Several service members told advocacy groups they felt like pawns in a political game and assignment was unnecessary

California national guards troops and marines deployed to Los Angeles to help restore order after days of protest against the Trump administration have told friends and family members they are deeply unhappy about the assignment and worry their only meaningful role will be as pawns in a political battle they do not want to join.

Three different advocacy organisations representing military families said they had heard from dozens of affected service members who expressed discomfort about being drawn into a domestic policing operation outside their normal field of operations. The groups said they have heard no countervailing opinions.

“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,” said Sarah Streyder of the Secure Families Initiative, which represents the interests of military spouses, children and veterans.

top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 1 point 1 year ago
[+] 329 points 1 year ago (23 children)
  • [–] 182 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    Similar when they were doing border patrol in Texas.

    Military training is kinda big on threat identification and assessment. You don't have to like the military to appreciate some of the stuff you can learn from it.

    Protesting is not a threat to America. It's a threat to the people who are in charge.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 49 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    That’s why it’s essential we keep it peaceful while we increase our numbers. If we are non-violent, we cannot be determined to be a domestic threat, and it’s the military’s duty to protect us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    If we are non-violent, TACO will just say "They're violent!" and a majority of this country, including our military, will believe him. Things can only go downhill from here.

    Arm yourselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    It's not the military's duty to protect protestors. Just as the police have no obligation to protect and serve citizens.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    I wholeheartedly agree with regards to the cops and ICE.

    But I actually completely disagree on that statement being applied to the NG and Marines.

    I’d argue that the armed forced have a rather explicit duty to protect their own fellow citizens as best they can.

    And if some dipshit commander orders the marines or CANG to actually open fire on US civilians, I really do think that the E4 mafia might have something to say about that, and that the commissioned officers and cops and ICE fascists might very quickly find themselves staring down the barrels of the deployed troops.

    Put another way: if active duty troops are ordered to fire on unarmed protesters, I would not at all be shocked if the enlisted and noncoms refuse the orders and mutiny, up to and including fragging the officers who gave the orders if they keep pushing.

    Orangeboi et al seem to think the troops are robots. They’re absolutely not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It’s not the military’s duty to protect protestors.

    The path of enlistment starts like this:

    I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same

    Peaceful protest is our constitutional right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The swearing-in of the President starts with something very similar, if not identical.

    And yet, here we are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    Police rules of engagement is shockingly 0, cops kill anyone for any reason if they perceive even the slightest chance of a threat to themselves. The military has a rigorous 5-6 steps for using increasing amounts of violence from shouting to actually firing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -43 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    It's not. Unhappy people can lash out. You put a bunch of angry people on the riot control line, and they might start hitting people. It's all downhill from there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 56 points 1 year ago

    You're right, it would be so much better if they were happy to be there. I would much prefer knowing that all of the soldiers are excited to suppress our constitutional right to protest. WAY better than the chance of one lashing out because they're mad at their boss, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Low morale/dissatisfaction =/= anger. They’re more likely to be uncomfortable and unwilling to use violence against protesters, especially since they are significantly more trained to identify threats than police are. They know these protesters are not a threat, and all their training and rules of engagement tell them to not engage.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    While I generally agree that dissatisfaction != anger, soldiers who are repeatedly given orders they know are bullshit and that they strongly disagree with typically tend to get pissed at the people issuing those orders.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    You're making a lot of wild leaps from "I don't feel good about being here and being used life this" to "I want to hit people!" even if they did, the people they want to hit are the ones who sent them there. And that's also good.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 121 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    A lot of revolutions begun by the rank&file turning against the hated police, just sayin'.

    Imagine how the chickenshit ICE will act if the soldiers start opposing them too. Not so easy to bully someone armed and their friends.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 49 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Absolutely, and it’s not just vibes, it’s the oath. They swore to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. If we are non-violent, we are not a domestic threat. As per The Constitution, the soverign (highest rank in the nation) of the United States are We The People.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 78 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    They should be troubled. They are breaking their oath on the constitution.

    On the other hand, they could easily turn and end tyranny before it really sets in.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    You say "easily," but I doubt it appears so easy, because disobeying the order first starts with you violating the UCMJ and paying for it. Only then can you fight and say hey, the order was unlawful. But you're doing that from military jail. It's an uphill battle and there's nothing easy about it.

    I imagine the mindset is go, stand around with a shield, don't murk protestors, and try to just wait this shit out.

    Plus, for the Marines, they were living in 29 Palms beforehand, so it's practically a vacation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    What if everyone does it en masse though?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    And how do you propose this be coordinated?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Talk to each other? They're all posted to the same place. By 'everyone', I meant all the deployed troops.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Well that's kind of a given, I was looking for something more practical. Getting that many people on the same page about something that could easily have catastrophic consequences for all of them is not a trivial task.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It'd be awesome. But how do you get a whole unit openly discussing insubordination? I love the idea, but it's just not practical, and not in the short amount of time. The order came down within the last week? It was probably go go go since then.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It's not insubordination, it's their duty.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Yeah, I just think you've oversimplified it all. Like I said, I love the idea, but it's a huge ask, and it would require a lot of coordination over a period of time. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that sending Marines to the border, and sending them to protests in LA, is causing some kind of disenfranchisement amongst the enlisted, but a circle of dudes throwing rocks at a nalgene complaining about how this is bullshit is a far cry from an organized mutiny, essentially.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Pretty sure they were at Camp Pendleton.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    From the article:

    Earlier this week, he also activated 700 marines from the Twentynine Palms base two hours’ drive to the east, describing Los Angeles as a “trash heap” that was in danger of burning to the ground.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Huh, aight guess I missed that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    I just read this on another site. So who the fuck really knows what is going on?

    The Pentagon also deployed 700 U.S. Marines from Camp Pendleton, with a military convoy heading from Twentynine Palms toward the City of Angels.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The fuck? Best guess I have is that maybe they are grabbing guys from both Pendleton and Twentynine Palms, either that or maybe the convoy from Twentynine Palms is National Guard and they are moving shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 75 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    In just hoping that ICE is dumb enough to try to arrest and deport one of the Marines in front of their co-workers just like they do with civilians.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago

    Please let this happen everywhere at once. This is the kind of thing we need to get the rank and file in there to stand up to the enemy within. ICE shouldn't be smart enough to wait for their contracts to end and they can do it quietly away from their comrades in arms.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 55 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Good. They should be troubled. This is utterly fucked.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 157 points 1 year ago (44 children)

    deploying military force against our own communities isn’t the kind of national security we signed up for

    Then refuse those illegal orders and stand down.

  • source
  • hideshow 44 child comments
  • [–] 70 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    As much as i hate what Trump is doing, I don't expect any enlisted man to refuse orders to go somewhere. The legality of that order is debatable, but following it does not cause any immediate harm. It's not a good risk to take.

    Refusal to follow orders will come when the order is so clearly illegal that there can be no question, and when following that order is something that can't be undone. An order to fire into the crowd, for example.

    Of course, no such order will be given. I assume we have all seen Andor, yes?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I agree, I think there's clear limits. This isn't like Russia where they were being told they were being sent to a training exercise, this is an event where everyone being deployed knew exactly the reason and are able to be kept up to date by sources that don't include their superiors. Being deployed doesn't mean anything other than they're getting a bigger paycheck each, and the legality of a domestic deployment for the purpose of crowd control is debatable. The real test of these men will be whether they take the life of a civilian.

    There's a lot of doomers who will base current events off of a TV show they watched, but there is no media in existence nor any historical event that mirrors these circumstances. There are non political guardrails, such as societal conventions, that will realistically play a much bigger role in the coming conflict than people think.

    One thing is very clear however: The price of true change is blood.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    No historical event that mirrors these circumstances?? Are you joking?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Maybe they are specifically talking about the event of an orange russian agent rampaging in the US government. This exact thing has not happened yet. Talking about the broad circumstances though, this is probably the most common historical event since humans exist.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    Try watching Winter on Fire on Netflix. It documents Ukraine overthrowing their dictator. It wasn’t a clean process. But hopefully the ending will be the same, with our dictator also fleeing back to Russia.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    If you haven't seen andor what are you doing with your life

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Not living for TV.
    What's the takeaway from Andor in this context?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    There was a scene involving some vey angry, but peaceful protesters surrounding a government building. A small team of police was ordered into the crowd. Not to attack, just to patrol, to open a little corridor so people could pass. But that was six guys in riot gear pushing their way through the people.

    Even in the best possible circumstances, that's gonna cause a little trouble, and these were not the best possible circumstances. Fruit was thrown. Maybe a bottle or two. The police are tense. The people are tense.

    And a government agent, working for the guy who ordered the cops out there, shot one of them. The cops reacted defensively, and struck at the crowd, trying to get to safety. The crowd fought back. Things quickly got out of hand.

    And the stormtroopers were standing by, waiting for the word.

    It was a setup. An incident was forced to happen. It might have happened even without the sniper. Just force the police into the crowd, and sooner or later, someone will do something stupid.

    On the same way, the NG troops might be deliberately pressed into a position where they legitimately think they are defending themselves, but no single order will seem like "crossing the line" to them. Stand here. Hold the line. Push the crowd out of this area.

    I hope it doesn't happen. But the metaphor of boiling the frog is apt.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Some don't like Star Wars or any Sci-fi. Others like fascism and hate things that say fascism is bad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    Right?

    This isn't complicated. You either choose to obey an illegal order and threaten/attack other American citizens, or you don't.

    Clearly they have generally chosen, so far, to break the law and betray their fellow Americans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    This isn’t complicated. You either choose to obey an illegal order and threaten/attack other American citizens, or you don’t.

    Would you be willing to risk ten years in prison that a military judge will agree that an order to go stand somewhere is illegal?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Or to put it another way, do you expect our enlisted men and women to uphold the high moral virtues of honor, self sacrifice, and protection of innocents?

    After seeing what horrors American soldiers are capable of, I'm not holding my breath.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Again, it's one thing to expect them to reject orders they know are illegal, such as firing on civilians. It's another thing entirely to expect them to reject orders the legality of which may be a supreme court case next week.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah, nobody here knows what they are talking about. "I won't go, I refuse to go." Cool, here come the MPs, you go straight to jail. This shit happened quick. It wasn't like these units had time to talk and maybe try to form a unified front. They got mobilized quick, and so any choice you make, you're doing it on your own.

    And so is it right to disobey? Maybe. Is it easy? Absolutely not, and to suggest that is foolish, but easy to do from behind a desk.

    And so I think they'll do what they must. They'll show up, they'll stand in a line, and they'll hope they don't need to do any more than that. And it goes unsaid that there's some morons who want to beat on people, but they're the 10%. The rest of them don't want to be there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago

    I was just following orders.

    Also even if there are 10% who just want to beat people, are the other "good guys" stopping them? One of these cowardly cunts shot a reporter point blank and the ones areund him were more like: good job than: wtf, you can't do that. Go lick their boots and thank them for their great service.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It seems we are in agreement then, the troops are self-interested rational actors; all of the supposed virtues are propaganda.

    But I think there is a moral imperative that says "do not obey immoral orders", and that imperative does not come with a clause that says "unless there is a pending court case".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    But I think there is a moral imperative that says “do not obey immoral orders”

    Is it immoral to get on a plane, and go sleep on the floor somewhere?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Curious to know what horrors you've seen?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    There was the whole thing in Guantanamo Bay. And the awful treatment of civilians in Afghanistan. And in Iraq. And we can't forget the Vietnam war.

    I think the guy you're talking to is a duck, but he's not all wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    In what ways are you able and going to support troops who do that to then face court martial? Are you a lawyer willing to go pro bono? Are you willing to house the ones who are discharged, or later released from prison, with few to no job prospects? Do you already or are you planning to donate to service member advocacy groups?

    If troops could feel sufficiently supported by the rest of the community when the military's judicial hammer hangs above their head, it may help them gather the courage to do the thing you're suggesting they do.

    Most troops signed up to do a job with good benefits and gud-nuff pay and hopefully learn some skills, make lifelong friends, and maybe do some interesting or adventurous things in the process. Few of them are very financially well-set and "standing down" from orders they personally deem illegal could ruin their life. Big decision for 18-25 y/o's to be making and glib comments like "just stand down" kind of gloss over the total psychology of the situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago*

    Any military member who is court marshaled has a JAG representing them, just like there is a JAG prosecuting them. A system that gives you someone with far more time to deal with your case than a public defender, and even some private attorneys.

    Like the movie A Few Good Men, Tom Cruise is a JAG

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 44 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    https://girightshotline.org/en/military-knowledge-base/conscientious-objection-discharge/

    There are programs in place to provide help to troops considering Conscientious Objection. Every single law is up to personal interpretation, so I don't know why you feel the need to emphasize it here. When I was asked to join the military during Bush II, I refused and am proud of that decision. Probably would have made my father proud. Probably would have gotten a lot of respect in my community. Probably would have helped pay for a college degree I wouldn't actually get a job with. But fuck traveling half way across the planet to kill civilians to protect an oil company's profits. If that was an easy decision for me at that age, not violating the rights your own countrymen should be even easier.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I never knew about this. I actually hope all our troops know about this also.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    The ACLU seems like it should also cover this sort of thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Do we need to have our commitment to them in writing in the presence of a lawyer in order for them to do the right thing and not follow illegal orders and threaten fellow Americans?

    They took an oath.

    That has nothing to do with our support.

    That being said, the support of the public tends to be more consistent than the support of the leadership we find ourselves with in recent history. That's made obvious by all the people getting help from others via GoFundMe type donations to cover their medical bills or simply for doing the right thing and being punished for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Do we need to have our commitment to them in writing in the presence of a lawyer in order for them to do the right thing and not follow illegal orders and threaten fellow Americans?

    No idea how to get the point across effectively, but some general assurance of a soft landing on/from the side for which they're putting their personal future at risk would probably be pretty helpful. The more ostracized and hated they feel in these early stages would probably just push them toward the other side, based on a rough risk-reward analysis.

    If anyone is actually depending on those sworn/affirmed oaths to keep the troops on their side, then they're living in a naive fantasy world. Those oaths are beautiful in their intent, but crumble pretty quickly in the harsh reality of viable livelihood and expected future compensation. Sorry, but I'm cynical and in my view loyalty is most easily purchased via material guarantees than ideology. Within limits, of course, and there's different thresholds of tolerance toward unpalatable orders vs living conditions for everyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Yeah, a lot of people are all talk but actually chickens out when you tell them to practice what they preach or help in some way to the cause. I was arguing in an anarchist community why it is a bad idea to fire the first shot and kill soldiers and police, because it makes it look bad on the protestors and it will finally provide reason for the government to invoke the insurrection act. Unsurprisingly, anarchists know little of the practical reality and are too trigger happy baying for blood. When I dared one to go to California and shoot the authorities if they believe that Trump and co. broke the social contract, unsurprisingly he/she made up excuses and chickened out. Said going about on social media and targeting far right leaders is just as effective. Right, as if bullying Trump on social media will make him quit the White House lol.

    It reminds me why i am not fully on board with anarchism despite having inherent and deep disdain on authority and hierarchy. Sorry my anarchist friends, but you are just as fantasists as any ideologues. I don't completely condemn violence when it comes to it, but you don't get the final sympathy when you break the promise of peaceful demonstrations and kill the authorities first. I mean, the world has sympathy on Syrian rebels, because Assad's forces fired on peaceful demonstrators first. Many people actually soured on the French Revolution at the time, when The Terror started with indiscriminate executions of many individuals deemed enemies of the revolution. Conflicts are won on public relations as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    A lot of people may or may not be the protesters in the streets, but don't feel like incriminating themselves on a public forum for internet clout if they are. This isn't the War Thunder forums.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    One of leftist, especially for anarchists, core beliefs is praxis or putting into practice what you preach. I can see where you are coming from, but the interlocutor was literally calling for violence and for himself to raise an army. But when I told him why won't he do what he says, he basically backed out. That's not praxis lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    17 comments in c/usa@midwest.social view that post
    9 comments in c/politics@sh.itjust.works view that post
    8 comments in c/usa@lemmy.ml view that post
    3 comments in c/usa@lemmy.ca view that post
    2 comments in c/conservative@sh.itjust.works view that post