Any time military comes in contact with civilians there is the possibility that force will be required. If protesters become violent towards soldiers, (not something I’m saying is likely) then soldiers will have to respond.
The rules you are referring to prohibit the military from getting involved in law enforcement (essentially arrests). They can still participate in peacekeeping, and peacekeeping (somewhat ironically) always involves the possiblity of violence.
I think it’s important for protesters to be aware of the actual rules the police and military are obliged to follow. There is a lot of incorrect information going around.
This is based on the administration acting in good faith, and this isn’t military deployed on foreign soil as is the case for typical peacekeeping. This is an at-home escalation, knowing force is going to be used against US Citizens by its own military. It’s extremely irresponsible at best and unusual enough that the Pentagon is scrambling to understand how to even address the situation.
Make no mistake, use of force on US citizens by the military is the predictable and intended outcome of the deployment. I don’t believe this is a good faith peacekeeping mission. This angle strikes me as saying that there are inherent risks to being shot. Of course, the effect of being shot was the intention of firing the shot.
Everything you said about the administration is spot on. I just don’t think it will work the way they want it to. I think the administration isn’t holding the tool they think they’re holding.
Any time military comes in contact with civilians there is the possibility that force will be required. If protesters become violent towards soldiers, (not something I’m saying is likely) then soldiers will have to respond.
The rules you are referring to prohibit the military from getting involved in law enforcement (essentially arrests). They can still participate in peacekeeping, and peacekeeping (somewhat ironically) always involves the possiblity of violence.
I think it’s important for protesters to be aware of the actual rules the police and military are obliged to follow. There is a lot of incorrect information going around.
This is based on the administration acting in good faith, and this isn’t military deployed on foreign soil as is the case for typical peacekeeping. This is an at-home escalation, knowing force is going to be used against US Citizens by its own military. It’s extremely irresponsible at best and unusual enough that the Pentagon is scrambling to understand how to even address the situation.
Make no mistake, use of force on US citizens by the military is the predictable and intended outcome of the deployment. I don’t believe this is a good faith peacekeeping mission. This angle strikes me as saying that there are inherent risks to being shot. Of course, the effect of being shot was the intention of firing the shot.
Everything you said about the administration is spot on. I just don’t think it will work the way they want it to. I think the administration isn’t holding the tool they think they’re holding.
This is why you don’t deploy military in your own country.
Good advice.