At Farragut West, a City’s Anxiety and the Long Tail of War
The memorial of flowers, a stuffed bear, a bouquet wrapped in plastic, sits under the tiled arch of Farragut West like a small, fragile lighthouse in the hurry of weekday commuters.
People pause. Some touch the placard with gloved fingers. Others walk on, earbuds in, the city’s pulse carrying them away. But the grief and the questions linger in the air: why were two young National Guard soldiers standing on a corner on an ordinary Wednesday afternoon, and how did a past century of conflict reach into this quiet moment?
What happened, in a sentence
Two National Guard members were ambushed near the metro station; one, a 20-year-old woman, later died; the other, in his twenties, remains critically wounded. The suspect allegedly drove from across the country to carry out the attack. Prosecutors say they will bring additional charges.
These are the bare facts. Everything else—legal fights, policy reactions, and the roar of politics—spreads outward from them like concentric circles on a pond.
The scene: small gestures, large reverberations
“I pass this station three times a week,” said Maria Gomez, 54, who sells pretzels near the corner. “You feel safe here. Soldiers sitting on a bench used to make me think of parades, not danger.”
The image of the National Guard on the streets has been simultaneously reassuring and unnerving for many Washingtonians. After high-profile protests and threats to federal buildings in recent years, nearly 2,300 Guardsmen from multiple states were positioned across the city to bolster security. But that visible presence brings with it a new set of risks.
“When you put people trained for war into policing roles, you change the game,” said Dr. Lisa Henderson, a policing scholar who has studied military-civilian deployments in democratic cities. “Soldiers are trained for different objectives—mission completion, area security—not for the messy, discretionary work of community policing.”
Legal battles and who gets to decide
District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb has made no secret of his unease. “These deployments amount to an involuntary military occupation that far exceeds the President’s authority over the National Guard,” he wrote as part of a court filing. “Deploying the National Guard to engage in law enforcement is not only unnecessary and unwanted, but it is also dangerous and harmful to the district and its residents.”
There is a constitutional puzzle under all of this. The District of Columbia is not a state: its mayor exercises “home rule” powers granted by Congress. Challenging a federal deployment is legally thorny. A federal judge temporarily found in the city’s favor but stayed that ruling to allow an appeal, leaving the question unresolved for now.
Why the Guard is controversial on city streets
There are sensible arguments on both sides. Supporters point to deterrence: visible forces can dissuade aspiring attackers and free local police to focus on hotspots. Critics worry about escalation.
“Imagine a violent encounter where someone opens fire on troops—how will soldiers react?” asked Major Andrew Cole, a former Guard company commander who now consults on civil-military operations. “Rules of engagement, weapons training, crowd control—these are all different when civilians are on the other end.”
History supplies grim examples. From Northern Ireland’s Troubles to pitched battles in Rio de Janeiro’s favelas, the use of military tactics in dense urban settings has sometimes amplified violence rather than dampened it.
A suspect with a shadowy past—and the “long tail” of war
Federal and media accounts indicate the accused came to the United States as part of the evacuation of Afghans who assisted U.S. forces. Reports say he served with paramilitary “partner forces” in southern Afghanistan—units that, during two decades of U.S. presence, operated in the same operational space as American soldiers and intelligence operatives.
“We kept thinking the war ended for us in 2021,” said Jamal Khan, an Afghan-American community organizer. “But for people who lived through Kandahar or Helmand, the consequences never really ended. They followed us here.”
That “long tail” is an awkward truth: policies made on distant battlefields—who we arm, who we evacuate, who we admit—can resurface years later at a subway entrance or on the steps of a courthouse.
Policy fallout: tighter borders, broader reviews
In the days after the shooting, federal authorities signaled a tightening of immigration and refugee processes. The Department of Homeland Security announced it would reassess asylum and refugee approvals, pause processing from certain countries, and put new restrictions on a list of states it deems “high risk.” The roster discussed in public briefings includes Afghanistan, Somalia, Iran, Libya and others—19 countries in all.
Immigration lawyers warn that the reviews could place lawful permanent residents and asylum beneficiaries under renewed scrutiny. “Legally, the government can reevaluate cases,” said Nina Patel, an immigration attorney in Virginia. “But administratively, that creates enormous anxiety for families—people who thought they were safe now face paperwork audits and uncertainty.”
There is also a political undercurrent. Officials and activists say the shooting has accelerated existing campaigns to clamp down on migration, rhetoric that often gains traction after high-profile crimes.
What do our streets look like when soldiers become policemen?
Ask yourself: do you want the sight of helmets and plate carriers where school buses unload and café lines form? Or do you prefer an approach that strengthens community policing, improves intelligence-led law enforcement, and addresses root causes that fuel violence?
“There is no single, easy answer,” said Dr. Henderson. “But the key is proportionality. A temporary surge can buy time; a permanent redefinition of the National Guard’s role in cities changes the social contract between citizens and the state.”
Voices on the street
-
“I feel safer seeing more people around, but when I see an armored vehicle, I remember war movies,” said Tom Rivera, 29, who works in a federal office near the station.
-
“We owe a debt to those we evacuated—many fought to save American lives,” said Zahra Noor, an Afghan refugee now living in Maryland. “But we need better vetting and support systems, not mass deportations.”
-
“The challenge is balancing liberty and security,” said a former U.S. intelligence officer who asked not to be named. “We must avoid knee-jerk policies that erode freedoms while not ignoring real threats.”
Where do we go from here?
Washington’s gray winter mornings and glittering summer parades both rely on a quiet confidence: that the city can protect its people without becoming a garrison. The choice now will shape not only how Americans travel to work or celebrate national holidays, but how the country balances the legacies of two decades of overseas conflict with the democratic need for accountable policing.
We are left with difficult questions. How do we vet allies who helped us in war zones? How do we ensure soldiers on patrol are accountable to the communities they serve? How do we resist allowing a single act of violence to rewrite immigration and security policy overnight?
For those who pass the memorial at Farragut West, life carries on—trains come and go, coffee cools, people return to their routines. But each bouquet and candle is a reminder that distant policies and battlefield choices have lives and consequences here at home. How we respond will speak volumes about who we are and who we want to be.
