JOHN YANG: The shooting has intensified# focus on the administration's use of the## National Guard to crack down on# crime in cities led by Democrats.

Earlier, I spoke with Juliette Kayyem,## faculty director of the Harvard University# Kennedy School's Homeland Security Project.## She was an assistant DHS secretary during# the Obama administration and oversaw the## Massachusetts National Guard when she was# that state's homeland security adviser.

Juliette, this morning you wrote for "The# Atlantic," where you're a contributing writer,## that this was a terrible and# avoidable tragedy.

Explain that.

JULIETTE KAYYEM, Former U.S.

Department of# Homeland Security Assistant Secretary: Well, for## the last several mon.. there's been a number of assessments by# the military, including the commanding## officers of the National Guard, that these# units were essentially sitting targets,## that they were vulnerable to nefarious# actors, whether criminals or terrorists.

And there was growing concern about this# within the National Guard.

Part of that## had to do with that they were fully# clothed, that they were in uniform,## that they were visible to someone who may# want to harm them, but that their mission,## right, either walking the streets,# doing beautification programs,## just sort of paying attention, which generally# was the mission, was nebulous enough to make it## very difficult to protect them in the way that you# might protect troops either in a war or on a base.

JOHN YANG: The president almost# immediately announced he's sending## 500 more National Guard troops to Washington.

JULIETTE KAYYEM: Yes.

JOHN YANG: Is that a solution?

JULIETTE KAYYEM: It's really not.

I# mean, it's a sort of fallacy to think## more is better, especially when it comes# to deployments anywhere by the military.

The question isn't really about whether# the force can be protected.

The question## is whether the mission -- what the mission is# and how it is defined.

Then you can figure out## what force protection is about.

The president, as# we all know, wanted the National Guard in D.C.,## despite decreasing crime rates there, because he# viewed it as a war zone or too much crime there.

We now know, over the last couple months,## these National Guard units have been really been# used for roaming patrols, visibility patrols, or,## in many instances, sort of landscaping,# picking up trash.

None of that's bad,## per se, but none of that is unique to the National# Guard, nor is it what they're trained to do.

And it's in that sort of gray area# that you create these vulnerabilities,## as we saw for the National Guard.

Adding# more doesn't really solve the problem of,## what is the mission and how is it defined# for the troops, who we all want to protect?

JOHN YANG: Talk about a little bit# about that, what's the mission?

JULIETTE KAYYEM: Yes.

JOHN YANG: Is th.. JULIETTE KAYYEM: No.

I mean, I have worked# with the National Guard all my career.## The National Guard supports civilian efforts in a# disaster or in a homeland or is deployed abroad.

This, as we all know, is a unique, and some# say illegal use by the president of the## National Guard in D.C.

The National Guard# is essentially federalized automatically.## It reports to the president.

And so# the deployment of the National Guard,## a unit that's not trained, units that are# not trained to work in civilian areas and## urban areas as armed, without any# standards of what the metrics are.

Like, what is success for this mission?

All# of that creates sort of a loose understanding## of what the mission is, the potential# for mission creep, and then, of course,## vulnerabilities because there is# no notion of force protection.

I mean, I sort of describe it as like neither# war nor peace.

The politics have thrust the## National Guard into this gray zone that they're# not built for, but that has made them vulnerable.

JOHN YANG: Administration officials are making# much of the fact that the alleged shooter entered## the United States under a Biden era program# for Afghans who were fleeing the Taliban,## and that he was never vetted, that there were# no background checks.

What do you say to that?

JULIETTE KAYYEM: What we understand now is that## the alleged shooter had actually# a number of vetting moments.

Some occurred in Afghanistan.

What the# CIA director, the present CIA director## is saying now is that he did assist the# CIA.

We don't know in what exact capacity,## but that he was assisting in intelligence# and intelligence gathering efforts.

He then is brought to the United States as# Kabul is falling in a special visa program.## That does not grant permanent status.

It# was just a program that brought people in.## They are then vetted during that process.

And# then, again, as he's regularizing his process,## he was granted asylum under the# Trump administration this year.

There is another vetting process.# So, at three different moments,## he's examined by the United States, and either# they missed something or something happened## since he was granted asylum a few months# ago that radicalized him relatively quickly.

So I think it's premature to say this# administration was wrong and this one's right## or that agency was wrong and this one's right.# I think we don't know.

But what we do know is,## he's had strong ties to the United States# for much of his life during the Afghan war,## and only -- and in the last# couple of months, at least,## as he was granted asylum, he then begins# to plan at least an attack on the National## Guard that no one quite knows -- no one# can explain that yet, as far as we know.

JOHN YANG: The administration has paused# immigration from Afghanistan.

And they## also say they're going to reexamine# all the asylum grants under the## Biden administration.

What do you make of that?

JULIETTE KAYYEM: I think, in some ways, the Trump# administration doesn't quite know what happened,## and so they want to look and see# whether this Special Immigrant Visa## program that allowed Afghans to come in who# supported us during the war is picking up## the right sort of metrics for radicalization.

That might be necessary at this stage, but the# idea that you're going to pause indefinitely all## Afghans who have come to the United States# or their ability to come here permanently I## think is at this stage sort of overblown and# also undermines our attempts to support the## Afghans who were so instrumental in# supporting us during the Afghan war.

This is one person who did something absolutely# heinous.

We need to find out how we either got## through the vetting process or what happened# in terms of radicalization more recently.

But## the notion that this is about all Afghans# is one that is undermined by the reality.

Most Afghans are here lawfully and here because# they supported our war effort in Afghanistan.

JOHN YANG: Juliette Kayyem, thank you very much.

JULIETTE KAYYEM: Thank you.