The thing that has always concerned me about the deployment of the National Guard in Washington DC is not the deployment of the National Guard per se - it's what would happen when the National guard was involved in a shooting incident.
Not that I anticipated a CIA-connected Afghan airlifted into the US as part of the shambolic withdrawal from 20 years of post 9/11 warfare in Afghanistan, ambushing two young soldiers outside a metro station I pass several times a week.
US Attorney for Washington, DC, Jeanine Pirro, has said that there will be other charges as well against 29-year-old Rahmanullah Lakanwal, who she said ambushed the Guardsmen near the White House on Wednesday.
The US's longest war still has, what the Washington Post called a "long tail" effect on the country, and this shooting the most recent manifestation of it. The paper notes that both victims were not born when the planes slammed into the World Trade Center towers in New York in 2001.
The more obvious risk from deploying the military on the streets of the capital was the danger posed by a force trained for warfare encountering a criminal gang equipped for guerrilla war in southeast DC or southside Chicago.
Would a local gang go all out on some hapless Guardsmen with bump-stock equipped AR15s, raining bullets on them and triggering a massive, military over-reaction that could spark running gun battles in the burbs, in the manner of some of the notorious operations in Rio de Janeiro’s favelas?
Would we see a transition from soft caps, sidearms and pleasant conversations with country boys and girls that are the typical scenes in the daily routine of the National Guard patrols in DC - to a full time army helmet, rifle and armoured car deployment, in the manner of Northern Ireland 1969-1970?
Some are already suggesting it might be necessary: it would be a massive and unnecessary over-reaction.
And despite the manufacturers claims, I wouldn’t trust a helmet's ballistic resistance to a .357 Magnum round at point blank range. The ammunition's makers claim the round can stop a bear at 50 yards when fired from a revolver.
Of course, the National Guard is not a contentious foreign army forced onto the streets by the UN security council or an overseas government.
This is the US government ordering US troops to the capital to back up the police - an aid to the civil power mission. We have had plenty of them in Ireland - cash transit security being the longest lasting such mission.
Aid to civil power missions can have good outcomes - adding security to volatile situations, reassuring citizens (like the sight of Belgian soldiers in Brussels airport and train stations in the aftermath of terrorist attacks in the city).
But even having lightly armed soldiers on the streets of any city adds to the risk of things taking a turn for the worse, especially in places where guns and ammunition are cheap and plentiful.
And soldiers are not trained for law and order work. They can provide backup and cover to civilian police, can do extra riot control if numbers are needed (and can probably spend more time on training for riot control than police forces can: Irish soldiers acquitted themselves well in riots in Kosovo two decades ago).
In general, it's best to leave police-type work to the police. A temporary "surge" can work - indeed crime rates in DC seem to suggest it is - using the National Guard as a visible presence in heavy tourist areas, and freeing up local cops and Federal Agencies to go into crime hotspots.
District of Colombia Attorney General Brian Schwalb anticipated potential problems with deploying the Guard in an aid to civil power role in the district in a legal challenge he mounted seeking the courts to rule against President Donald Trump's deployment order.
One of his arguments was that the very presence of the Guard on the streets could cause attacks on the Guard by, amongst others, criminals, terrorists and lone attackers trying to draw attention to their cause.
The bulk of the case related to the issue of presidential powers, one that has been aired before by state governors resisting the deployment of "Federalised" guard units by the president.
But while governors have standing in the US Constitution, the Mayor of DC and his Attorney General do not. The District of Columbia is a Federal District - the mayor operates devolved "Home Rule" powers granted in 1974.
To challenge the federal government is to stomp on the thinnest of ice. Nevertheless, Attorney General Schwalb posted on his website: "Since the President’s 11 August announcement, nearly 2,300 National Guard troops, including units from seven states, have been deployed to the district and placed under the command of the Department of Defence.
"These deployments amount to an involuntary military occupation that far exceeds the President’s authority over the National Guard. In addition, most or all of the troops have been deputised by the US Marshals Service to conduct law enforcement activities in the district, in violation of the foundational prohibition on military involvement in local law enforcement.
"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.
"No American city should have the US military - particularly out-of-state military who are not accountable to the residents and untrained in local law enforcement - policing its streets. It’s DC today but could be any other city tomorrow. We’ve filed this action to put an end to this illegal federal overreach."
The President's lawyer, Eric Hamilton, argues the claim that the Guard’s presence on the streets increased the risk of deadly encounters between troops and residents was "entirely speculative", and that the evidence suggests a fall in deadly encounters because of the additional security presence.
Indeed the assailant in Wednesday’s shooting was not a resident of the district - or even of the East coast of the US. Rahmanullah Lakanwal lived in Bellingham, Washington State - literally the other side of the country. He drove across a continent to carry out his attack.
Ten days ago a federal judge ruled in the DC Attorney General’s favour, finding the National Guard presence is illegal, but put a stay on the ruling until 11 December to allow the Trump administration time to appeal.
But as a result of Lakanwal’s attack on two Guardsmen outside Farragut West Metro station, the administration is going all out to resist efforts to withdraw the Guard from the streets. In the immediate aftermath, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered another 500 National Guard soldiers to deploy to the streets of DC.
Last night, the Washington Post reported on emails it had seen suggesting that almost all National Guard patrols in the city will be accompanied by a police officer - either from the DC Metro Police, the Transport police on the underground railway, or Federal Police from some of the alphabet soup of law enforcement agencies that congregate in the capital, like the DEA, ATC, FBI Parks Police and Secret Service Police (the latter were in charge of the crime scene on Wednesday, as it was so close to the White House).
It sounds like preparations are being made for the Guard to be around for a long time.
Next year's celebrations for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence will see larger than usual crows flocking to Washington for patriotic events. The FIFA World Cup is also taking place in the US next year (though no games are being played in DC).
An extra security response was always likely. Now it seems likely the National Guard will be relied on more, not less.
The shooting is also accelerating the clampdown on immigration to the US, and not just illegal migrants.
Refugees and ordinary prospective migrants are facing a harder time getting into the United States - unless they are white South Africans, as the President has doubled down on his claims of a white genocide being perpetrated in that country: it was the reason behind his government snubbing the recent G20 Summit in South Africa, and President Trump's ban on South Africa attending G20 events next year, during the US presidency of the body.
Late on Thursday night, as Thanksgiving was drawing to a close, the President announced what amounts to an intensified "reverse migration" agenda, aiming to broaden the clampdown on immigrants.
Read more: US National Guard shooting suspect to face murder charges
The Department of Homeland Security will now go back and reassess all refugee and asylum cases approved by the Biden administration.
The agency has stopped processing all immigration requests from Afghanistan, and has expanded restrictions on 19 countries it deems "high risk". It will most likely mean anyone from those countries now in the US and applying for a green card will be refused.
The aim now is to deport people from "high risk" countries who are in the US legally, as well as the ongoing deportations of anyone in the country illegally.
Mr Trump posted on Truth Social: "I will permanently pause migration from all third world countries to allow the US system to fully recover".
There has been a ramping up of rhetoric against migrants from a number of countries over the past couple of months, notably Somalians, who are particularly clustered in Minnesota.
In June, people from a dozen countries have largely been prevented from entering the US: Afghanistan, Chad, Myanmar, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.
Citizens of a further seven states were blocked from permanently immigrating to the US, or applying for a tourist or student visa: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.
As of Thursday, coming from any of these 19 states will be regarded as a "significant negative factor" in applying for a green card - similar to having committed a serious crime.
And people from those states who already have a green card will have their papers reviewed again.
It is legal for the US government to withdraw a green card on review. Immigration lawyers are advising people to have all the paperwork needed for their green card applications ready for another review.
Rahmanullah Lakanwal came from Afghanistan. But his arrival was part of an operation 'Welcome Allies’, to get people who had worked with the US military or civilian branches in Afghanistan out of the country when the Taliban returned to power.
They had five years to regularise their situation or lose their temporary protection status.
Lakanwal was granted asylum in the US in April, according to numerous media reports that have not been directly contradicted by the administration.
Lakanwal had served on one of the so-called 'Zero Units' - special paramilitary units that were directed and equipped by the CIA, and worked alongside the US Army in its campaign against the Taliban.
CIA director John Ratcliffe said Lakanwal had been a member of a "partner force" of the agency in Kandahar province, where there was significant fighting during the US occupation.
'Zero Units' were involved in combat missions to capture or kill suspected terrorists or insurgents, such as Taliban, al-Qaeda and Islamic State.
The CIA and US Army provided intelligence and logistical support to the 'Zero Units' in their missions. The CIA has not publicly acknowledged its work with 'Zero Units'.
Very little is known about what they did, or how they worked with US spies and soldiers. And that's probably how it would have stayed were it not for Lakanwal’s alleged crime. Investigating that will surely shine a light on their activities now, in ways that nobody expected.
