By Rosemary Ciraulo
Examining the Use of Armed Forces in Troubled Cities: The Pros and Cons
The Pros
In cities where conventional law enforcement agencies find themselves underfunded or outgunned; military intervention may seem like a viable alternative. The armed forces possess superior manpower, discipline, and resources to respond to threats and reestablish public safety. As we have seen as recently as a few weeks ago in DC the mere presence of uniformed military personnel, and their “camo” vehicles, deterred criminal activity. While some will argue that crime rates were already dropping in DC there is statistical evidence that confirms that violent crime rates and property crime rates dropped dramatically.In circumstances where local police are unable to cope—such as during periods of widespread rioting, terrorist attack or significant natural disasters military support may be viewed as an urgent necessity.
In the past the National Guard has been called upon to restore order, assist during natural disasters, and, on occasions, respond to spikes in urban violence (LA Riots 1992).
Rapid Response and Resource Availability
An advantage of using the military is their combat training readiness to mobilize quickly and operate at scale. They can deploy en masse which “floods the zone” with personnel, restoring a measure of control and confidence. At times when criminal activity may be particularly severe, specialized units—such as intelligence teams, bomb squads, and tactical forces—can fill gaps left by untrained local resources.Deterrence and Psychological Impact
The visible presence of soldiers can psychologically suppress criminal activity, especially when gangs and organized crime groups perceive an overwhelming show of force. Residents may temporarily feel safer knowing that highly trained professionals patrol the streets. However, there is no way for us to know now if criminal activity levels would rise after some period when the military presence would become more routine.
Support for Civil Authorities
The military should not operate independently but only in support of police and civil authorities. When executed judiciously, these joint operations can enhance coordination and provide technical and logistical assistance, such as aerial surveillance, communications infrastructure, and emergency medical services. However, when the assistance by the military is unwanted or felt to be unwarranted, their presence can make citizens feel fearful of civil disobedience and unrest.The Cons
Mission Creep
Soldiers are trained for combat, not for community engagement or crime investigation. Using military assets for law enforcement can result in role confusion, creating even greater tension between civilians and authorities. There is also a danger of mission creep, which is the possible expansion of military activity beyond its original goal and role.Heightened Potential for Human Rights and Civil Liberties Violations
Soldiers are accustomed to working in combat versus civilian settings and with that difference there is an elevated risk of human rights abuse, especially in communities already distrustful of government institutions. The use of force, detention, and surveillance may violate constitutional protections. Such violations would provoke public outrage and start a flood of legal challenges. Unlike the military, police operate under the principle that they “serve and protect.” Police are community-oriented and accountable to local citizens. The military swears to uphold and defend the Constitution.Impact on Community Trust
The presence of the military in traditional law enforcement institutions erodes trust in the community. Local police are seen as protectors whereas residents may view soldiers as foreign occupiers, especially if military presence is prolonged or heavy-handed. Because of the distinct roles of the military versus local police the risk of accidental casualties and destruction of property is greater when troops operate outside their usual roles. We have seen this firsthand during the LA Riots in 1992 where the presence of the military may have escalated tensions and caused more deaths and destruction of property. The latest deployment of troops to DC and LA has not, yet, exacerbated these situations. The most recent threats by this Administration to deploy the military to certain U.S. cities like Chicago, Memphis, and New Orleans have already caused quite an uproar. The mayors of these cities clearly feel that the use of these troops is more of a political ploy than one to protect the people of these cities. In fact, there are many “red states and cities” that have higher crime rates then DC, LA, or Chicago yet there has been no move to deploy troops to them.Alternatives to Troop Deployment?
Some experts advocate for different strategies to combat crime. These include:- Building community trust through dialogue, and partnership initiatives.
- Addressing the causes of crime by improving access to education, health care, housing, and employment opportunities.
- Enhancing police training, accountability, and transparency to better serve diverse urban populations.
- Utilizing data-driven approaches to stop criminal activity before the crime is committed.
- Coordinating federal, state, and local efforts to ensure a codified and unified response to complex crime problems.
Conclusion
Deploying the military to conduct urban crime prevention must be approached with caution. Clear roles, rules, and limitations must be established upfront to safeguard civil rights and, in this author’s opinion, military deployment should only be used on a temporary basis with a focus on supporting and not replacing local police.The notion of military intervention in troubled cities is a dangerous balancing act. Soldiers are not trained for this and local citizens in the U.S. are not accustomed to seeing this. Armed forces can offer quick and definitive support during crises and emergencies, but they should never be deployed to combat crime under “normal” conditions. Military deployment should only be used as a tool of last resort and only when civilian institutions are overwhelmed due to natural disasters or significant civil unrest and then only for the shortest possible time.
Following the signing of the "One Big Beautiful Bill" Act (OBBB) in July 2025, law enforcement is experiencing significant shifts in funding. While the bill provides funding increases for immigration-related enforcement and tax cuts for officer overtime pay, other federal law enforcement and crime prevention programs face substantial cuts. Critics argue that these cuts will jeopardize public safety and reduce support for local law enforcement.
The Department of Justice has canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in grants that support local law enforcement and community-based violence prevention initiatives.
Comments
Post a Comment