Andrew Bacevich's Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft held a panel discussion yesterday on the current but eerie topic of The US military’s role in a contested election 10/28/2020. The full video is available at the link, and also on Facebook. The three panelists were Bacevich, Amber Smith, and Mark Hertling. The link has brief bios on them.
There also a Facebook link: https://fb.watch/1pwVmwn9wk/
On the sensational-sounding possibility of some kind of military coup happening in the wake of a contested election, they all agreed that the possibility was highly unlikely. They all agreed that an August Open Letter by John Nagl and Paul Yingling on the topic (“. . . All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic”: An Open Letter to Gen. Milley Defense One 08/11/2020) that attracted quite a bit of attention was "irresponsible" on the part of Nagl and Yingling. Or, as Bacevich put it, "utterly irresponsible and stupid." But they did discuss the hypothetical of Trump losing the election and just refusing to leave office.
Bacevich put it this way, saying that if Biden wins the election he becomes President on January 20. "If Donald Trump decides he wants to continue to reside in the White House, who cares?" Biden would be President and that would be a minor problem to deal with. Smith said that in that case, which all three agreed was unlikely, it would be the responsibility of law enforcement and not the military to deal with it. Hertling suggested that if Trump refuses to leave the Oval Office, they should just turn out the lights, don't bring in any food, and wait for him to get tired and leave.
They also discussed that in case there was actual serious civil violence in some places after the election that neither local police or the state National Guard could adequately handle, the President does have the authority to declare martial law in an area or to invoke the Insurrection Act. Hertling commented that both laws are "squishy," meaning unclear in some ways. But all three panelists agreed on the obvious that neither should be used to suppress protests. Hertling said it would be justified only in cases of "extreme violence". That means, something a lot more serious than someone smashing store windows or setting a fire in a trash can.
Hertling also commented more generally that he is "absolutely opposed" to the increased militarization of the police.
And he stressed that state National Guards are normally trained in handling civil disturbances, crowd control, and so forth. But the military is trained to handle such matters primarily in a hostile foreign environment. And he noted specifically that it means that soldiers sent into American cities to handle such situations are more likely to start shooting earlier.
Bacevich expressed his opinion that it is a bad development for retired senior military officers - I assume he has mainly generals in mind though he didn't specify - to make partisan political endorsements, although as he noted, there is no law against it nor should there be. But his worry is that such endorsements contribute to normalizing the notion that it is legitimate for the military to be a partisan political body. Hertling explained why he disagreed, while Smith just complained about former military officers criticizing Trump.
I recall that Biden at one point responded to a question about Trump refusing to leave office in a somewhat offhand way by saying if that were to happen the military would just come take him out of there. In the moment, it conveyed the point that if he were elected President, he wouldn't stand for such a ploy by Trump. I was relieved to hear that at the time, because it showed more of a willingness to fight against Republican misconduct that Democrats are often willing to.
But technically speaking, that was a Biden "gaffe". Because it would be a law-enforcement responsibility, presumably the Secret Service, to take appropriate action to remove Trump if he decides to illegally trespass in the White House after a new President is inaugurated.
No comments:
Post a Comment