A Terrible and Avoidable Tragedy in D.C.
In a troubling incident that underscores the complexities surrounding the deployment of military personnel in domestic settings, Afghan refugee Rahmanullah Lakanwal shot and seriously injured two National Guard members in Washington, D.C. This attack raises significant concerns about the safety and appropriateness of deploying untrained military personnel in roles typically reserved for law enforcement. Commanders had previously warned that such deployments could make troops vulnerable to violence, characterizing them as “easy targets of opportunity” amidst a backdrop of heightened tensions. The National Guard members, who were sent to the capital under the Trump administration’s directive to bolster public safety, spent their days performing non-combat tasks like trash collection rather than engaging in law enforcement activities. Despite the Justice Department downplaying the risks, the incident starkly illustrates the potential dangers of using military forces in civilian contexts without a clear mission or adequate training.
Lakanwal’s motives remain unclear, but his background as a former CIA contractor during the Afghan War adds layers of complexity to the incident. After arriving in the U.S. through Operation Allies Welcome and reportedly receiving asylum status, his actions have prompted a predictable political response from Trump, who called for a pause on immigration from Afghanistan. This reaction overlooks the fact that Lakanwal was already vetted and admitted into the country. In the wake of the shooting, Trump has ordered additional troops to D.C., a move that some critics argue is misguided. This response reflects a broader trend where military deployments are used as a political tool rather than a strategic necessity, particularly in a city where crime rates had already been declining prior to the troop presence.
The deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C., has been criticized for lacking a clear mission and defined objectives. Commanded by the federal government, these troops have been utilized in a politically charged atmosphere, leading to low morale among part-time soldiers who feel out of place in a domestic setting. The military’s attempts to showcase their efforts through initiatives like “Task Force Beautification”—which included cleaning up streets and landscaping—do little to justify the military’s involvement in civilian affairs. Critics argue that simply increasing troop numbers does not resolve the underlying issues of mission clarity and operational readiness. Instead, it reflects a troubling trend reminiscent of the “sunk-cost fallacy” seen in military engagements like Afghanistan, where continued investment in flawed strategies only exacerbates the original problems. As the National Guard finds itself caught in the crossfire of partisan politics, the need for a reassessment of military roles in domestic settings has never been more pressing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kykjhqADHmI
Before an Afghan refugee,
Rahmanullah Lakanwal
, yesterday shot and seriously injured two National Guard members who had been deployed by President Donald Trump to Washington, D.C., military commanders had warned that their deployment represented an easy “
target of opportunity
” for grievance-based violence. The troops, deployed in an effort to reduce crime, are untrained in law enforcement; their days are spent cleaning up trash and walking the streets in uniform. Commanders, in a memo that was included in litigation challenging the high-visibility mission in D.C., argued that this could put them in danger. The Justice Department countered that the risk was merely “
speculative
.” It wasn’t. There are costs to performatively deploying members of the military—one of which is the risk of endangering them.
Lakanwal’s exact motives are still unknown; he worked
for the CIA
during the Afghan War. He is now in custody but apparently
refusing to speak
. Trump offered a predictable response to the shooting:
pausing immigration
for anyone from Afghanistan, a move that conveniently ignored how Lakanwal had gotten to the United States. He came as part of
Operation Allies Welcome
, admitted for his assistance to U.S. troops, and was reportedly granted asylum
status
after vetting by the Trump administration earlier this year.
Trump yesterday also ordered
additional troops
to D.C., on the theory that more troops are always better than fewer ones, even though a federal judge had ruled just last week that the entire deployment would have to be halted because it was probably illegal.
More troops is not the answer. The National Guard has been deployed as part of the White House’s political attacks on cities run by Democrats, and the Guard members are vulnerable because politics is not a military mission. The military spends a lot of time thinking about “
readiness
”: the need for troops to be trained and prepared for what may be asked of them, and for them to be protected while doing it. The problem of mission readiness does not get solved by deploying more soldiers. It gets solved by having a clear mission.
Even if the deployments to D.C. were legal, they lack a clear mandate and metrics of success, and have vague rules of engagement and ill-defined operating procedures. And morale is low among part-time volunteer soldiers, who have had to leave home to patrol the streets of an American city that Trump doesn’t like.
Trump’s use of the military began as a so-called
public-safety
emergency, though crime was already down in D.C. before the deployment. The D.C. National Guard falls under the command of the federal government—unlike a state’s National Guard—so the district was an easy choice for Trump’s first target. Governors from
red states
gladly volunteered their troops for the mission, although the Pentagon was struggling to find one. It began to publish information regarding the troops’ trash-cleanup and landscaping successes, calling the initiative
Task Force Beautification
. Uniformed troops patrolled streets in “high visibility” efforts, fully decked out, though any visitor to D.C. could see they were just waiting around.
The military is fully aware of the lack of support for this deployment both among the public it serves and among those performing the mission. The National Guard has been sending out news releases describing its progress, with updates such as: “
cleared 906 bags
of trash, spread 744 cubic yards of mulch, removed five truckloads of plant waste, cleared 3.2 miles of roadway and painted 270 feet of fencing.” Sounds nice, but that says nothing about why this is a job for the National Guard.
Ironically, deploying more National Guardsmen to increase the force protection for National Guardsmen is a very Afghanistan-style military error. The
sunk-cost fallacy
describes a phenomenon whereby individuals irrationally decide to continue investing in a flawed decision as a way to try to justify the original bad decision. We sent more and more troops to Afghanistan because we had already lost troops there, instead of pausing to reassess the war itself.
We are not at war now. But Trump’s use of the National Guard suggests that he thinks we are not at peace either. The National Guard is stranded somewhere on this battlefield of partisan politics. They are not ready for this arena, and we should never have asked them to be.
