The War on the Blue Now Includes the Green: When the Uniform Becomes the Target
The shooting of two National Guardsmen near the White House on November 26th marked a troubling expansion of a pattern we've been tracking for over a decade. What began as attacks targeting law enforcement has now extended to military personnel serving on domestic soil. For those of us in the tactical training community, this isn't surprising—it's the logical progression of a problem we've been preparing our training partners for since 2011.
The Shift Nobody Wanted to Acknowledge
Since Ferguson, we've watched rhetoric escalate from criticism to demonization. When elected officials publicly compare National Guard deployments to "Gestapo tactics" or describe citizen soldiers as "invaders," they're not just making political points. They're painting targets on the backs of men and women in uniform.
Consider the language that's become normalized:
Military personnel accused of attempting to "intimidate their fellow Americans"
Deployments characterized as precursors to "civil war"
Guardsmen described as threats who might "shoot at American civilians"
Saying the Guardsmen are being sent in to “provoke” certain minority groups
When political leaders frame uniformed personnel as existential threats, unstable individuals hear it as a call to action. Whether intentional or not, this rhetoric has consequences that play out on our streets. Whether it is the National Guard in high crime cities, or the Marines responding to large-scale unrest and riots, when leaders say “sending in the military will only make things worse”, what they’re really saying is the military cannot be trusted to act professionally, within the bounds of the law, and they can’t be trusted to show restraint. Debating the legality of their use, the reasonableness of their use, and the necessity of their use is valid, but characterizing the military members themselves as rogues, oppressors, or something of the like is not only dangerous, it is just wrong.
From Blue to Green: The Pattern Repeats
Law enforcement has been navigating this landscape since 2009 when a President fired the first shot in the “War on Cops”. Admitting he “didn’t have all the facts”, he stated the “police acted stupidly” when responding to alarm call in Massachusetts. We watched as the "Ferguson Effect" transformed policing nationwide—departments capitulated to political pressure, proactive police work became nearly impossible, and good officers were marginalized for doing their jobs effectively.
The 2018 "Circuit Attorney Exclusion List" in St. Louis exemplifies the absurdity: dozens of active officers suddenly couldn't make arrests because they appeared on a credibility list that nobody would explain, defend, or allow them to challenge. These weren't bad cops—they were often high-performing officers in critical assignments.
Then came 2020. The George Floyd riots brought another wave of the same pattern: buildings burned, officers were injured, neighborhoods destroyed, yet media coverage focused on "mostly peaceful protests." The criticism wasn't just about sparking incidents—it was about how law enforcement responded to the chaos itself.
Now it's happening to the military. The same playbook, the same rhetoric, the same dangerous outcomes.
Why Military Personnel Face Unique Challenges
When six national leaders create videos telling military members to refuse "illegal orders," they're not just criticizing policy—they're suggesting our servicemembers are currently following illegal orders. To someone already on the edge, that sounds like justification for violence.
The recent controversy over strikes on suspected drug-running vessels in the Caribbean illustrates another problem. While the policy itself deserves honest debate, calling these actions "war crimes" doesn't just criticize leadership—it labels the trigger-pullers as war criminals.
The double standard is glaring. When a doctor in Minnesota commits malpractice, doctors in California don't face protests. But every officer and servicemember answers for the actions of their peers nationwide. We accept higher standards for law enforcement and military—but we also deserve fairness, due process, and leaders who speak responsibly.
The Training Gap Nobody's Addressing
Here's the reality: urban civilian policing requires different skills than military operations. If National Guard troops continue serving in domestic law enforcement capacities, they need specialized training in:
Civilian urban policing protocols and de-escalation techniques
Interview and communication skills for non-combat situations
Street gang recognition and behavioral red flags
Legal frameworks governing civilian interactions
Crisis intervention and mental health awareness
Even though Guardsmen aren't conducting proactive patrols or traffic stops, they're operating in environments that demand these competencies. The gap between military training and civilian policing reality puts both servicemembers and communities at risk.
What This Means for Your Organization
The hate that law enforcement has faced for 16 years has now expanded to include anyone in uniform. Whether you're commanding National Guard units, training military police, or leading law enforcement agencies, you're operating in an environment where:
Political rhetoric actively endangers your personnel
Media coverage prioritizes narrative over accuracy
Your people are held accountable for incidents they had no part in
A single mistake—or even a justifiable action—can spark national controversy
The question isn't whether this will affect your organization. It's whether your people are prepared when it does.
Moving Forward: Training for the Reality They Face
We can debate whether military involvement in domestic law enforcement is appropriate. That's a legitimate policy discussion. But while that debate continues, personnel are on the ground right now, facing threats that their standard training didn't prepare them for.
The Guard troops deserve three things:
Skills that match the mission - Training designed for the actual environment they'll operate in
Leadership that has their back - Support that doesn't evaporate when things get difficult
Preparation for worst-case scenarios - Not just tactical skills, but situational awareness in hostile political environments
To the National Guard, welcome to the War on Police. We’re sorry you had to come.