Americans are right to overwhelmingly approve governor-ordered National Guard call-ups to restore and (for a time) maintain public order while also protecting the right to protest. Why? Let's look at a few factors. Thread (from my newsletter) /1: frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/the-promise-… 
While the right side of my Twitter feed is dominated by images of rioting and looting, the left side is dominated by daily new images of unjustified police brutality. In some cities, the source of outrage is not the best entity for ending the outrage: /2
And who is? How about America's most respected institution, an institution that built its respect through decades of discipline, courage, and heroic restraint even in far more trying circumstances: /3
This hasn't always been the case, of course. During urban riots in the 1960s, National Guard intervention often led to profligate and reckless use of force. The numbers are astonishing: /4
But that was then. The Army at its best is a learning organism, and it has learned. It has become better at containing civil unrest without resort to anything more than minimal force: /5
But there's still danger. We can't take those gains for granted. Political bluster is miscasting the role of the military. The Army will lose trust if it's seen not as an instrument of peace and stability but rather as a weapon of violence and vengeance: /6
Until by its conduct it proves otherwise, we should see the National Guard not as an oppressive force but instead as perhaps the only force in some cities that can BOTH protect the First Amendment rights of peaceful protesters and ALSO maintain public peace. /end
