The Pentagon’s decision to extend the National Guard deployment of 2,300 troops at the U.S. Capitol until May 23 to protect against an unknown threat is prompting outrage and concern from critics.
The Guard has been positioned around the legislative hall since the Jan. 6 Capitol riot was carried out by some of former President Donald Trump’s supporters, but officials have refused to explain what they call an ongoing threat from right-wing militia groups. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Tuesday night approved a U.S. Capitol Police request to extend the Guard deployment, prompting howls from conservatives as the riot and response have become a political hot button.
“It’s a collusion of stupidity,” said Heritage Foundation security analyst Jim Carafano, who questioned the need for miles of razor wire-topped fencing surrounding the Capitol complex, a two-month extension, and calls for a quick reaction force.
“It doesn’t pass the commonsense test,” he told the Washington Examiner. “You’re gonna have a mob show up in Washington with no notice whatsoever?”
NATIONAL GUARD SURPRISED BY EXTENSION REQUEST AND FIND NO QANON-INSPIRED PROTESTERS
National Guard officials have claimed since the riot that they were prevented from responding to pleas from law enforcement for help. Later congressional testimony revealed that intelligence about plans to breach the Capitol was known but not shared among law enforcement planners who designed the force posture and Guard presence in the city that day.
Since the breach, the National Guard has manned a vast Capitol perimeter, with a high point of 26,000 troops (during President Biden’s inauguration) and a low point more recently of 5,100 citizen soldiers.
The cost to taxpayers for the original deployment, scheduled to end Friday, was estimated to be $483 million.
The DOD could not provide a cost estimate for the extension but confirmed Austin approved the requested amount of troops.
The D.C. National Guard declined to describe how the mission might change or transition to a protective posture that does not include the Guard. Some worry the citizen-soldiers’ presence will become permanent around a building known as “the People’s House.”
‘Not just about the threat environment’
A report to Congress lead by retired Gen. Russel Honore recommended a quick reaction force always on the ready to respond to capital emergencies that could be composed of National Guard members on three- to six-month rotations.
“A National Guard unit stationed full time there, I don’t know that that would be the wisest use of money or the members of the National Guard,” said retired Brig. Gen. Roy Robinson, president of the National Guard Association.
“It’s concerning to me to see the fencing and all of the security measures that have been implemented in and around the Capitol,” he added. “I hope that we find other means to take care of whatever security threat exists out there.”
Robinson said he has not seen the intelligence that prompted the extension, but he underscored it is not the Guard’s role to question threat assessments.
“What I will say is: The National Guard is ‘we serve,’” he said. “This particular mission set has been especially difficult because of all of the different states and territories and the district that had been involved.”
Asked if he was concerned about reports of ill treatment, including uncooked food and inadequate rest areas, Robinson said he was “always concerned” but commended members of Congress for speaking up and forcing leadership to address the problems quickly.
Pentagon spokesman John Kirby sidestepped a question from the Washington Examiner Wednesday about the existence of a threat to the Capitol.
Asked whether the latest request by the Capitol Police to the secretary included threat intelligence, he said: “He considered all the factors that are required before deciding to commit additional forces for an additional amount of time.”
Approximately 30 states, territories, and the District of Columbia are currently involved in the mission that, at one point, included all 54.
D.C. National Guard spokesman Capt. Tinashe Machona said the Guard and Joint Task Force planners are working with each state and territory to source the new request. Machona declined to say which governors refused to loan their troops for the extension, and he referred questions about changes in fencing and duties to the Capitol Police, which made the extension request.
In announcing the extension late Tuesday, Kirby made no mention of a threat assessment that Austin evaluated in making his decision to reduce the remaining Guard force by half.
On Wednesday, the spokesman admitted the continued Guard presence is not only about protecting against threats.
“It’s not just about the threat environment,” he said. “In a highly polarized, hypercharged environment that we’re in right now, its very much about a capacity assistance to the Capitol Police as they begin to flesh out and develop what they’re going to need long-term to deal with a new reality on Capitol Hill.”
Plugging Capitol Police staffing shortages with Guard members, Kirby admitted, would come out of the DOD budget.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Carafano said the public deserves to know why a continued Guard presence is warranted.
“If there is a security concern that really justifies this, there’s a double obligation to explain to the American people how this isn’t just some political ploy or just somebody who’s being incredibly risk-averse for no reason,” he said.
