Remember when the US went into Iraq? Or when we went into Afghanistan? Or when Israel struck back at Hamas? No end game. What will be done the day after?

I would suggest that this is exactly the position the Trump administration is going to find itself in here in DC.

Arrests in DC have picked up. Let’s leave out the ICE pickups of people who have not committed violent crimes; that is a different story and a large number of the arrests. Let us assume that these arrests have led to less crime, although there is no clear connection there. If you arrest someone for a driving violation, for example, the effect on crime will probably not exist.

But let’s assume for the moment that those being arrested include many whp are intent on committing future crimes (although no one really can tell that and intention to commit future crimes is not a crime itself). Or, let’s divorce the increase in law enforcement personnel from arrest statistics entirely, and simply conclude that their presence will deter some crime. That is highly possible.

But what is the end game? Whether the federal occupation deters crime by its simple existence, or by its specific activities, what is the end game?

Unless the occupation is to remain forever, at some point it will be over. (Arthur, at last you have said something everyone can agree with.) And then what? What is to stop crime from returning to its former levels?

Mayor Bowser was, to a large extent, correct when she said: give me more money to increase the MPD by the number of folks you have sent to town, and I will increase arrests and bring down crime, too. Just like you say you are.

She is probably correct, and that would be an appropriate end game. Increase the DC budget for increased law enforcement, and increase the annual federal payment (or find an equivalent resource) accordingly, and you have an end game. But that is very unlikely to occur.

And, I think there is another problem. The DC police force is already a few hundred officers short of its current approved capacity. This is a problem everywhere, it seems. There are not a sufficient number of qualified people to take on this stressful and dangerous occupation. And without a large enough group of candidates, this, too, is not an end game.

So what are other answers? Poverty relief programs, after school activity programs, criminal rehabilitation and post-confinement programs, more drug enforcement, stricter gun laws, more mental health support? The list could go on and on, as you know. And somewhere in this long list of possibilities are recipes for success.

You need the right leaders, sufficient funding, and the freedom to experiment. All three of these. Do we have any now? And obviously the Trump administration has different goals. It goals are to exaggerate crime in blue cities, show that Trump is tough on crime, accuse Democrats of being soft on crime, and hope to hold onto Congress in 2026. (Of course, they have other ways to hold onto their political power, some of which may in fact include criminal activity, but that is for another day.)

Another thing to keep in mind. When law enforcement success is measured by the number of arrests, mistakes will be made in the process. Innocent people will be arrested, innocent people will be terrorized. This is what happens in most totalitarian societies. You can eat off the streets, you can walk through dark alleys at midnight. But you are at risk of being whisked off the streets at any time, for good reason or for no reason, by government forces. And recourse, if it exists at all, is limited.

So, back to the beginning. What is the end game here? Until we know that, nothing can be really accomplished.