In mid-September, U.S. Rep. Max Miller of Bay Village published an op-ed in The Washington Times entitled Bring the National Guard to Cleveland. It was subtitled, Americans deserve to live without fear. Miller offered a grim view of violent crime in Cleveland, arguing that, My constituents in the suburbs are afraid to go into the city a viewpoint that prompted pushback from some of Millers constituents in the suburbs. Still, not everyone in Cleveland sees a National Guard deployment as meritless in a city grappling with a police-staffing problem and rampant gun violence. Ward 5 Cleveland City Councilman Richard A. Starr welcomes the National Guard if it could help reduce violence in the neighborhoods he represents, where crime guns are easily acquired and shoot-outs have become commonplace, especially among the youth. However, the counter to such thinking is that National Guard soldiers are not necessarily trainedor intendedfor urban policing. Although Governor Mike DeWine stated that the 150 Ohio National Guard who were sent to Washington, D.C. were all military police, he argues there are better methods to address crime in Ohio cities. Just last week, Cleveland formed an anti-crime partnership with the state, which resulted in 16 felony arrests, including a man facing six felony charges related to an incident earlier this month, according to DeWines office. This situation raises significant questions about the efficacy of such military involvement. As our Editorial Board Roundtable deliberates on the possibility of a National Guard deployment, we recognize that bringing military personnel into Cleveland would equate to a military occupation of our neighborhoods. Soldiers are trained for combat, not community policing. Flooding our streets with troops sends a message of fear, ultimately deepening mistrust between residents and their government. Clevelanders deserve investment in prevention, opportunity, and effective policingnot armed patrols treating our city like a war zone. Both opponents and proponents are utilizing statistics to bolster their positions, but the argument remains: how can anyone dispute that adding armed Guardsmen to the streets would support local law enforcement officers' efforts to make neighborhoods safer? Unfortunately, the sentiment espoused by those in favor overshadows the consequential concerns. Those who oppose such actions might relish the ability to go about their day unbothered by fears of carjacking, shooting, robbery, or physical assault. Militarizing policing in Cleveland would be nothing more than a publicity stunt. The actual problem lies in the nearly unregulated possession of firearms in Ohio, and the legislature's refusal to allow cities to utilize home-rule powers to remove guns from the streets. Congressional Republicans seem positioned for an indefinite recess, leaving Rep. Miller with ample time to lobby in Columbus for genuine anti-violence measures instead of seeking local headlines. There are historical parallels to consider here. The last time federal troops were deployed to cities against local objections was during the Civil Rights Movement to protect Black Americans from white violence. Today, we see, 60 years later, a military presence purportedly aimed at protecting white Americans from Black violence. This rhetoric is troubling and merits opposition. Editorial board member Lisa Garvin argues that bringing the National Guard to Cleveland to fight crime is foolish, emphasizing that crime remains an issue. Yet, she points out that a successful 2023 state law enforcement surge effectively eliminated guns, drugs, and criminals from the streets. Deployments in other cities demonstrated that the Guard typically does not patrol high-crime areas. Garvin warns that a military presence does not enhance safety but rather fosters greater fear. This administration seems focused on turning the nation into a militarized society, believing that deploying the National Guard might create an illusion of safety without addressing the real issues: poverty, lack of opportunity, and systemic dysfunction. True safety is rooted in hope and stabilitynot intimidation. Our focus should pivot toward creating opportunities for all Clevelanders to thrive. While some might cite examples like President Trump's National Guard deployment in D.C. to argue that urban crime reduction is feasible, the reality rings differently outside D.C. City officials hold responsibility for deterring urban crime; when they fail, voters must be proactive and elect new leaders. However, when voters keep ineffective leaders in positions, urban decline will continue to drive both businesses and visitors away. Public safety ultimately lies in the ballots cast by voters. Sadly, deployments motivated by political agendas to predominantly Democratic cities appear more focused on show than substance. The experience from Los Angeles, where the military was used to control local protests and the D.C. deployment seemingly prioritized aesthetics over real crime prevention, indicates a pattern that merits scrutiny. These military deployments are also indicative of a president testing the boundaries of executive authority, questioning how much can be pushed before judicial intervention occurs.