Retired major general calls Trump’s National Guard plans ‘unneeded and dangerous’

Geoff Bennett:

Well, part of the administration's efforts to be able to send National Guard troops into cities is a new order by President Trump to modify the Guard's organization and training and create rapid response units.

Our Nick Schifrin is here with that part of the story — Nick.

Nick Schifrin:

Geoff, yesterday, President Trump signed an executive order that each state's National Guard units would be — quote — "resourced, trained, organized, and available to assist federal, state, and local law enforcement in quelling civil disturbances."

And the secretary of defense will create — quote — "standing National Guard quick reaction force that shall be resource, trained and available for rapid nationwide deployment."

For perspective on this, we turn to retired Army Major General Randy Manner, the former acting vice chief of the National Guard Bureau.

General Manner, thanks very much. Welcome to the "News Hour."

What's your reaction to the president's order, both this quick reaction force, as well as the Guard's priority?

Maj. Gen. Randy Manner (Ret.), U.S. National Guard: I think this is unneeded and also very dangerous. It's setting a new precedent.

This is something where, when I was the acting vice chief of the National Guard Bureau, we absolutely already put into place the ability of having quick reaction forces in every state, depending on the size, but also the state would depend on the size of these quick reaction forces.

They were at the time, of course, targeting the ability to respond to emergencies in the state such as floods, hurricanes, forest fires, earthquakes, and so on to be able to save lives. The difference here is that it's focused on — quote, unquote — "public order." That's very disturbing.

And also the idea of creating a unit whose primary mission is to deploy anywhere in the country to deal with potentially demonstrations or civil disorder, as the president sees fit out of the D.C. Guard, that is not in keeping with the mission of the National Guard as a strategic reserve for our military and for our nation.

Nick Schifrin:

But if I may ask, one of the missions of the National Guard, is it not, to be able to help with law enforcement. So what's so wrong if this vision is to have the National Guard in fact help with law enforcement?

Maj. Gen. Randy Manner (Ret.):

The key difference is that the governors control the National Guards whenever they are not deployed by the president.

As we have seen, not the mayor of D.C., the mayor of Los Angeles, no one is requesting this additional assistance. This is something where the president is imposing the armed military to go into American cities. That is the most significant difference. And it's very important to remember that civil disturbance deployments by governors is actually the smallest amount of missions that have ever been — that are done by the National Guard.

It is a rarity, whereas now the president is elevating it to be a significant capability for the National Guard.

Nick Schifrin:

So let's just step back. This focus on resourcing, training, organizing to quell civil disturbances, how different would that be from how the National Guard is currently organized?

Maj. Gen. Randy Manner (Ret.):

All our young men and women signed up for perhaps three reasons, to serve our country, to defend our citizens overseas against threats and, number two, to be able to save our citizens in times of natural disaster.

And the third objective, of course, which, by the way, it's been a very distant third, but it's on the list, is to be able to — as needed by the governor or mayors, to back up their local authorities, their law enforcement authorities as needed, to back them up if perhaps they are overwhelmed with some kind of an emergency that occurs.

It is not the predominant mission of the National Guard to do this. If the president is concerned about law enforcement, then what he should do is restore the $100 million to law enforcement for community engagement to recruit and train officers in that capacity.

Our Guardsmen on the streets of D.C. right now, which I was a D.C. Guardsman for 13 years, they are not trained in law enforcement. Whereas law enforcement officers receive four to six months of training, our young men and women receive three or four hours of training, not months.

Nick Schifrin:

Let's talk about the impact on the Guard — Guardsman themselves. Defense officials tell me that the quick reaction force would be able to cover the entire continental U.S., which would require splitting up a quick reaction force, a few hundred in the West, perhaps Arizona, a few hundred in the South or East, perhaps Alabama.

Could that work? And what would be the impact on the Guard's overall staffing, the ability to perform those other functions, if this quick reaction force were created like that?

Maj. Gen. Randy Manner (Ret.):

First of all, the use of the National Guard in all of these deployments, 4,000 down in Los Angeles, over 2,000 into Washington, D.C., are decreasing military readiness because those soldiers are no longer training for their combat operations missions. That's very important for your viewers to understand.

They are not doing their principal job. We should not be using the military against our own people in any capacity. This is not the history of our military, and we should not go there.

Nick Schifrin:

And finally, sir, the Guardsmen who would be part of a quick reaction force would be on perhaps a one-hour or two-hour time frame to be able to deploy. It means, for example, soldiers couldn't drink. They couldn't travel very far with their families.

They would have to be close enough to the base to be able to respond that quickly. What is possible under the current level of National Guard staffing, and is that vision something that the National Guard could even execute today?

Maj. Gen. Randy Manner (Ret.):

I was a member of the 82nd Airborne Division. We rotated readiness and we had anywhere between four to eight hours whenever we were on division ready brigade status.

The National Guard does not operate that way. These are part-time citizen soldiers. It is something where this is not physically possible to have a unit of any size ready to go with 400 people in that way, unless, of course, you were to triple or quadruple the cup the size of the unit and rotate people through.

This is not thought through. This is not representative of a good, thorough mission planning. Even within — when I was in charge of Army operations worldwide on the Army staff, we obviously had to rotate units through Iraq and Afghanistan, both from the point of view of those that were in the combat theater, those that were training up for the combat theater, and then those that were returning from, so that they could focus on getting individual training, as well as, of course, have some time with their families.

It is not possible and it is not thought through the way that it is being talked about at this time.

Nick Schifrin:

Retired Army Major General Randy Manner, thank you very much.

Maj. Gen. Randy Manner (Ret.):

Thank you.