The Cowards and the Consequences

The week opened with six Democratic lawmakers delivering a scripted warning to American service members about refusing “illegal orders.” They presented it with the kind of confident detachment that often defines Washington, where speaking about military judgment is far easier than living with its consequences. Their message did not clarify the law or strengthen the institution. It inserted hesitation into a chain of command that functions only when clarity is absolute.

While their video made the rounds online, two National Guard soldiers were on quiet patrol near the White House, the kind of routine assignment that keeps the capital steady as people travel home for the holidays. They were not parsing constitutional theory. They were standing a post. And then the world shifted. A gunman approached, raised a revolver and opened fire. Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, sworn in only days earlier, was killed instantly. Her partner was critically wounded. Photos taken by witnesses show a Guardsman returning fire while teammates were already on the pavement, three blocks from the White House. It was the kind of moment where hesitation becomes a death sentence.

The suspect entered the United States through the Biden administration’s chaotic Afghanistan evacuation. Early reporting noted he had served in a CIA-backed Afghan partner force, a detail that triggered instant speculation about his “vetting.” That speculation was wrong. CIA vetting evaluates whether someone can support operations in a conflict zone. It is not immigration clearance and it is not designed for permanent residency decisions. Wartime operational vetting is conducted for battlefield necessity. Immigration vetting is conducted by State, DHS, CBP, USCIS and the FBI, each with standards far more expansive and designed for entirely different risks. Conflating the two is a mistake, and during the evacuation it became the political shield used to cover for screening breakdowns that were well known inside the system.

The withdrawal itself was a failure of planning and execution. Thousands were pushed through improvised checkpoints with inconsistent documentation and overwhelmed screens. The aim was speed, not precision. Most evacuees were legitimate partners who had earned extraction. Some were not. And when discipline collapses in an evacuation that large, the consequences do not show up on a battlefield. They show up years later on a sidewalk in downtown Washington when a single case slips through the cracks of an overburdened system.

The six Democrats who posted their video did not cause the attack. But their message tells us something important about the mindset in parts of Washington. They treated the military as an audience for their own political fears instead of an institution that relies on unity, judgment and trust. Their warning encouraged young service members to approach lawful orders with suspicion at the very moment when Soldiers on the streets of Washington were facing real-world threats, not hypotheticals. Beckstrom and her partner did not encounter a moral exercise. They encountered a man who arrived with a weapon and an intent to kill.

That contrast matters. The real dangers American service members face do not come from speculative dramas imagined in committee rooms. They come from failures in immigration screening, from poorly executed foreign policy and from adversaries who exploit gaps the United States should have closed years ago. They come from political decisions made without understanding how far they travel once they leave the room.

The attack near the White House is a reminder that national security is a practical discipline. It requires seriousness from the political class, competent systems and leaders who understand their words carry weight. The chain of command is not a backdrop for messaging campaigns or a place to work out political grievances. It is the foundation of American defense, and it deserves the same clarity and responsibility from elected officials that it demands from the men and women who serve inside it.

Beckstrom served with the purpose expected of someone who raises a hand and accepts the consequences that come with it. She deserved a system that matched that commitment. Washington should try meeting that standard.