Due to the length of the last piece, I’m starting a new entry to post discussion regarding it so it’ll be easier to read the comments and my reaction. Off the bat, thank you all for your readership and participation. Let’s start with reader “Yakubian Ape,” who has a
3. I actually found this an example of how the government is really powerful - they prevented the president, the chief executive, from taking action. I've played out the scenario in this space numerous times, but had Trump invoked the Insurrection Act, I think you would've seen the military disobey or, as you just said above, "obey but not comply." The fact he had to mobilize special law enforcement units that he still had control of shows just how limited his options were. Border Patrol's BORTAC and the FBP's SORT aren't meant to be used for civil unrest, though they did a great job.
It creates an interesting future scenario, where a Republican president loses control of the military, but still has these law enforcement special units at his disposal.
I think that politicians were publicly saying they wouldn’t but in the background looking into it. I recall from the time that a Department of Defence spokesman quashed the idea, but can’t find that article. I think it was more a case of the idea being floated but the military making it effectively clear they didn’t want to be a part of it. See here for some history: https://globalnews.ca/news/9085445/canadian-forces-freedom-convoy-2022/amp/
The military being deployed for domestic missions isn't in any way unusual in either the U.S. nor Canada. They've fired upon Americans and they've also been killed by Americans.
As civil unrest becomes worse in both countries, I think they'll have no choice but to go back to deploying the military domestically. I think public reaction will be more negative and it'll become a politically divisive issue, depending on whom the military is being deployed against.
It's going to be very interesting to see how military leadership responds to such orders.
3. I actually found this an example of how the government is really powerful - they prevented the president, the chief executive, from taking action. I've played out the scenario in this space numerous times, but had Trump invoked the Insurrection Act, I think you would've seen the military disobey or, as you just said above, "obey but not comply." The fact he had to mobilize special law enforcement units that he still had control of shows just how limited his options were. Border Patrol's BORTAC and the FBP's SORT aren't meant to be used for civil unrest, though they did a great job.
It creates an interesting future scenario, where a Republican president loses control of the military, but still has these law enforcement special units at his disposal.
I didn't know the military openly opposed intervention. This despite Justin Trudeau himself suggesting the military might need to play a role?
I think that politicians were publicly saying they wouldn’t but in the background looking into it. I recall from the time that a Department of Defence spokesman quashed the idea, but can’t find that article. I think it was more a case of the idea being floated but the military making it effectively clear they didn’t want to be a part of it. See here for some history: https://globalnews.ca/news/9085445/canadian-forces-freedom-convoy-2022/amp/
The military being deployed for domestic missions isn't in any way unusual in either the U.S. nor Canada. They've fired upon Americans and they've also been killed by Americans.
As civil unrest becomes worse in both countries, I think they'll have no choice but to go back to deploying the military domestically. I think public reaction will be more negative and it'll become a politically divisive issue, depending on whom the military is being deployed against.
It's going to be very interesting to see how military leadership responds to such orders.