We have arrived again at that point on the calendar to observe the 4th of July, that great date that marks when our forefathers declared the colonies independent from the British Empire in 1776. The words on the Declaration of Independence were powerful, and penned at great risk to the very “lives, fortunes, and sacred honors” of the 56 delegates who signed that monumental document. Their words required an army to enforce, which was created one year before to fight for that independence through the American Revolution. The American Army was birthed specifically to defend homeland territory. So why is the idea of such a use of American forces controversial in our time?
One day during coursework at the U.S. Army’s Command and General Staff College in 2018, I was shocked that the faculty led the staff group to which I was assigned through a battle planning scenario that involved protecting a U.S. city from foreign invasion. It was a stark departure from training scenarios I had experienced over the course of then 15 years in the military, during which all combat planning training focused on "liberating" people in foreign Nation A from foreign Nation B invaders. The frequency of such events matched the tempo through which we were reminded about the gospel of Posse Comitatus, an 1878 act that bars the U.S. military from enforcing civil law on American soil, except when authorized by Congress. With the deployment of National Guard troops being sent to help restore order in Los Angeles in recent weeks, we heard the “separation of military and state” siren call again from many who have a severe lack of historical awareness. They seem unaware that the military constitutionally exists for one purpose: to defend and protect Americans.
U.S. policymakers have focused the military primarily on foreign problems for too long, as peril to freedom showed up at home. I recently noted that the biggest threat to the United States is operating freely here on our soil, not on a foreign battlefield. The visual of foreign invaders burning cars and tossing rocks into windshields while waving the flags of other nations offered a stark visual confirmation of that point, which is that the nation’s undoing is in the space of ideological battle rather than physical combat abroad.
There isn’t adequate space in this commentary to offer a full treatise on recent uses of the military in civilian affairs. But suffice it to say that the U.S. military has operated on American soil before, and even in recent times. Federal military units deployed to New York City after 9/11, New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and—much infamously—to the U.S. Capitol in 2021. For those who retort that the debate is actually about lawful versus unlawful domestic uses of U.S. military forces, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that President Trump is lawfully authorized to maintain command of military forces supporting domestic law enforcement in California. The commander in chief has this authority and is obliged to use it when necessary.
Those who rule the governments of California and Los Angeles proved incapable of enforcing law and order repeatedly over the years. The military deployed federal troops there in 1965 and 1992 to mop up what civil authorities allowed to get out of hand. This doesn’t count the many other occasions that state officials needed to send National Guard forces downtown. During the COVID era, the U.S. Army’s Mission Command Training Program—to which I was assigned at the time—deployed teams to offer manpower at several unused convention center hospital sites around the nation. I even recall seeing a video of an American soldier walking through a downtown area trying to convince civilians to take the COVID jab. Let’s also not forget the use of National Guard forces to remove illegals from the not-so-welcoming streets of Martha’s Vineyard in 2022. Use of the military in civil affairs is so frequent that it’s recognized as a core capability of the defense department, known as Defense Support to Civil Authorities. The notion that President Trump is breaking with precedent by sending troops beyond the gates of their bases proves yet again a combination of willful and partisan blindness, and the failed state of public education.
Related: New: Judge Responds to Newsom's Emergency Motion to Stop Trump From Deploying Troops in Los Angeles
It's About to Get Real: 500 Marines Deploying to LA Area
Having a debate about whether a nation’s military should be used in its defense is something unique to Western nations. Parts of the world that aren’t caught up in Marxist guilt for existing include their militaries in maintaining civil security as a matter of normal practice. In such places where strength is the only language understood, it’s essential to have a visible military presence as part of maintaining a sense of law and order. This hasn’t been necessary in America during most of our recent history. But make no mistake, U.S. troops operating on American soil is not an anomaly and early Americans did not consider employing military forces against clear threats on our soil scandalous. Consider the War of 1812, and the Civil War. The same kind of people who condemn deployment of a small military contingent to do what civil law enforcement can’t or won’t in Los Angeles have spent lifetimes in complete support of General William Tecumseh Sherman’s actions across South Carolina and Georgia that were codified as war crimes within a century of his time. It was just 13 years after the Civil War’s end that Posse Comitatus set the new paradigm to restrict military commanders from unrestricted warfare on U.S. soil. Nevertheless, the southern states were administered for a time as military districts in what an official U.S. Army public relations story acknowledges as “the 1865 to 1877 occupation period.”
Despite all of this, the U.S. public in general has adopted a way of thinking in which our military should protect other nations around the world, but not our own. This thinking descends from a misguided theory of America having an "apolitical" military institution. As foreigners invaded the U.S. by the millions, American forces were focused on other nations that preferred expending GDP on social service programs rather than military deterrence. Even as the U.S. is not directly involved in any major war at present, the military’s operational tempo remains high. Troops are routinely deployed abroad, their families bearing a continual weight of prolonged separation in a time of alleged peace. Much of that blame lies in a promotion system that crowns military officers as generals based on whether they "deployed" units while in command positions. Critics may argue that the ultimate point of having the U.S. military globally-focused today is because its primary role should be deterrence, leaving domestic agencies to handle American defense. To that I point out that shifting alliances among belligerent nations, and the willingness of Iran and Russia to foment two recent wars on our watch, offer a reality check that the deterring effect of American presence around the world is in decline from its mid-20th-century watermark.
California officials offer the nation one example after another that they are either incapable or unwilling to put the safety of Americans over the sensitivities of illegals, invaders, and paid anarchists. If California did not want federal help, state officials there could have followed the example of law-and-order policy enforcement set by the DeSantis administration in Florida. There isn’t a shortage of civilian law enforcement across the Golden State. Rather, the radical revolutionaries who run it view their role as that of perpetuating what Barack Obama labeled the fundamental transformation of the nation. They’re willing to enable violence to that end, as all Marxist revolutionaries are. When local law enforcement is unable or unwilling to defend the safety of Americans, a higher magistrate must step in.
The Army’s motto is “This We’ll Defend.” But what does the “This” represent? If America’s military does not exist to repel foreign invasion directly or indirectly in coordination with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, what does it exist for? America is under physical attack. In remembering the Continental Army’s role in America’s war for independence, we would do well to halt the pearl clutching over using our armed forces to fulfill the constitutional purpose of providing “for a common defense” for Americans first.
Editor's Note: Thanks to President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's leadership, the warrior ethos is coming back to America's military.
Help us report on Trump and Hegseth’s successes as they make our military great again. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member