"It Is Never Appropriate to Send the Military Against Civilians"
Unless, of course, those civilians are on the wrong side of the political divide.
A tense situation is developing north of the border. For the last few weeks, a massive protest, primarily comprised of transportation workers, has been taking place in Canada against what they view as creeping authoritarianism on the part of the government led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Compared to their response to the George Floyd protests of the summer of 2020, which were violent (though arguably less violent than they were in the United States), the Trudeau regime has taken a hard line against the “trucker protest,” despite their less violent nature or complete lack of violence. There isn’t much of a mystery behind this. Trudeau, a hard-line leftist leading an intensely center-left country (more so than the U.S.), is refusing to tolerate the political activities of workers who, despite comprising the political minority of the country, are nonetheless people critical to the functioning of the Canadian economy. However, as the truckers are, at worst, in something of a legal gray zone currently, which ties Trudeau’s hands as far as how to handle the situation.
On Wednesday, however, the situation took an ominous turn. Authorities in the city of Ottawa, Canada’s capital, announced the Canadian Armed Forces could be brought in to put an end to the non-violent protests:
At the same time, the Ottawa police chief acknowledge deploying the military was a step up the escalation ladder:
The Prime Minister has yet to comment on the matter. Since his positive COVID test a few days ago, Trudeau has been missing in action, aside from social media activity, where he disgracefully engaged in character assassination of the protesters, apparently leading some citizens to ask 911, of all people, where he is in all of this.
However, Trudeau has already made his position clear concerning the use of military force against protesters, violent or otherwise:
The problem with making such absolute proclamations is obvious: you cannot change your mind, not without a really good explanation or taking a hit to your credibility. The precedent has been set by Trudeau: the Canadian military shouldn’t ever be deployed against Canadian citizens. Of course, everyone know Trudeau isn’t an impartial actor in all of this, but, from a rhetorical perspective, he has boxed himself into a corner on this one.
This calls to mind something that happened in the summer of 2020 during the Floyd protests in the U.S. In response to suggestions President Donald Trump was considering using the active-duty military to restore order across the country, an outburst of condemnation erupted from a coterie of retired senior military officers, including, most notably, retired Marine four-star general and Trump’s first Secretary of Defense, Jim Mattis.
In a statement written for The Atlantic, Mattis, who has largely been unheard from since, stated:
At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict—between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part. Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them.
There are problems with what Mattis said, including his belief that the military should be used only at the request of state governors. Historically, this is how military forces under federal control have been domestically deployed, but this is hardly codified by law (hence his use of the word “should”). This is Mattis’ opinion and, despite his long and distinguished career, it’s not authoritative, nor is it convincing. If civil disorder appears to be raging out of control and the country approaching the brink, if the president is unwilling to do whatever necessary to restore order, then who will?
This isn’t a treatise into the legal or moral ramifications of deploying the military domestically. Rather, the point is to show two instances, in arguably two of the freest countries on Earth, where those in a position of institutional authority declared the use of the military against a citizenry effectively off-limits. But, it’s become abundantly clear those in charge do see military force as a valid option against those exercising political violence contingent on which side of the divide they represent.
Don’t believe me? Look at the heavily-militarized response in the wake of the 1/6/21 riot at the U.S. Capitol - thousands of troops provided security in the weeks leading up to and following the inauguration of President Joe Biden. One can say argue that any disruptions to the normal proceedings of governance are critical to the sustenance of any republic. But, again, consider the absolutist rhetoric on the matter. Here’s what then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said about deploying the military against protesters in the summer of 2020:
“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. We are not in one of those situations now. I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act now,” Esper said at a news conference. Esper also said, “I do everything I can to stay apolitical.”
Personally, I believe the jury to be still out concerning whether or not the deployment of military forces against the Floyd rioters was justified or not. As noted earlier, deploying military force in a law enforcement capacity is a major step up the escalation ladder and not the normal course of affairs. At the same time, the Floyd riots were undoubtedly the worst civil unrest the country has seen since the 1960s. Individually, few areas reached the depths seen in the 1992 Los Angeles riots, where 63 people were killed in just one city, but they did come close and a minority of major metropolitan areas were left unscathed.
If the 2020 Floyd riots weren’t a “most urgent and dire of situations,” they certainly came very close. Even if the riots hadn’t intensified, had they merely continued, the public would inevitably demand harsher measures to crack down on the lawlessness. To news anchors, riots may be merely the voice of the unheard, but, for the public, it’s a matter of life and death. Secretary Esper might believe he was expressing prudence and upholding the apolitical norm of the military, but he was also, perhaps inappropriately, speaking on behalf of the entire American state and saying, “We will not lift a finger to stop this rampant lawlessness until control of the situation has been totally lost.”
The 1/6 riot at the Capitol was bad in it’s own unique way, but was nowhere near the size, scope, and level of violence reached by the Floyd riots. This is an indisputable fact. Our national and institutional leadership were far more ambiguous concerning the use of military force, however, never declaring it off the table, while never calling for their use, either. However, the question as to the delayed military deployment has been a major sticking point in the wake of 1/6, but, even here, it seems the delayed deployment was entirely due to the military’s own concerns about the forces being used in an inappropriate matter by Donald Trump, who was still president on 1/6, not because they considered the use of military force inappropriate for the situation:
One of the most vexing questions about Jan. 6 is why the National Guard took more than three hours to arrive at the Capitol after D.C. authorities and Capitol Police called for immediate assistance. The Pentagon’s restraint in allowing the Guard to get to the Capitol was not simply a reflection of officials’ misgivings about the deployment of military force during the summer 2020 protests, nor was it simply a concern about “optics” of having military personnel at the Capitol. Instead, evidence is mounting that the most senior defense officials did not want to send troops to the Capitol because they harbored concerns that President Donald Trump might utilize the forces’ presence in an attempt to hold onto power.
According to a report released last month, Christopher Miller, who served as acting Secretary of the Defense on Jan. 6, told the Department’s inspector general that he feared “if we put U.S. military personnel on the Capitol, I would have created the greatest Constitutional crisis probably since the Civil War.” In congressional testimony, he said he was also cognizant of “fears that the President would invoke the Insurrection Act to politicize the military in an anti-democratic manner” and that “factored into my decisions regarding the appropriate and limited use of our Armed Forces to support civilian law enforcement during the Electoral College certification.” [bold mine]
Still, by the time the dust settled on 1/6, a message had been sent: rioting, no matter how violent and widespread, if done for politically correct reasons, will be tolerated right up to the brink. Anything not done for politically correct reasons will result in the consideration of the use of military force. Furthermore, our country will tolerate chaos and disorder that places the public at risk, but anything brought to the doorstep of the Regime by anyone on the wrong side of the political divide.
If this is all going somewhere, it’s definitely not somewhere good. If we’ve reached a point where something as ghastly as civil war ought to be more seriously speculated on as a possibility, then we’re certainly past the point of pretending the military would never be employed against the public. After all, it’s happened many times throughout American history.
But it’s one thing for the military to be used to restore order and uphold the rule of law, a perfectly valid, if sparingly-executed, mission for the armed forces. It’s another to deploy the military selectively on a political basis and that increasingly appears to be the precedent being set. Any consideration of future political violence or possible civil war in this country is limited to the perception of threat posed by one side of the political divide. The enabling of political violence on one side and intolerance towards that of another raises the stakes and portends a more oppressive and disorderly future.
This brings us to the biggest question of all: if America’s own center-left government today, led by the Joe Biden administration, ordered the military stamp out a similar protest similar to that of Canada, would they follow suit? Aside from some hesitation and mild dissension from the lower ranks, the answer is likely to be “yes.”
For all it’s problems, one problem which has never plagued the U.S., Canadian, or any other military of the Anglosphere, is disobedience. This is in large part due to the fact the principle of civilian control of the military has been deeply ingrained in the institutions of the respective countries for centuries, in some cases, from the very beginning. The few times disobedience has been an issue, even at the very highest levels, it has been appropriately dealt with without lingering consequences. Though many scholars have made a name for themselves in recent years by sounding the alarm regarding civilian control of the military being at risk, the reality is, the military leadership and the civilians, disagreements aside, have probably never been closer and more on the same page than they are now.
What about on the lower levels? Perhaps there exists plenty of dissension among the rank-and-file, especially considering the well-documented cultural and political divide between those who do fighting and dying versus those who issue their marching orders from up on high and support them. But, even if this dissension exists on any significant level, any sort of mass disobedience is likely to fail without the involvement of someone high up on the chain of command (think stars on the shoulders). In fact, most military coups and rebellions tend to be led by high-ranking officers wielding incredible influence and with the ability to marshal considerable resources. Not all attempts are successful, of course, but they cannot be successful without this one key ingredient. Anyone dissenting or rebelling will be signing their own death warrants, essentially, and will find themselves left high and dry with no place to go.
In all likelihood, both the U.S. and Canadian armed forces would follow the given order, regardless of any reservations they may have. At worst, if mass disobedience were to occur, it could result in a collapse of the military as a viable fighting force, if not the institution as a whole. It need not be said this would be a bad outcome for the Regime, but it’d be a bad outcome for the country, also.
We can only hope that such an order will never be given. But, as domestic political tensions rise and the system becomes more unstable, those who say “never” may find there’s no such thing.
Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.
If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!