One of the most disturbing trends in politics since the 2000 election has been retired admirals and generals trading on their former military rank to meddle in partisan politics. The trend really his its stride in 2008, when Barack Obama enlisted about 60 retired flag officers/general officers as campaign surrogates. Since then, Democrat presidential candidates trotting out tamed FOGOs to give them national security cred has become a standard, reaching a possible nadir when at least ten of them endorsed Kamala Harris and characterized Trump as "dangerous."

President Trump's well-founded decision to federalize a portion of the California Army National Guard (4,100 of a force of about 24,000) has caused another spasm of inappropriate political activity by retired generals. Several joined Gavin Newsom's specious lawsuit attempting to limit Trump's authority granted by Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution by filing an amicus brief. That case was demolished by a panel of the Ninth Circuit on Thursday; see Breaking: 9th Circuit Issues Stay Pending Appeal in CA National Guard Case, Handing Trump a Big Win.

One of their allies was granted editorial space on Fox News to spread what can only be called a disingenuous, bordering on overtly dishonest, description of the situation. Retired Major General Randy Manner essentially paraphrases the arguments in the amicus brief filed supporting Newsom's push to institutionalize lawlessness in California. In his profile, he omits the small fact that he endorsed Kamala Harris, but full disclosure is for losers, anyway. 

In a vapid op-ed headlined I led National Guard and regular Army units. Using the military to intimidate Americans is 100% wrong. Manner makes the extraordinary charge that the Trump administration is engaged in a "dramatic misuse of power and could lead to disastrous legal, operational and ethical outcomes."  So what are the specific instances of "misuse of power?"

A cursory review of the situation reveals the curious fact that neither the California Guardsmen or the small number of U.S. Marines are involved in policing anything. Their role, as stated in their orders, is very clear. They are in Los Angeles to a) protect federal property and b) protect U.S. government employees carrying out their duties. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass made a conscious decision to allow mobs to obstruct ingress and egress into federal facilities and to attack immigration agents. The calculation was that with sufficient pressure, federal law enforcement assets would be unable to protect agents carrying out arrests and federal facilities. It was a calculated act of lawlessness. In one hearing, it was reported that one ICE team besieged by a mob had to wait for over an hour and a half for local law enforcement to respond. That is criminally irresponsible behavior. I really have no idea what he means by "we lose a needed separation between the military and our civilian population," and I suspect neither does he.

Okay, I'll wait. Name the critical defense priorities. Name the critical deployment that the California Guard or the USMC ignored so they could protect federal property in LA. What readiness indicators suffered? 

Manner doesn't bother explaining either claim, and for good reason. There is no impact on readiness. Manner claims the National Guard is "community members who signed up to serve their neighbors. They respond to hurricanes, flooding, forest fires and more. By sending or threatening to send National Guard units across the country simply for constitutionally enshrined protests, we risk moving these units away from what they are designed to act on."

The National Guard is the lineal descendant of state militias. Some people may have thought they signed up to "serve their respective neighbors," but that notion should have evaporated from even the dimmest of bulbs as they completed basic training. At least 30 California Guardsmen died while deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. The National Guard responds to natural and manmade disasters, but its primary role is as part of the U.S. Army. Note to General Manner: Preventing ICE from enforcing immigration law and attacking federal property are not "constitutionally enshrined protests."

He also claims that civil disturbance operations are not something Marines and Guardsmen are competent to do. Disciplined troops will do whatever they are told, and the American soldier (sailor, Marine, and airman) is amazingly resourceful. If he thinks what the troops are doing in LA is not a core mission, I suggest he familiarize himself with Operation Garden Plot and its successor. 

I can't recall the last time I heard a progressive bleat about "states' rights." Interesting. I think it is hard to make the case that Guardsmen and Marines are intimidating people and suppressing speech when neither organization has any role in crowd control or law enforcement. They strictly protect federal property and federal agents carrying out their duties. If you are intimidated by them, maybe it is time to reevaluate the activity you are engaged in. Gavin Newsom has never needed any help undermining the governor. This whole fiasco could have been avoided if he'd simply done his job. 

What is notable in Manner's op-ed and the amicus brief filed by the other generals is that they do not claim that the military has violated the Posse Comitatus Act or that Trump did not have the legal authority to federalize some National Guard units.

All of this points to a much larger problem. It is blatantly obvious that the nation's corps of generals and admirals has become intensely political (I'd contend the movement started during the Clinton administration), and since 2008 has been an active and vocal arm of the Democrat party. The number of retired FOGOs pushing themselves into partisan politics is not only unseemly, it is dangerous because those political impulses did not suddenly come to life when the general or admiral retired. They were acted on while on active duty.

While Pete Hegseth has made a good start in eradicating the overt partisanship inside the Department of Defense, I don't think he has cut deep enough to do the job. 

Antonio Gramsci’s “long march through the institutions” is everywhere we look, and the politicization of our military, particularly the officer corps, presents an existential danger to the United States. The Trump administration is attempting to change the focus from playing politics to defending the Constitution, but they are getting pushback everywhere you look. Join RedState VIP and help continue our coverage to keep you abreast of this critical struggle. Use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.