>I don't know what other conclusion to draw about what "overwhelming force" and "dominating" would mean in this context besides murdering people.

It could mean that you do a show of force so strong that the opposing side gives up. In this case he was probably referring to putting so many policemen/national guard out there that they could disperse and detain all of the looters and rioters. This would likely prevent further looting and rioting as people would see that they would likely get caught.

You're trying to imply something that's contrary to his statement, literally right there in the bit you quoted:

> disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers

What, specifically, do you think an “overwhelming show of force” by the military implies?

To me that reads as they’d send enough personnel to flood an area such that it would deter people from the worst aspects we’ve seen while allowing non violent protests.

So any troublemakers would think twice about trying to hit an area to sew chaos (looting, rioting, setting property on fire, etc.)

When people talk about "overwhelming force" in military context, it's always lethal force.

When the national guard is sent in there it’s there to maintain order.

Militaries are also trained for peacekeeping missions. It’s not all about trigger happy gun toters.

If it’s an all out rebellion that’s different. I don’t see a ruby ridge or Waco incident coming, but maybe you do.

I think the effect would be good: the military would handle the situation better and fewer people would get hurt. They're used to operating in hostile situations under restrictive rules of engagement, they aren't the people being protested against, and people who've seen combat wouldn't find thrill or threat in a confrontation with unarmed protestors.

In other words, I think your final paragraph is a false dilemma based on an unsupported assumption.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma