By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Donald Trump signed an order deploying the National Guard to Memphis, Tennessee, aiming to combat crime in the city, mirroring his approach in Washington, D.C. The deployment, which will involve a special task force with various federal agencies, was announced with Republican Governor Bill Lee present, although details on the timing and specifics of the enforcement efforts were not immediately available. Despite recent reports of crime decreases in Memphis, the White House cited the city’s higher-than-average crime rate as justification for the intervention. While Memphis’s Democratic mayor expressed opposition to the deployment, Trump indicated a willingness to send troops to other cities, including Chicago, regardless of local support.
Read the original article here
Trump deploys National Guard to Memphis, calling it a ‘replica’ of his crackdown on Washington, and it seems like a move filled with political theater and a lot of questions. The situation screams of performative action more than genuine need. The fact that Tennessee has a Republican governor who could mobilize the state’s National Guard at any time, suggests this is more about optics and a show of force than a true emergency response. This feels like a deliberate attempt to threaten other states.
The primary concern immediately seems to be the misuse of resources. Deploying the National Guard to patrol the safest parts of a city, and to do things like yard work, just doesn’t make sense. It feels like a massive waste of taxpayer money, especially when you consider the reported daily cost per guardsman in D.C. alone. That money could be used far more effectively by directly funding city police departments, potentially doubling their size through federal grants. Or, the cities could just raise taxes and do the same thing.
The potential for this kind of action to become a norm is concerning, and the implications of deploying troops in American cities are significant. It raises serious questions about the role of the federal government in local law enforcement and whether this is the best way to address underlying issues. The lack of a clear emergency or unrest within the city makes the deployment even more suspect. It doesn’t seem like there’s a true justification for these actions, especially when you consider that there are no real criteria being met to deploy the National Guard.
The choice of Memphis, a city with a large Black population, raises red flags about the motivations behind this deployment. The suggestion is that this is not a response to actual unrest or a need to protect citizens, but instead a show of dominance against a particular demographic. And, the fact that Trump mentioned other Democrat-leaning cities, like New Orleans, as potential locations for future deployments only reinforces this idea.
The focus on tasks like trash pickup and gardening, while possibly creating cleaner streets, further underscores the superficial nature of the deployment. It’s difficult to see how this is a strategic use of the National Guard, a part-time volunteer force meant for emergencies. The fact that the National Guard is being pulled away from their normal jobs and families so they can perform menial tasks is a disgrace. It’s also very likely to have a negative impact on morale, retention, and future recruitment.
It’s also worth considering what this move suggests about the priorities of those in power. Instead of addressing the root causes of crime and instability, like funding police departments or providing social services, the focus seems to be on creating a visual spectacle. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that this is about projecting an image of strength, or dominance, rather than actually solving any real problems.
The potential for abuse is evident. This deployment could be a precursor to more aggressive actions, as they could be trying to provoke a reaction that could be used to justify more extreme measures. It’s a concerning move, and we need to be vigilant about what this could lead to. The fact that this deployment is happening in the context of a highly charged political environment only increases these concerns.
Ultimately, this is a highly controversial move. It’s important to question the motivations behind it, the effectiveness of this strategy, and the potential long-term consequences. The deployment seems more about political posturing and creating a specific visual. The use of taxpayer dollars, the impact on the National Guard, and the potential for escalating tensions are all reasons to be skeptical and to demand a more transparent explanation of what is happening, and more importantly, why.