[hairofadog]

The Secretary of Defense is a loyalist and will likely put people in charge of the operation who are on board with the mission to suppress protest.

There's also just the chaos angle. From the same New Yorker article I linked elsewhere in this thread, I thought this anecdote was nuts:

> In Los Angeles, for example, [in 1992] there was a situation where marines were accompanying police to a house where there was a domestic disturbance and the police officers said to “cover me” as they went into the house. “Cover” means something very different in the Marines, and they opened fire on the house. It was only by good fortune that no one was killed.

[austin-cheney]

The people in charge of any such operation would be unit commanders, military officers, who have greater legal restrictions on their conduct than either the President or the SECWAR. Regardless of the orders upon them military commanders are obligated to follow the law and are provided legal representatives for clarity.

[hairofadog]

I'm hopeful that'll be the case. But can SECDEF (it's still called the Department of Defense, regardless of stationery changes) hand-pick the unit commanders and military officers?

[sheikhnbake]

That's great on paper, but we saw what happened in international waters and Venezuela after the SOUTHCOM shake up