Experts warn Trump's threat to deploy combat troops against the George Floyd protests is 'potentially dangerous'

• President Donald Trump's proposed deployment of active-duty troops to quell the protests in Washington, D.C. and his suggestions to do the same in states has provoked grave concerns among lawmakers, former military leaders and civil rights groups.
• The differences between a National Guard service member and their active-duty counterpart could be stark.
• "Once you start talking about federalizing the response, once you talk about using active-duty military forces in this law-enforcement capacity, that's when it gets both confusing to the public and potentially dangerous," a former Defense Department spokesperson said to Insider.

Many lawmakers and civil liberties groups were shocked by President Donald Trump's threat to deployment of active-duty troops to quell the protests in Washington, D.C. and to do the same in states if governors didn't "dominate" the ongoing protests, some of which have led to clashes with law enforcement.

Roughly 1,600 active-duty US Army soldiers were mobilized near Washington, DC on Tuesday "as a prudent planning measure in response to ongoing support to civil authorities operations," Jonathan Hoffman, the Pentagon spokesperson, said in a public statement.

The Pentagon has emphasized that as of Thursday, no active-duty troops were currently posted in Washington and that military personnel inside the capital were National Guardmembers from the District of Columbia and neighboring states who are assisting at the behest of their own governors.

NBC News and Fox News reported Thursday hundreds of active-duty soldiers from the US Army's 82nd Airborne would return to their bases from posts near the nation's capitol, but a White House spokesman told reporters that "all options are on the table" for deploying the military to respond to the protests over the death of George Floyd after a Minneapolis police office knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes.

The National Guard has a long history of supporting local law enforcement departments, unlike active-duty troops, who have typically been dispatched in moments of severe crisis, such as the 1992 Rodney King riots. The very possibility of Trump ordering combat troops into American streets without the request of state governors prompted former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to warn this "erodes the moral ground" between troops and the citizens they have sworn to protect.

Camouflaged differences

The possibility of deploying active-duty soldiers, some of whom primarily specialize in combat operations, is troubling for many former military leaders and civil rights leaders, particularly in light of the George Floyd protests and free-speech concerns.

Based on appearances, the camouflage uniforms worn by the National Guardmembers and their active-duty counterparts are nearly identical and are primarily differentiated by a unique VELCRO patch on their left shoulder, which reveals their unit affiliation at the time.

But the differences between a National Guard soldier and their active-duty counterpart could be stark in terms of preparedness. National Guard soldiers typically train for roughly 38 split days in a year, but soldiers from active-duty units conduct their training year-round and have access to more robust equipment and funding.

And while many of the activated soldiers consist of the military police — soldiers who are trained to perform law-enforcement duties that include riot control — others in the group also included service members specializing in conventional warfare and whose main focus have been fighting the post-9/11 wars overseas.

'Confusing to the public and potentially dangerous'

In a presidential address earlier this week, Trump, in an apparent reference to the Insurrection Act, explained that "if a city or state refuses to take the actions necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them."

The notion of deploying active-duty troops, particularly those whose primary skills goes beyond policing, has not gone unnoticed. In states like Arkansas, where Republican Sen. Tom Cotton argued in an opinion column that the US ought to "send in the troops," some governors suggested their states were more than capable of handling the protests within their borders.

"I don't see that as having application to Arkansas," Gov. Asa Hutchinson said in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. "I don't see that it'd be necessary for Arkansas. It's not something that we need."

Several governors have been hesitant to even activate their own National Guardmembers to curb the protests and riots. Gov. Kate Brown activated 50 unarmed Oregon National Guardsmen on Monday as a "support function only" service to law enforcement operations "behind the scenes."

"Our goal, and the goal of the overwhelming number of protesters should be to reduce violence," Brown said Monday. "You don't defuse violence by putting soldiers on our streets."

The National Guard has a storied legacy in humanitarian missions and overseas combat operations, but the organization's history is also marked with tragedy during a time of civil unrest.

On May 4, 1970, members of the Ohio National Guard's 145th Infantry Regiment and the 107th Armored Cavalry were activated and dispatched to tamp down on antiwar protests at the Kent State University in Ohio. Twenty-eight soldiers fired on a crowd of students and killed four, including one student who was shot in the back and another who was walking to class; some events in the lead-up to the tragedy are disputed.

"Once you start talking about federalizing the response, once you talk about using active-duty military forces in this law-enforcement capacity, that's when it gets both confusing to the public and potentially dangerous," David Lapan, a former Defense Department spokesperson said to Insider.

'We are not in one of those situations'

Trump's statements on the possibility of mobilizing active-duty troops to individual states has met been met with opposition from both current and former officials. Defense Secretary Mark Esper drew a line on Wednesday and opposed the idea of invoking the Insurrection Act, cautioning that it should only be used after all other options had failed.

"The option to use active duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort, and only in the most urgent and dire of situations," Esper said in a statement. "We are not in one of those situations now. I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act."

Trump's insistence for state governors to utilize their National Guard assets to crack down on the protests have also rankled the retired brass, who voiced their opinions in numerous recent op-eds. One of these retired officers, US Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in The Atlantic on Tuesday:

"We must, as citizens, support and defend the right — indeed, the solemn obligation — to peacefully assemble and to be heard. These are not mutually exclusive pursuits.

"And neither of these pursuits will be made easier or safer by an overly aggressive use of our military, active duty or National Guard. The United States has a long and, to be fair, sometimes troubled history of using the armed forces to enforce domestic laws. The issue for us today is not whether this authority exists, but whether it will be wisely administered."

Mattis, Trump's former secretary of defense, also noted his concerns in a separate opinion column published in The Atlantic, and went so far as to claim that Trump "is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try."

"We must reject any thinking of our cities as a 'battlespace' that our uniformed military is called upon to 'dominate.' At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors.

"Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict — a false conflict — between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part."

The Trump administration has since wavered on whether it would deploy active-duty troops.

In an interview with Newsmax on Wednesday, Trump appeared to suggest it may not be as necessary to mobilize active-duty soldiers to other states.

"Well, it depends," Trump said. "I don't think we'll have to. We have very strong powers to do it. The National Guard is customary and we have a very powerful National Guard."

But the following day, the White House left the possibility still open, saying that "all options are on the table."