By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former President Obama has criticized President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to U.S. cities, deeming it a politicization of the military and a potential undermining of democracy. Obama highlighted the importance of civilian control over the military, referencing the Posse Comitatus Act, and pointed out that a president should only deploy the military domestically in extraordinary emergencies. He contrasted Trump’s actions with his own, noting that when troops were deployed during his administration, they were under the command of state governors. Obama also raised concerns about the impact on local communities and law enforcement.
Read the original article here
Obama: ‘Inherently corrupting’ for a president to use military ‘against their own people’ is a statement that resonates deeply, and the truth of it is hard to deny. It’s a sentiment that, in a perfect world, should unite people across the political spectrum. The very idea of a president deploying the military against its own citizens is a terrifying one, a clear sign of a government losing its way. It’s not just a question of what happens in the moment; it’s the precedent it sets, the erosion of trust, the slow chipping away at the foundations of democracy.
The language used to describe such actions often feels inadequate. “Inherently corrupting” is perhaps a carefully chosen phrase, but it doesn’t quite capture the gravity of the situation. It’s a lot more than just a matter of corruption; it is, as some have said, a step towards authoritarianism, a dangerous escalation that should be resisted at all costs. The military, when used in this way, becomes a tool of oppression, and the line between citizen and enemy blurs. It undermines the very principles the nation was founded on.
The problem is, the definition of “their own people” has become a point of contention. For some, the concept of “the left” or certain political opponents is already defined as the enemy, justifying the use of force. This distorted view, fueled by division and othering, creates a dangerous cycle where the government believes it is protecting itself from its own people. Those who hold this view may not see the deployment of the military as an attack on Americans, but as a necessary measure to protect the nation.
The response from those in power often feels inadequate, as if words are not being chosen carefully enough. Some are disappointed by the lack of strong language, by the reluctance to call a spade a spade and label such actions as treason. Instead, there’s a sense that the situation is treated with a detached calm that downplays the severity of the situation. It is as if the gravity of what is occurring hasn’t fully set in, and we are merely watching unfortunate events unfold. This is a difficult subject to address, given that so much is at stake.
And yet, the reality is complex. It’s hard to deny that Obama, despite his words, took actions that could be considered as laying the groundwork for some of the concerning developments we are witnessing. The use of drone strikes, even against foreign targets, raised serious questions about due process and the abuse of power. Obama’s actions, and those of his administration, opened the door for future presidents, perhaps even the one currently in power, to push the boundaries of presidential authority.
This creates a confusing and painful situation. Many argue that the right must hold both parties to the same standards, recognizing that actions are wrong regardless of who takes them. This could lead to an interesting political future. While the call for the military is wrong, it must be considered.
In the end, the conversation around this issue is multi-layered and complex. It involves questioning the intent of the actions, understanding the context in which they occur, and recognizing that the use of the military against civilians is almost always a terrible idea.