Trump apparently berated several governors yesterday for looking “weak” and threatened to use the regular military to crush the protests. For the most part, he only plays a dictator on Twitter and TV, so it is safe to assume that what he really wants is to portray himself as the man in charge and to take credit for the end of the violence, not to actually use the military for that purpose. However, he has the legal authority to send in troops, so we have to take his statements at least a little bit seriously. How would that turn out?
Two points are important here: there is no reason to believe that the National Guard units in the various states lack the resources to control the violence; and the regular military has limited experience with law enforcement and peaceful crowd control. With that in mind, there are three possible outcomes:
- The troops arrive at a time when the violence is already ebbing. They do nothing important, but Trump takes undeserved credit for solving the problem.
- The demonstrators are overawed by the troops and go home. In this case, Trump actually has a right to take credit for his success.
- The violence continues. The troops end it by shooting down large numbers of demonstrators. Trump is fully entitled to the “credit” for this outcome.
Which of these scenarios is the most plausible? It would vary from location to location. Let’s hope we never find out.