Head of DC National Guard ordered to step down on Inauguration Day https://t.co/WzoEUHL4jn pic.twitter.com/Oadxz49R2F
— The Hill (@thehill) January 13, 2017
I'm not any kind of security expert or anything, but wouldn't the beginning of the inauguration, in a town swamped with folks for both the ceremony and multiple protests, be the last time in the world you would want this hand-off to happen?
Just asking for, oh, everybody, I guess.
UPDATE: And the Trump transition has now, after the report, decided Maj. General Schwartz should stay on a few more days.
2 comments:
It's weird, ugly, mean-spirited and utterly unnecessary, but it has essentially zero impact on operations. The troops are led by Captains at the company level, Lieutenants at the Platoon level and Sergeants and Corporals at the squad level. They hardly ever see the General and they probably don't like him very much anyway - who likes the big boss?
For them, nothing changes and the same combat leadership will be in place.
But considering that the IC already hates him, he might not want to start in alienating the military too...
In light of the decision to have him stay on, and the likely successor to also have been well-briefed on the inauguration plans, I'm not worried, per se--but the "purge"-like pattern bothers me--at some point, I feel like they are going to remove people in a way that causes either alienation or disruption in the agencies they represented, causing institutional failures (I'm really worried about this happening at the IC level because with a deeply unpopular incoming administration with several "outsider" folks at the top, is when "I", if "I" stands for a terror-minded miscreant, thinking of looking to exploit the disruption. Also I'm a bit tense about the Jan 20 activities as being a security issue as a whole, because it looks like there is a non-zero chance of "bad actors":
1) DC LE are, I understand, concerned that Trump folks have brought 2nd Amendment party favors,
2) also a possibility that someone will start shit at a protest or
3) it seems like terror-related strikes are more likely now to hit at places where more people are gathered, and this would be pretty symbolic, so...
I don't know. Something makes me feel like this particular inauguration event is just more generally likely for a "bad thing".
Post a Comment