Now, the sudden deployment of 700 Marines to combat Los Angeles drug dealers has raised eyebrows and drawn fierce criticism from both the service members and outside observers. These Marines deployed from the Twentynine Palms Marine base. They made it into the city on Wednesday to assist in bringing order after a week’s worth of unrest and protests. They should play a much greater role than those Californian National Guard troops deployed alongside them. Both forces will collaborate and coordinate with each other to keep the peace, but neither will have power of arrest.
This latest deployment calls to mind a pivotal story from 1992. At that time, Corps Marines had intervened to restore law enforcement authority in Los Angeles riots. As a reporter for The New York Times, CJ Chivers saw the influence of the Marines in that chaotic era. He has since expressed concern about the confusing emotion tied to supporting military engagement in domestic policing.
Both industry and military responses to the current deployment have been emotional and visceral. Media reports have suggested that as members began to receive their orders, many raised concerns about being brought into a domestic policing operation. Concerns have risen that they are being set up for failure, a sentiment echoed by Chris Purdy of the Chamberlain Network, who stated, “Morale is not great, is the quote I keep hearing.” A lot of Marines are worried that their role in civil unrest would misconstrue the nature of their mission and undercut their standard of character.
Even California’s own governor, Gavin Newsom, has labelled the deployment as superfluous. He argues it uncovers a deeper pattern of abuse against service members by the White House. His remarks expose a deepening discomfort with deploying military force against civilians. Now the American public is asking if these efforts are really matching up with what our national security priorities are.
Sarah Streyder, director of the advocacy group Veterans For Responsible Leadership, said, “The mood on the right and the left is unmistakable. Using military force against our own people is not the kind of national security we enlisted to defend. This view pushes aside an understandable concern that service members would be used as political bargaining chips. Overall, their role in this saga is very unclear.
The legacy of military engagement within the circuitous streets of Los Angeles isn’t so cut and dry. In the case of the 1992 riots, the Marines misinterpreted a police officer’s instruction to “cover me.” This misperception resulted in the release of more than 200 rounds of M16 gunfire. This incident serves as a stark reminder of the potential consequences when military forces engage in domestic law enforcement activities.
As the Marines settle into their new roles, there is ongoing dialogue about their purpose and the implications of their presence in civilian areas. Janessa Goldbeck, veteran advocate and CEO of Dog Tag, Inc. said the most common sentiments she heard from people was that the Marines are being used as political pawns. This politicization creates doubts on the myth that Marines are apolitical. This short statement captures the tightrope that service members must walk between their official responsibilities and how they are perceived by the general public.
The deployment has inspired conversations within veterans’ networks about their responsibility to protect democracy. The Chamberlain Network aims to “mobilize and empower veterans to protect democracy,” indicating a desire for veterans to have a clear and constructive role in society beyond military engagements.
While some veterans have had positive experiences in community service roles, Sarah Streyder remarked on the contrasting nature of this deployment: “Both of those experiences were uncomplicatedly positive, a contribution back to the community. This is quite the opposite.” Further, we know many of you are nervous about how this deployment is going to play out. That’s a big problem for the public and for those who serve.