logo
American Servicemembers Share Thoughts On Marines In LA

American Servicemembers Share Thoughts On Marines In LA

Buzz Feeda day ago

As the protests in Los Angeles against ICE continue, the Trump administration announced it would be sending in 2000 additional National Guard soldiers as well as 700 active duty Marines. According to Reuters, they will "protect federal personnel and property" as the administration carries out "even more operations to round up suspected immigration violators."
Governor Gavin Newsom has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming that the President did not have the legal authority to call in the National Guard, as well as requested a temporary restraining order to stop the use of the National Guard and active Marines "for law enforcement purposes."
This is the first time that active duty military members have been called up to assist with law enforcement since 1992, and unsurprisingly, many of them (as well as veterans) have thoughts on the topic. NotSlayerOfDemons asked, "Those in the American Armed Forces, how do you feel about troops being used to quell unrest in-country?" and servicemembers, both active and former, did not hold back in these 28 responses:
"Former Army. Unrest is when the citizens are trying to send a message to the government. Using troops against your citizens is the government's way of not listening."
—cobra7
"Marine here. (Once a Marine, always). Iraq vet. I definitely do not agree with using the Marines. Hopefully, they used MPs with riot training, but using infantry to do police work is not smart. It's like trying to use a trained attack dog to herd sheep. What do you think those teenagers are going to do when someone starts throwing rocks at them?"
"USAF veteran. We swear an oath to the Constitution. Not to any regime, party, or person."
"Trump is creating his Reichstag fire. Take the time to look this up if you aren't familiar with it."
—RuralMNGuy(The Reichstag fire was a fire that burned down the Reichstag building, which housed the German parliament, in 1933. The origins of the fire remain unclear, but it became propaganda for Hitler's Nazi government, and he used it to issue the Reichstag Fire Decree, restricting free speech, freedom of the press, and allowing him to begin arresting members of the opposition parties.)
"As a Marine vet, this fucking sucks. These kids are 18-22 years old and don't know shit about what the Constitution allows or what the Posse Comitatus Act is. They are taught enough not to harm an unarmed civilian, but decades of training for combating guerrilla warfare makes people jumpy. If protesters start throwing Molotov cocktails, or god forbid shooting, then shit gets real for these kids quick. I am afraid that if anything happens, it's going to put a black eye on the Corps that will never be forgotten by the American public."
"As a vet, I will say it comes across as totalitarian. There is no reason to use active duty military against your own citizens. There's a great quote from Battlestar Galactica: 'The police and the military have always been separate for a reason. One serves and protects the people, the other fights enemies of the state. When the military does both, the enemies of the state tend to become the people.'"
"Army veteran and a SoCal native of 30 years here. Glad to see the President not allowing California to burn to the ground. Everyone knows the governor wasn't going to intervene."
—ChinMuscle
"Man, that makes me think of the saying 'When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.' That's the really scary part of having the military do the policing, isn't it?"
"Telling soldiers to stand on the street with weapons drawn doesn't quell unrest. It provokes unrest."
"Honorably discharged Army Veteran here (Gulf War era) I can say that I and my fellow vet friends think that these troop deployments are fucking terrible. Horrifying, actually."
—PSadair
"This is what the National Guard is for. Putting active duty military personnel on the streets of America to play policeman is a mistake."
"I served in the Marines, and I'm glad I don't have to sit there and think, 'Question the legality of this and get an NJP [Non-Judicial Punishment], or go and potentially be put in a situation where they'll have me on trial in The Hague in a few years…'"
"I'm not active, but former military. I think it's wrong. It's an overreach on presidential power. Plus, it's hard enough getting the everyday American to support our troops these days without deploying them to attack our own civilians."
—crash218579
"Retired Marine here. There are units in the military trained for this. Active duty infantry units are not those units. They can say all they want that they are trained in de-escalation, but in reality, it's maybe 1-2 days of training a year and maybe some rapid last-minute refreshers as soon as they found out they were getting sent to LA. The bulk of their training and instincts are to destroy the enemy. This will not go well."
"Former Army here — it's complete bullshit. Let law enforcement enforce the law, let the military do military operations. To be honest, they were waiting for any reason to do this because they want to 'send a message,' but the message that's sent isn't what they think it is. I feel sorry for those soldiers sleeping on the hard floor with no plan of provisions for water/food, not abroad in a war zone, but in downtown fucking LA."
"Former Marine, from Los Angeles, from immigrant parents. Fuck this administration. I hope those troops remember their oath to the US Constitution and to the people of the nation. I'm so disappointed with this whole situation."
—Tacos_and_Yut
"I think following the orders of a 34-count felon who is responsible for attacking the Capitol of the USA is reprehensible. I sincerely regret my service to the USA and wish I could take it back. It will not happen again."
"I don't support violent protests. I also don't support Marines being used to quell said protests. Marines are a tool you use to destroy an area or group of people, not to peacefully resolve it. The guard makes more sense here, but the best answer is just keeping it at the police level."
"GWOT [Global War on Terrorism] veteran here. This shit is absolutely wack. The United States has used the National Guard MANY times throughout its history, albeit for civil unrest or not. The National Guard does an impeccable job at this, and to hear the National Guard is being utilized isn't too concerning."
"The VERY large, stomach churning moment is the President giving the green light to utilize 2/7 out of Twentynine Palms. These are not 'peacekeepers.' Their motto is fucking literally 'First to Fight.' They have a long history of intense combat operations from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and GWOT. This is a highly decorated combat unit within the US military's arsenal.Pitting young, war-fighting, men against the people the thought they were protecting is going to be a disastrous clusterfuck."—NSTalley
"I support the National Guard being used to protect federal buildings and to quell riots and obstruction to the enforcement of federal law."
"Served in the Navy from '09-'13. The bulk of these guys have never deployed, which is a badge of honor. Young, untested 18-22 year olds with guns seems like a really bad idea to me."
"As a Veteran I am pissed that I spent 4 years defending this country only to have some idiots vote for and support a Christo-Fascist government and despite all evidence still believe this is going to be a 'good' thing."
—MediocreDecking
"Retired Navy here and also a former Marine. Sending an infantry battalion (2/7) to assist the LAPD and the National Guard is the wrong move. There are whole-ass battalions of Military Police who are specifically trained for this scenario. Why weren't they sent? Every active duty/veteran I know is against this."
"It's a complicated issue. Most service members take their oath to defend the Constitution seriously, which includes the rights of Americans to protest. Using the military for domestic unrest should be an absolute last resort, not the go-to option. We're trained to engage enemies, not fellow citizens."
"Marine here, many of the brothers and sisters I served with came from immigrant families and communities in LA or ones just like them. I'm sure there's a few Marines who are on board with this crap but many are really struggling with this, I can guarantee you."
—skamatiks671
"Nobody likes the idea that this administration is attempting to politicize the military. It's awkward for us. The way the Secretary of Defense talks is vile, unprofessional, and embarrassing. Recruiting and retention will plummet."
"It's an accident waiting to happen."
—kozmo30
And finally, "Real take, most of them don't particularly care and just want to do their job and go home, regardless of the situation. Marines are people and lean slightly right — so you do have people who are giddy about 'enforcing order' — but nobody wants to be dressed up in full kit in LA summer heat."
What do you think? Let us know in the comments.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's past feuds don't bode well for Elon Musk
Trump's past feuds don't bode well for Elon Musk

USA Today

time25 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Trump's past feuds don't bode well for Elon Musk

Trump's past feuds don't bode well for Elon Musk Show Caption Hide Caption President Trump gives his thoughts on Elon Musk amid clash on bill President Donald Trump responded to Elon Musk's criticism of his "big, beautiful bill" with disappointment as Musk responded on X. WASHINGTON − If history is any guide, and there is a lot of history, the explosive new falling-out between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk is not going to end well for the former White House adviser and world's richest man. The political battlefield is littered with the scorched remains of some of Trump's former allies who picked a fight with him or were on the receiving end of one. Lawyer Michael Cohen. Political adviser Steve Bannon. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. John Bolton, John Kelly and Chris Christie, to name just a few. 'If what happened to me is any indication of how they handle these matters, then Elon is going to get decimated,' said Cohen, the former long-term Trump lawyer and fixer who once said he'd 'take a bullet' for his boss. Musk, he said, "just doesn't understand how to fight this type of political guerrilla warfare." 'They're going to take his money, they're going to shutter his businesses, and they're going to either incarcerate or deport him,' Cohen said. 'He's probably got the White House working overtime already, as we speak, figuring out how to close his whole damn thing down.' Cohen had perhaps the most spectacular blowup, until now, with Trump. He served time in prison after Trump threw him under the bus by denying any knowledge of pre-election payments Cohen made to a porn actress to keep her alleged tryst with Trump quiet before the 2016 election. More: President Trump threatens Elon Musk's billions in government contracts as alliance craters Cohen felt so betrayed by Trump that he titled his memoir 'Disloyal,' but the Trump administration tried to block its publication. Cohen ultimately fought back, becoming a star witness for the government in the state 'hush money' case and helped get Trump convicted by a Manhattan jury. More: Impeachment? Deportation? Crazy? 6 takeaways from the wild feud between Trump and Elon Musk Some suffered similar legal attacks and other slings and arrows, including Trump taunts and his trademark nasty nicknames. Trump vilified others, casting them into the political wilderness with his MAGA base. When Sessions recused himself from the Justice Department's investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election, Trump savaged him, calling his appointment a 'mistake' and lobbing other epithets. Sessions resigned under pressure in 2018. When he tried to resurrect his political career by running for his old Senate seat in Alabama, Trump endorsed his opponent, who won the GOP primary. After firing Tillerson, Trump called the former ExxonMobil chief lazy and 'dumb as a rock.' Trump still taunts Christie, an early supporter and 2016 transition chief, especially about his weight. Trump also had a falling-out with Bannon, who was instrumental in delivering his presidential victory in 2016 and then joined the White House as special adviser. 'Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my presidency,' Trump said in 2018, a year after Bannon's ouster from the White House. 'When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind.' Trump's Justice Department even indicted Bannon in 2020 for fraud, though the president pardoned him before leaving office. One of Trump's biggest feuds was with Bolton, whom he fired as his national security adviser in 2019. Trump used every means possible to prevent Bolton's book, 'The Room Where it Happened,' from being published, Bolton told USA TODAY on June 5. That included having the U.S. government sue his publisher on the false premise that Bolton violated a nondisclosure agreement and was leaking classified information, Bolton said. Bolton said Musk is unlike most others who have crossed swords with Trump in that he has unlimited amounts of money and control of a powerful social media platform in X to help shape the narrative. Musk also has billions in government contracts that even a vindictive Trump would have a hard time killing, as he threatened to do June 5, without significant legal challenges. Even so, Bolton said, "It's going to end up like most mud fights do, with both of them worse off. The question is how much worse the country is going to be off."

Pentagon chief confronts barrage of tough questions in Senate committee, including ones about Ukraine
Pentagon chief confronts barrage of tough questions in Senate committee, including ones about Ukraine

Yahoo

time27 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Pentagon chief confronts barrage of tough questions in Senate committee, including ones about Ukraine

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was challenged with a barrage of hard-hitting questions, including on Ukraine, during a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing on the armed forces held on 11 June. Source: The Hill, as reported by European Pravda Details: Republican senators from the subcommittee on the armed forces bombarded Hegseth with questions on Wednesday 11 June. Mitch McConnell, one of three Republicans who initially opposed Hegseth's appointment, "grilled" him on budgetary issues and also warned against showing leniency towards Russia in attempts to end the Russo-Ukrainian war. McConnell said that US allies are "wondering whether we're in the middle of brokering what appears to be allowing the Russians to define victory". "I think victory is defined by the people who have to live there – the Ukrainians," he stressed and directly asked Hegseth whose side Trump's administration is on. "America's reputation is on the line. Will we defend Democratic allies against authoritarian aggressors?" he asked. "We don't want a headline at the end of this conflict that says Russia wins and America loses." Later, Senator Lindsey Graham asked Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whether he believed that Russian leader Vladimir Putin would stop if he got what he wanted in Ukraine. Caine said he does not "believe he is" and Hegseth responded that it "remains to be seen". "Well, he says he's not. This is the '30s all over," Graham then sharply countered him. Background: This week, Hegseth said that Trump's administration plans to reduce the budget for security assistance to Ukraine. The Trump administration has not provided new military aid to Ukraine since taking office, although weapons from previously approved packages under the prior administration continue to arrive. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!

Commentary: The US must restrain itself from being too involved in Syria's redevelopment
Commentary: The US must restrain itself from being too involved in Syria's redevelopment

Yahoo

time27 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Commentary: The US must restrain itself from being too involved in Syria's redevelopment

When President Donald Trump met Syria's new president, Ahmad al-Sharaa, for the first time last month, he came away impressed with the man's vision, stamina and looks. 'Young, attractive guy, tough guy,' Trump told reporters after the session. 'Strong past, very strong past. … He's got a real shot at holding it together.' Trump followed up the compliments with a policy change that reverberated throughout the Middle East: a suspension of the U.S. sanctions regime on Syria, which the White House argued was a necessary prerequisite to giving the country a chance to turn the page from more than a half-century of Assad family dictatorship. The United States, however, continues to have certain expectations for the new, evolving Syrian government. Washington's asks boil down to three items: combating the Islamic State militant group, consolidating its authority to prevent chaos, and respecting the rights of ethnic and sectarian minorities in the country, some of whom, like the Kurds in Eastern Syria, have been long-standing U.S. partners. The Trump administration also expects al-Sharaa to clamp down on Palestinian militant groups that have traditionally used Syrian soil as a base of operations, and Trump eventually wants Damascus to join the Abraham Accords, which would normalize relations between Israel and Syria. The results thus far have been mixed, depending on the issue. But in the Middle East, a mixed verdict is often the best that one can hope for. On combating Islamic State, the new Syrian government has met expectations so far. This wasn't inevitable when al-Sharaa ascended to power in December. His history sowed doubt among many U.S. national security officials about what could be accomplished on the counterterrorism front. Twenty years ago, al-Sharaa was fighting with al-Qaida in Iraq and spent time as a prisoner under U.S. military custody. When Syria erupted into civil war in 2011, he traveled to the country and established an al-Qaida affiliate there, leading Washington to place a big bounty on his head. Yet al-Sharaa eventually struck out on his own. He distanced his group from Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Islamic State's first so-called emir, ditched the al-Qaida name and turned his organization Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, or HTS, into one seeking to liberate Syria, not conduct global jihad. While HTS was still an extremely conservative outfit, al-Sharaa sought to transform it into a de facto government-in-waiting, and for the most part, it worked — HTS ruled over most of Idlib province in northwestern Syria for the duration of Syria's civil war. Ever since he routed Assad's forces, al-Sharaa has sought to moderate himself further. The former al-Qaida prisoner has spent the last six months ditching his fatigues for Western-style suits and ingratiating himself with the likes of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, deep-pocketed countries that could prove extremely useful for the new but cash-strapped Syrian government. Al-Sharaa also has made it a point to burnish his credentials in the West, betting that promises to protect Syria's diverse communities, institute a market economy and unite the nation after nearly 14 years of war would convince Washington, Paris and London to explore a new relationship. The United States and many of its allies in Europe have taken al-Sharaa up on the offer. U.S. officials view the new Syrian administration as an opportunity to not only wipe the slate clean on decades of adversarial ties with Damascus but to also dilute the influence of Iran and Russia, its historic backers. Syria under Assad used to be one of Tehran's most important pieces on the Middle East chessboard, a country that provided Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps with a way station to send weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon. With Assad out and al-Sharaa in, Syria is no longer an Iranian proxy. The further the new Syrian authorities ostracize Iran, the more support it will likely receive from the Americans. Of course, it's not all sunshine and roses for Syria. While Washington is guardedly optimistic about the HTS-led administration's commitment to keeping a boot on Islamic State's neck — if only because it's in al-Sharaa's own interest to do so — it remains unclear whether the country's multiple ethnic and sectarian communities can be reconciled. The long civil war produced an overwhelming sense of mistrust, fear and animosity between Sunnis and Alawites, who compose approximately 10% of Syria's population but held many of the senior military, political and intelligence posts under the former regime. In one especially brutal atrocity last March, hard-line jihadists supposedly outside the Syrian government's control rampaged through Alawite villages along Syria's Mediterranean coast, killing hundreds of civilians, in retaliation for Assad loyalists attacking Syrian army positions. The attack lasted for days and put a bright spotlight on al-Sharaa and his ability to actually implement the promises of peace and inclusion he has made since stepping into the presidential palace. Can Syria emerge from the ashes? It's a loaded question with no definitive answer at this point in time. The United States, though, needs to restrain itself from the urge of becoming too overinvolved in the country's political development. Time and again, Washington has allowed hubris to guide its actions, lecturing others about how to structure their politics and pretending it has all the answers. Most of the time, our ambitions outweigh our capacity to fulfill them. At worst, we create new problems and burdens on the states we purportedly wish to help. So as the Trump administration continues to monitor Syria's evolution, it must take care to distinguish the necessary from the ideal. A democratic utopia in the heart of the Middle East is the ideal; a government willing and able to keep Islamic State in check is the prize. _____ Daniel DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a foreign affairs columnist for the Chicago Tribune. _____

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store