Staff Reports
It’s always remarkable how some political figures and pundits seem more worried about imaginary threats than the real ones right outside their windows. At the heart of the current debate is the deployment of the National Guard to cities like Chicago and Washington, D.C. Some elected officials appear more than ready to stoke fears about the Guard’s presence, portraying these brave men and women as boogeymen rather than as protectors of peace and order. For reasons that seem both baffling and amusing, they accuse these defenders of public safety of terrorizing the very streets they’re helping make safer.
The clamor among some to depict National Guard members as villains is peculiar, to say the least. The argument thrown around is that it’s un-American to use military forces or immigration agents to maintain law and order in U.S. cities. The concern, supposedly, is that this tactic frightens communities, escalating tension between civilians and those in uniform. Yet, looking at the cold, hard facts reveals a different story entirely. Since the National Guard was deployed in these cities, significant crime reduction is evident, with numbers that critics would rather keep from the public eye.
In Washington D.C., reports showed a 30% drop in total crime since the National Guard rolled into town. That’s right—a whopping 30% decrease. We can all agree that safety is crucial, yet the absurdity lies in ignoring such an obvious improvement. It’s confusing why some politicians push against measures that clearly make neighborhoods safer for families and children. What is truly confounding is the idea that it’s better to leave crime unchecked just to avoid the sight of a uniformed officer patrolling the streets.
Instead of appreciating the men and women putting their lives at risk to protect the public from criminals, these naysayers spin wild tales about military forces turning weapons on civilians. The notion that tensions might lead to violence from those hired to protect is not only fearmongering but insulting to the professionalism of our nation’s guardsmen and women. It’s as if these critics forgot that their primary goal is to serve and protect, not intimidate.
It might be time for these critics to refocus their fears and rethink their priorities. Rather than stirring up baseless fears about a local National Guard presence, wouldn’t it be more sensible to praise practical efforts to reduce crime and ensure safety? After all, without safety and order, only chaos prevails. Perhaps if these politicians faced the realities their constituents do daily, they might sing a different tune when it comes to ensuring safe communities. Until then, those dedicated to keeping the peace, uniformed or otherwise, likely deserve more thanks than scorn.
