Strength with restraint: Preserving the role of the American military
The U.S. has long benefited from a military that is trusted not just for what it can do, but for what it chooses not to do. Remarks about using U.S. cities as “training grounds” can erode that trust.
I remember standing in an airport in Milan, Italy, in the early 1980s. Armed police — carabinieri — stood watch in the open, Beretta M12 submachine guns visible, posture unmistakable. They gathered in small groups — alert, unapproachable, hands on their weapons. Ready.
As a young U.S. Air Force security specialist whose own job was security and force protection, I recognized their readiness, but I recoiled from their visibility. It felt foreign. Uncomfortable. Different from my experience with the civilian population in Ghedi. Different from my experience at home. I remember thinking how proud I was the United States was not like that.
Today, I’m not so sure that distinction still holds.
I say this not as a critic of the military, but as someone who served — who wore the uniform, carried a weapon on duty, and understood the responsibility that comes with both. I have watched the reputation of the U.S. military rise from the shadows of the 1970s to one of the most trusted institutions in American life. That trust was earned through professionalism, restraint, and a clear understanding of the military’s role.
And that role matters.
The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, changed how we think about security. In response, we hardened potential targets, expanded intelligence capabilities, and improved coordination across agencies.
Many of those changes were necessary. But over time, we also normalized something else: the visible presence of military and military-style force in civilian spaces.
That shift deserves scrutiny.
Following the 9/11 attacks, military aircraft overhead and soldiers at critical sites brought a sense of calm and confidence. But that force, though visible here at home, was focused outward — protecting “us” from “them.” That distinction mattered. It marked the turning point in how civilians came to respect those who serve.
We have seen a different model work in practice — one grounded in civilian-led security, intelligence, and coordination rather than visible military presence. The Boston Marathon bombing was not prevented, but the response that followed was decisive and civilian-led — local law enforcement, federal investigators, and an engaged public working together to identify and stop the attackers.
More recently, numerous plots have been disrupted before they reached execution through targeted intelligence, investigation, and coordination. These successes rarely make headlines precisely because they occur quietly, without altering the character of public life.
We can achieve security in ways that preserve the character of civilian life.
Aviation offers a clear example of security through sophistication rather than showmanship: hardened cockpit doors, intelligence-driven screening, and the selective use of plainclothes air marshals materially reduced risk without turning airports into visibly militarized spaces. The same principle applies more broadly — plainclothes law enforcement, targeted screening, and discreet protective measures can provide real protection while keeping public environments recognizably civilian.
These approaches work quietly and effectively within a civilian-led framework.
But there is a line we should not blur.
Intelligence, clandestine, and military capabilities have a legitimate role — primarily abroad, and domestically only in response to credible, well-defined national security threats under proper legal oversight.
They are not tools for managing ordinary civilian life or monitoring routine criminal behavior. The Bill of Rights exists, in part, to prevent precisely that kind of overreach. Its protections are not inconveniences; they are safeguards earned through experience.
Likewise, the Posse Comitatus Act reflects a long-standing American principle: The military is not a tool for routine domestic governance.
Even when actions are technically lawful, we should ask a deeper question — not “Can we do this?” but “Should we?”
There are real risks in getting that answer wrong.
For service members, domestic deployment in ambiguous roles creates uncertainty.
As a former sergeant and security specialist, I was trained for high-stakes force protection and the defense of critical national assets. That is a fundamentally different mission than the community-oriented, de-escalation-focused judgment required of civilian law enforcement.
That mismatch increases the risk of hesitation when action is needed — or escalation when restraint is required.
For civilians, the presence of military force changes behavior and perception. It can introduce tension where none is needed and create distance where trust should exist.
And for the institution itself, the risk is long term.
The military’s standing in American society depends on being seen as apolitical, disciplined, and used only when necessary. That reputation can erode — not through a single dramatic event, but through gradual normalization of roles it was never meant to fill.
We should also be mindful of how we speak about the military. The erosion of trust can be accelerated by how we speak — casual remarks about using American cities as “training grounds,” even in jest, are not harmless. They frame parts of our own country as potential battle space.
That is not a line we should cross.
Today, once again, we are engaged in a foreign armed conflict. More than ever, our military must remain focused on defending the nation abroad — and our territory at home from foreign aggression — not on responding to citizen protest.
Civilian law enforcement should remain the primary instrument for maintaining order at home, while we continue to reduce the military character of civilian policing.
The United States has long benefited from a military that is both powerful and restrained — an institution trusted not just for what it can do, but for what it chooses not to do.
That trust was hard-earned, and it is not guaranteed to endure. We should be careful not to trade it away in the name of security that can often be achieved by other means.
Strength is not diminished by restraint; it is defined by it.
William B. Manley Jr. is a former member of the U.S. Air Force. His professional background is in technology and systems engineering, where risk management and operational trade-offs are part of his daily decision-making.
Inquirer Opinion Newsletter