Donald Trump and maga Republicans short term memory loss about military history 101
I’m a veteran. We must reject the notion that troops on our streets are a solution. Echo opinion letter published in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
As a Marine veteran, the sight of uniformed troops on the streets of Washington, D.C., is deeply troubling. It stands in stark contrast to the oath I and every other service member swore: A solemn promise to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This oath is not to a president, a political party, or a flag — it is to the document and the principles that separate a free society from a militarized state.
The decision to deploy troops is often justified by a narrative of imminent chaos, but this justification relies on a selective and sometimes fabricated version of events. Our oath to the Constitution provides the moral and legal framework for what constitutes a lawful order.
The nine-month military occupation of Wilmington in the late 1960s stands as a grim testament to how such a situation can spiral out of control, leaving a legacy of deep-seated trauma and division.
As a veteran, I am proud of my service to this country and the Constitution. But I am also deeply concerned. The deployment of troops to our capital is not a sign of strength, but a sign of a society in peril. It is an extraordinary measure that erodes public trust and undermines the very principles we swore to protect.
We must reject the notion that troops on our streets are a solution. Instead, we must demand accountability, transparency, and a renewed commitment to the principles of a free and open society, where the police serve the people and the military serves the nation by protecting it from foreign adversaries — not its own citizens.
This is a distinction we must not allow to be erased.
From- Joa Rojas served as a staff sergeant in the U.S. Marine Corps. She is currently pursuing a master’s degree in public administration from New York University and is a resident of Gloucester Township, New Jersey.
As a Marine, I vowed to protect the country, not turn my training — designed for combat, not de-escalation — on fellow citizens exercising their constitutional rights.
As a Marine veteran, the sight of uniformed troops on the streets of Washington, D.C., is deeply troubling. It stands in stark contrast to the oath I and every other service member swore: A solemn promise to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This oath is not to a president, a political party, or a flag — it is to the document and the principles that separate a free society from a militarized state.
Our nation’s founders were acutely aware of the dangers of a standing army. Their fears, rooted in events like the Boston Massacre, led them to enshrine a clear separation between the military and domestic law enforcement.
This foundational mistrust of military power is why the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, was passed. It’s a crucial safeguard designed to limit the use of federal military personnel for domestic law enforcement, protecting against the very scenario we are now witnessing.
When I swore my enlistment oath, I understood that “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” was a heavy responsibility. I believed it meant protecting our country from those who would undermine our democratic institutions. It did not mean turning my training — designed for combat and not de-escalation — on fellow citizens exercising their constitutional right to protest.
History has shown us what happens when this line is blurred. The tragedy at Kent State in 1970, where National Guard members opened fire on student protesters, serves as a painful reminder. The military is not trained to police communities; it is trained to neutralize threats. Their presence in a policing role creates an environment of fear and confrontation, escalating tensions rather than resolving them.
An order that misuses military power to suppress legitimate protest, or is based on manufactured information, is an abuse of that power. This rhetorical strategy, as seen in historical instances like the use of troops during the civil rights era or the 1992 Los Angeles riots, serves to legitimize an extraordinary measure while simultaneously fueling public mistrust. When the public perceives that the government is misusing and fabricating information to justify a military response, the social contract between the state and its citizens begins to fray.
A society that welcomes troops as its police force is one that has lost faith in its institutions. It’s an admission of failure by the government to address the root causes of civil unrest. This path leads to a vicious cycle: Military presence breeds fear and resentment, which can escalate tensions, which, in turn, is used to justify an even heavier military hand.
This foundational mistrust of military power is why the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, was passed. It’s a crucial safeguard designed to limit the use of federal military personnel for domestic law enforcement, protecting against the very scenario we are now witnessing.
When I swore my enlistment oath, I understood that “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” was a heavy responsibility. I believed it meant protecting our country from those who would undermine our democratic institutions. It did not mean turning my training — designed for combat and not de-escalation — on fellow citizens exercising their constitutional right to protest.
History has shown us what happens when this line is blurred. The tragedy at Kent State in 1970, where National Guard members opened fire on student protesters, serves as a painful reminder. The military is not trained to police communities; it is trained to neutralize threats. Their presence in a policing role creates an environment of fear and confrontation, escalating tensions rather than resolving them.
An order that misuses military power to suppress legitimate protest, or is based on manufactured information, is an abuse of that power. This rhetorical strategy, as seen in historical instances like the use of troops during the civil rights era or the 1992 Los Angeles riots, serves to legitimize an extraordinary measure while simultaneously fueling public mistrust. When the public perceives that the government is misusing and fabricating information to justify a military response, the social contract between the state and its citizens begins to fray.
A society that welcomes troops as its police force is one that has lost faith in its institutions. It’s an admission of failure by the government to address the root causes of civil unrest. This path leads to a vicious cycle: Military presence breeds fear and resentment, which can escalate tensions, which, in turn, is used to justify an even heavier military hand.
The decision to deploy troops is often justified by a narrative of imminent chaos, but this justification relies on a selective and sometimes fabricated version of events. Our oath to the Constitution provides the moral and legal framework for what constitutes a lawful order.
The nine-month military occupation of Wilmington in the late 1960s stands as a grim testament to how such a situation can spiral out of control, leaving a legacy of deep-seated trauma and division.
As a veteran, I am proud of my service to this country and the Constitution. But I am also deeply concerned. The deployment of troops to our capital is not a sign of strength, but a sign of a society in peril. It is an extraordinary measure that erodes public trust and undermines the very principles we swore to protect.
We must reject the notion that troops on our streets are a solution. Instead, we must demand accountability, transparency, and a renewed commitment to the principles of a free and open society, where the police serve the people and the military serves the nation by protecting it from foreign adversaries — not its own citizens.
This is a distinction we must not allow to be erased.
From- Joa Rojas served as a staff sergeant in the U.S. Marine Corps. She is currently pursuing a master’s degree in public administration from New York University and is a resident of Gloucester Township, New Jersey.
Labels: Boston Massacre, Consitution of the United States, Gloucester Township, Joa Rojas, New Jersey, Philadelphia Inquirer, U.S. Marine Corps, Wahington D.C.
posted by Juliana L'Heureux | 5:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home