last resort, and only in the most urgent and
dire of situations," he said. "We are not in one
of those situations now. I do not support invoking
the Insurrection Act." [...]
At the same time, those active-duty forces are
awaiting instructions at bases in the DC area,
Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said June 2.
Some service members are wrestling with the idea
of doing their jobs, the Army captain said, if
these are their orders.
"I oppose these missions, but if they are to
happen, I want to be there to make sure they are
done the right way, including providing medical
care to those who need it and refusing to carry
out unlawful or unethical orders," he said.
The deployments could also affect the public's
view of the National Guard, he added, after all of
the good will built up over the COVID-19 pandemic
response, which at its height saw more than 45,000
guardsmen running testing sites, delivering food
and otherwise acting in a humanitarian capacity.
"This also stands in sharp contrast to the
president's response to the coronavirus pandemic,
in which he eschewed the federal government taking
an active role and pressed upon those same state
governors to do things on their own because it
wasn't the federal government's job," an active
duty Navy chief wrote.
That kind of narrative could also trickle down in
other ways, including the Guard's recruiting
efforts. "She's worried that all the efforts
they've made to make the guard diverse and
inclusive are being eroded by asking soldiers to
stand by cops," one reader wrote of his wife, a
Guard recruiter in the South. "She has recruiting
meetings with two people today. Both young black
men. She has no idea what to tell them."
And as far as active-duty troops, some expressed
concern about how they would handle themselves in
a crowd control scenario.
"I'm totally against using our active duty
military personnel for any type of riot control,"
an Army staff sergeant wrote. "My main reason is
my troops are not trained in crowd control
tactics, they are trained to meet and defeat with
deadly force any enemy of the U.S. who is
attacking us."
While the mobilized military police will be
tasked with providing security, he had questions
as to whether their combat training would sway
their actions.
"My troops do not have the mind set to just allow
someone to throw things at them, or assault them
without them striking back using a medium of force
that would be considered appropriate for that type
of situation, especially if they had live rounds
in their M-4s," he added. "Sorry to say but there
would be some dead rioters/insurgents."
Beyond the movement of troops, some readers
commented on the actions of the military's most
senior leaders in the face of the White House's
response to protests and riots.
"It's one thing to remain silent. It's a
completely different situation when our Pentagon
leadership takes part in the politicization of the
military," an active-duty Navy judge advocate
lieutenant wrote. "The teargassing of peaceful
protesters on live TV and then the photo op by
Trump [June 1] was a disgrace. The use of
helicopters in Washington, DC, to intimidate
protesters is shameful. [Joint Chiefs Chairman
General Mark] Milley's galavanting around DC is
sad. Leaders need to be leaders. Take a stand.
Resign. Do not let the military fall to Trump's
demagoguery...."
[During] a White House call with governors
Defense Secretary Esper compared U.S. cities to
war zones.
"The statement by Secretary of Defense Mark Esper
that we should 'dominate the battlespace' in
American cities was appalling," a DC area-based
Army reserve officer wrote. "Farragut Square is
not Fallujah. The people peacefully protesting
there yesterday were not combatants; they are our
fellow Americans."
Voice of Revolution is a publication of the
U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization.
This article was published in
Volume 50 Number 23 - June 27, 2020
Article Link:
Protests Against Racism, Police
Brutality, Killings and Impunity Continue: Conflicting Authorities in Conflict with Today's Conditions - Voice of Revolution
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|
