By Matt Underwood Exclusive: Military feared mistakes in LA deployment could have ‘far-reaching’ implications, records show. The whole thing sounds like it was set up to fail, doesn’t it? From what I’m gathering, there were serious concerns within the military about the deployment of troops in Los Angeles. The records indicate that officials anticipated that this operation could easily attract protests, possibly leading to escalating civil unrest. The worry wasn’t just about the immediate situation but also about the potential for long-term consequences.
The underlying fear was that a misstep, a mistake in judgment, or an accidental incident could create a dangerous chain reaction, escalating far beyond the initial scope of the deployment. The potential for a soldier to react out of fear or confusion in a tense standoff with civilians was a major concern. Similarly, the possibility of civilians lashing out and harming a soldier also loomed large. Any incident, no matter how small, could quickly spiral out of control, leading to a situation that the administration wouldn’t be able to manage.
The specter of the ’92 LA riots loomed large. The National Guard is often involved in humanitarian efforts and disaster relief, and they need the public’s trust to accomplish their mission. Repeating a scenario like that would have completely destroyed their efforts. It seems the administration may have been hoping for exactly that – an excuse to declare martial law. The concern was that such actions could lead to civil unrest, which could, in turn, be used as justification for a heavier military presence, ultimately leading to a potential fascist power grab. Some people also expressed that the military deployment would likely attract extremists, which would only exacerbate the situation.
The legal questions were obviously a major sticking point. People were quick to point out the violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, a law designed to prevent the military from being used as a domestic police force. The fact that the administration was seemingly willing to ignore this law raised significant alarm bells. To make things worse, those within the military were well aware of the history, specifically, the Kent State Shootings, and the negative impact those had on military recruiting and public trust. The possibility of a repeat of such a tragic event was clearly something they wanted to avoid.
A critical point seems to be the optics. The deployment and its potential outcomes were feared because they were worried more about what would look good for the Administration than for the people. The warnings from senior military officers, which were seemingly ignored, underscore the depth of these concerns. It seemed that the administration was ready to take a gamble on the situation and possibly have the military do exactly what it wanted, no matter the cost or legality.
Another factor that came up quite a bit was the training. The military members involved had a limited amount of civil disturbance training before deployment, which is a clear indicator that the mission wasn’t suited for what the National Guard’s mission. What’s even more troubling is the focus on “fratricide” or “blue on blue” incidents rather than explicitly stating “shooting civilians.” It suggests an internal recognition of potential danger and a concern for the lives of those within their own ranks.
Ultimately, the concerns centered around the potential for an escalation that was both dangerous and undesirable. The military clearly saw the risks involved, including the risk of their forces and federal agents shooting each other at the MacArthur Park operation. These agents were overarmed for what was supposed to be a propaganda video, which increases the risks. The records reveal a deep apprehension that any mistake or incident could have “far-reaching implications,” not just for the immediate situation, but for the very fabric of civil-military relations and the stability of the country.