Surprise is a Luxury We Can No Longer Afford
If President Trump sends unwanted military force into American cities, the one thing we should not act is surprised.
Back in November 2021, the world was alerted to a Russian buildup of troops around Ukraine. A few weeks later, President Biden issued a warning to Putin against invasion. Given satellite imagery and reporting on the ground, the entire world had a front-row seat to watch, in near real time, the preparations for war. What were we to make of this Russian military activity?
Putin had years earlier already taken advantage of Ukraine’s internal turmoil to annex Crimea. At the same time, he funded and inflamed separatist movements in Eastern Ukraine. His goal, presumably, was to destabilize Ukraine and weaken it for a larger conquest.
Years even before the annexation, Putin had declared the collapse of the Soviet Union a great “geopolitical catastrophe.” What made it so catastrophic, he argued, was that “tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory.” It had long been clear that Putin was itching to restore Soviet glory and borders. And now, in late 2021 and into early 2022, all signs suggested that an invasion of Ukraine was imminent.
And in February 2022, the invasion came. Millions of people around the world—perhaps billions—were shocked. It had been jarring enough when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, but the coordinated global response that followed seemed to suggest the bad old days of conquest were behind us. If we were not quite living in the “End of History” where liberal democracy reigned, at least the brutal age of naked invasions was supposed to be over.
But then here we were, faced with the unimaginable. And yet there was no need to imagine it at all. The evidence had been before us the whole time. In fact, in light of all the evidence before our eyes, the one thing none of us should have been was surprised.
Fast forward to the present United States. Through both formal proclamations and casual memes and everything in between, the President and his team have made clear their appallingly childish eagerness to deploy American troops and National Guard units into American cities, whether those cities want them or not. As Matt Bernius points out on this platform, Trump’s actions and messaging contain multitudes: justifications for his true believers to wage war, cover stories for his scolds to dismiss legitimate concerns, and culturally ambiguous memes designed to… well, who knows their real intent? Surely to own the libs but also to sow fear and blur the line between policy, threat, and deniability.
But the broader point of needing to believe what is before our eyes remains. Three years ago, we watched the Russian buildup, debated what it meant, and many of us convinced ourselves it couldn’t mean what it obviously meant. Then we acted shocked when the invasion came. I fear this same blindness is happening again in America today.
If President Trump sends unwanted military force into American cities, we may be enraged, terrified, or even delighted (if, say, we like the idea of a President modeling himself on Colonel Bill Kilgore). But the one thing we should not act is surprised.
Nor should we be surprised when Trump follows Putin’s lead of blaming the victim. Putin blamed Ukraine for his own aggression (and with Trump’s permission, MAGA nods along). So too will any occupation of American cities—and all the awful things that may come from it—be justified as the fault of the victims, not the actions of the President.
The pretext for such an occupation will be a phony crisis—unparalleled crime, an immigrant “invasion,” or whatever else serves the moment. But the constitutional and regime crisis that could follow may be all too real. Worse yet, there may be no “crisis” at all. If so, that may suggest we are already living in a new regime, in reality if not in name.
But I, as a lib, will be owned, and wasn’t that really the whole point of this American “experiment” in leading the world which will finally be over?
Looking forward to the Invasion of Beacon Hill here in Boston and the unpredictable fluttering of many a Hermes scarf which obviously justifies indiscriminate felony murder!
I just looked at a piece from the Chicago Tribune, and it seems that the mayor and governor are prepped and ready, and they are advising their citizens to get out and film things, but stay out of the way.
I priced all this in on election day.
But we are not beat, not yet, not by a long shot. The US is a huge country, 340 million people, 50 states, power centers well dispersed, and a population that is still largely asleep but may yet wake up. Unlike Germany in the 30’sand 40’s, we are not ein volk, we have a plethora of volks. And fingers crossed, we have a military with a long tradition of staying away from domestic ‘enforcement.’
@Michael Reynolds:
A good reminder, and I hope you’re right. One of the insidious features of our current state of politics is that it funnels our many disparate groups into two opposing groups–red and blue.
First, @Michael Bailey, thanks for highlighting that post. And I totally agree with all your points (both here and in your other posts).
As a cynical optimist, like you, I hope that @Michael Reynold’s assessment is right. Unfortunately, I believe that things will need to get considerably worse before we hit the breaking point that he is hoping for.
Part of the reason for that is that the structures of the United States’ federal and political party systems really limit collective action. Unfortunately, I think we will see more balkanization for the next few years (especially given the structure of the Supreme Court and the proliferation of safe-seat House districts). I think the best we can hope for on that front is gridlock.
The problem is while gridlock used to slow down Presidents, the rise of the Imperial Presidency and Trump Admin 2.0 means that it actually is empowering the President to take MORE action, not less. And without any guardrails.
That means we’re in a dangerous place and will be for the next few years. And so long as Trump remains President, I think the danger is just going to ramp up because there’s no evidence that the Administration is slowing down.
The thing is, if you look at the numbers, even assuming Trump had the unconditional loyalty of the ICE, the FBI, the military, and the National Guard forces, which is doubtful, they simply don’t have the numbers to impose rule by force across every large city in the US.
What’s the next option: abandon Chicago and nuke it?
Putin had the assured loyalty of every effective security force, from the Russian army via Kadyrov’s Chechens, to the mafiya.
And still nearly got f@cked by Wagner.
If some states and cities defy obviously illegal acts by Trump re military actions, and you get a “cops vs Army” conflict, things could get very unpleasant indeed.