From Kent State to Los Angeles: Using Armed Forces to Police Civilians is a High-Risk Strategy
President Trump ordered 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to support federal immigration enforcement raids. The deployment raised concerns from Governor Newsom, who deemed the action as inflammatory. A historian draws parallels to the Kent State shooting of 1970, warning against the use of military force in civilian matters, which can exacerbate conflict rather than solve it.
The decision to send 2,000 troops from the California National Guard into Los Angeles has drawn considerable attention, amid ongoing protests against federal immigration enforcement actions. President Donald Trump’s orders, issued on June 7, 2025, aimed at protecting agents involved in these controversial raids. The orders went a step further, allowing the Pentagon to deploy active-duty troops as needed, but provided no guidelines concerning the use of force.
California’s Governor Gavin Newsom criticized this move. He had not called for the National Guard’s presence, labeling the decision “inflammatory” and suggesting it could escalate existing tensions. The situation echoes past confrontations, provoking memories of the Kent State tragedy during the Vietnam War era.
Historian and author of “Kent State: An American Tragedy” argues that the current deployment eerily parallels the events of May 4, 1970, when National Guard troops clashed with anti-war demonstrators at Kent State University. This confrontation ended tragically, as troops opened fire, killing four students. The historian underscores that while some troops today might have received better training, their primary purpose remains combat-focused, not crowd control.
Typically, the National Guard functions as state militias, activated under the command of governors, and they often respond to local crises. However, President Trump’s actions, which did not involve the Insurrection Act but rather Section 12406 of Title 10, effectively placed armed forces at the center of civil unrest. His orders extended beyond Los Angeles, allowing military support wherever protests against immigration enforcement operations might arise.
Recollecting the Kent State standoff, the historian details how tensions flared in 1970 as protests escalated following Nixon’s decision to invade Cambodia. Students confronted National Guardsmen, but unlike law enforcement, Guardsmen had inadequate training in managing such situations. Alarmingly, orders were given that lacked proper communication and led to chaos.
Despite improvements in National Guard equipment and ones’ experiences since then, the narrative remains that these forces are primarily combat troops first. The historian emphasizes the lessons learned from Kent State about the need for authorities to exercise restraint as an appropriate response to protests and cautions against military deployment — asserting that the often unpredictable nature of force results in severe consequences.
Aggressive military intervention can aggravate conflicts rather than resolve them. Research suggests that a perceived show of respect and restraint from authorities can lead to less violent protests. The Kent State shooting serves as a troubling reminder of the inherent risks involved when military forces are employed to address civil matters, highlighting the importance of careful and thoughtful strategies in handling unrest.
In conclusion, deploying military forces, such as the California National Guard, to manage civilian protests is a precarious strategy that raises historical concerns. The recent orders given by President Trump reflect a troubling parallel to the Kent State tragedy, emphasizing the need for caution when involving military personnel in domestic affairs. Protests should be met with respect and restraint rather than force. Historical precedence underscores these dangers, validating the call for more thoughtful strategies in responding to civil unrest.
Original Source: theconversation.com
Post Comment