Troops and marines deeply troubled by LA deployment: ‘Morale is not great’

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"California Troops Express Discontent Over Deployment Amid Protests"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 6.9
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

California National Guard troops and Marines deployed to Los Angeles have expressed significant dissatisfaction with their assignment, fearing they are being used as political tools in a domestic policing operation. Advocacy groups representing military families report hearing from numerous service members who feel uncomfortable about being involved in what they perceive as a politically charged situation. Sarah Streyder from the Secure Families Initiative emphasized that many troops believe their deployment against their own communities contradicts the national security mission they signed up for. Families of service members are not only concerned about their loved ones' safety but also about the implications of their military service being used for political purposes. The sentiment among those in the field is that morale is low, with many preferring previous deployments that involved disaster relief or public health initiatives, such as wildfire support or COVID-19 vaccination outreach, which felt more aligned with their duties and contributions to the community.

President Trump ordered the deployment of 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles without the consent of California's Governor, Gavin Newsom, claiming the city was at risk of being overrun by violent protesters. However, the protests have been largely peaceful, confined to specific areas around federal buildings, and the National Guard's role has been minimal, primarily limited to guarding buildings rather than engaging in crowd control. Critics, including Newsom, have labeled the deployment as provocative and detrimental to the well-being of the troops, highlighting reports of inadequate living conditions for the service members. The public response has been largely negative, with polls indicating disapproval of both the military deployment and Trump's immigration policies. Advocates for military families stress the importance of maintaining the separation between military and civilian law enforcement, arguing that the different training and operational cultures can lead to dangerous misunderstandings during domestic operations, as illustrated by historical incidents during previous riots.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article highlights the discontent among California National Guard troops and Marines deployed to Los Angeles during protests against the Trump administration. It emphasizes their concerns about being involved in domestic policing and suggests a lack of morale among the troops, portraying them as unwilling participants in a political struggle.

Public Sentiment and Morale

The sentiments shared by military families and advocacy groups reflect a broader discomfort with the military's role in domestic affairs. The concerns raised by service members about their involvement in political matters suggest a potential fracture between military duties and political actions. This discontent could lead to a larger conversation about the appropriate use of military forces in civilian contexts.

Political Context and Implications

The deployment order by President Trump, made without the consent of California's governor, raises questions about the legality and appropriateness of such actions. This situation emphasizes the tension between federal authority and state rights, which may resonate with various political factions. The article's mention of advocacy groups indicates a growing movement among military families to voice their concerns, potentially influencing public opinion and policy discussions.

Hidden Agendas

Underlying this article may be an intention to sway public opinion against the Trump administration’s approach to handling protests. By showcasing the unhappiness of military personnel, the narrative positions these troops as victims of political machinations, which could evoke sympathy from the public. It serves to highlight the moral dilemmas faced by service members, possibly distracting from other critical issues surrounding the protests.

Impact on Society and Economy

The repercussions of this story could lead to increased scrutiny of military deployments in domestic situations, possibly affecting recruitment and public support for military actions. The emotional toll on families could also lead to broader discussions about veterans' mental health and well-being. Politically, this could galvanize anti-Trump sentiments, influencing upcoming elections and policy debates.

Target Audience

This article appears to appeal to those concerned with civil liberties, military ethics, and the intersection of military and political spheres. It likely resonates with communities advocating for social justice and those wary of government overreach, as well as military families who feel their loved ones are being misused.

Market Influence

In terms of financial markets, this news could impact defense contractors and companies linked to military logistics if there is a public backlash against military action in domestic situations. The narrative may also influence investor sentiment regarding military spending and government contracts.

Geopolitical Relevance

While the article primarily focuses on domestic issues, it can be linked to broader themes of governance and authority. The political climate and public response to military deployments can have implications for international relations, especially in how the U.S. is viewed by allies and adversaries regarding its domestic policies.

Artificial Intelligence Utilization

There is no clear indication that artificial intelligence was directly used in the writing of this article. However, if AI were involved, it might have influenced the tone or language to elicit specific emotional responses from the audience. Such manipulation could involve emphasizing personal stories of military personnel to evoke a sense of urgency or moral outrage.

The article presents a nuanced view of the military's role in domestic affairs, raising significant moral questions and reflecting broader societal concerns. Its reliability stems from credible sources and firsthand accounts from military families, although the framing may lean towards a particular political narrative.

Unanalyzed Article Content

California national guards troops and marines deployed to Los Angeles to help restore order after days of protest against the Trump administration have told friends and family members they are deeply unhappy about the assignment and worry their only meaningful role will be as pawns in a political battle they do not want to join.

Three different advocacy organisations representing military families said they had heard from dozens of affected service members who expressed discomfort about being drawn into a domestic policing operation outside their normal field of operations. The groups said they have heard no countervailing opinions.

“The sentiment across the board right now is that deploying military force against our own communities isn’t the kind of national security we signed up for,” said Sarah Streyder of the Secure Families Initiative, which represents the interests of military spouses, children and veterans.

“Families are scared not just for their loved ones’ safety, although that’s a big concern, but also for what their service is being used to justify.”

Chris Purdy of the Chamberlain Network, whose stated mission is to “mobilize and empower veterans to protect democracy”, said he had heard similar things from half a dozen national guard members. “Morale is not great, is the quote I keep hearing,” he said.

The marines and the California national guard did not respond to invitations to comment.

Trump has taken the unusual step of ordering 4,000 national guard members to Los Angeles without the consent of California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, saying that the city risked being “obliterated” by violent protesters without them. Earlier this week, he also activated 700 marines from the Twentynine Palms base two hours’ drive to the east, describing Los Angeles as a “trash heap” that was in danger of burning to the ground.

In reality, the anti-Trump protests – called first in response to aggressive federal roundups of undocumented immigrants, then in anger at the national guard deployment – have been largely peaceful and restricted to just a few blocks around downtown federal buildings. The Los Angeles police has made hundreds of arrests in response to acts of violence and vandalism around the protests, and the city’s mayor, Karen Bass, has instituted a night-time curfew – all with minimal input from the federal authorities.

At the largest demonstration since Trump first intervened, last Sunday, the national guard was hemmed into a staging area by Los Angeles police cruisers and played almost no role in crowd control. Since then, its service members have been deployed to guard buildings and federal law enforcement convoys conducting immigration sweeps. The marines, who arrived on Wednesday, are expected to play a similar function, with no powers of arrest.

Newsom has described the deployment as “aprovocation, not just an escalation” and accused the White House of mistreating the service members it was activating. A widely circulatedphotograph, later confirmed asauthenticby the Pentagon, showed national guard members sleeping on a concrete loading dock floor without bedding, and the San Francisco Chroniclereportedthat the troops arrived with no lodging, insufficient portable toilets and no funds for food or water.

A pair of YouGov polls published on Tuesday show public disapproval of both the national guard andmarinesdeployments, as well as disapproval of Trump’s immigrant deportation policies. A Washington Postpollpublished on Wednesday came up with similar findings, but with slightly narrower margins.

Active service members are prohibited by law from speaking publicly about their work. But Streyder, of the Secure Families Initiative, said she had heard dozens of complaints indirectly through their families. She had also seen a written comment passed along to her organization from a national guard member who described the assignment as “shitty” – particularly compared with early secondments to help with wildfire relief or, during the Covid pandemic, vaccination outreach.

“Both of those experiences were uncomplicatedly positive, a contribution back to the community,” Streyder described the message as saying. “This is quite the opposite.”

According to Janessa Goldbeck, a Marine Corps veteran who runs the Vet Voice Foundation, the feeling was similar among some of the troops being sent from Twentynine Palms.

“Among all that I spoke with, the feeling was that the marines are being used as political pawns, and it strains the perception that marines are apolitical,” Goldbeck said. “Some were concerned that the Marines were being set up for failure. The overall perception was that the situation was nowhere at the level where marines were necessary.”

Sign up toThis Week in Trumpland

A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration

after newsletter promotion

The advocates said it was important to draw a distinction between the personal political preferences of service members, manyif not mostof whom voted for Trump last November, and the higher principle that military personnel should not get involved in politics or politically motivated missions that blur lines of responsibility with civilian agencies.

“We tend to be uniquely apolitical, as an institution and with each other,” Streyder said. “The military is a tool that should be used as a last resort, not a first response… It does not feel that the tool is being calibrated accurately to the situation.”

The discontent may not be limited to California. In Texas, where the governor, Greg Abbott, called out the national guard on Wednesday in San Antonio, Austin and other cities expecting anti-Trump protests, guardsmen have a history of feeling poorly treated in the workplace if not outright misused, Purdy of the Chamberlain Network said.

After Abbott requisitioned the guard in 2021 to help police the Mexican border – a controversial policy codenamed Operation Lone Star – there werebitter complaintsamong guard members about the length and nature of an assignment that largely duplicated the work of the federal Border Patrol. Several guardsmentook their own lives.

The LA operations are also sparking safety concerns because of complications inherent in pairing military and domestic police officers, advocates say, since they are trained very differently and use different vocabulary to handle emergency situations. In oneinfamous episodeduring the 1992 Los Angeles riots – the last time the military were called out to restore order in southern California – a police officer on patrol turned to his marines counterparts and said “cover me”, meaning be ready with your weapon to make sure I stay safe.

To the marines, though, “cover me” meant open fire immediately, which they did, unloading more than 200 M16 rounds into a house where the police had a tip about a possible domestic abuser. By sheer luck, nobody was hurt.

CJ Chivers, a New York Times reporter who was with the marines in Los Angeles in 1992 and witnessed the tail-end of this near-calamity, wrote years later of hismixed feelingsabout the assignment: “The Marines’ presence in greater Los Angeles… felt unnecessary,” he said. “I’d like to say we understood the context of the role we were given … But domestic crowd control had never been our specialty.”

Streyder and the other advocates concurred. “Domestic law enforcement and the military are entirely separate functions, manned by separate people who have been given separate training, who come from different cultures,” Streyder said. “As military families, we rely implicitly on that separation being honored and remaining clear.”

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian