The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.
Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home.
Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.
It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas.
But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.
After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one.
“Right now, the response force requirement will be an enduring mission. How the [Defense Department] chooses to source that and whether or not they continue to assign them to NorthCom, that could change in the future,†said Army Col. Louis Vogler, chief of NorthCom future operations. “Now, the plan is to assign a force every year.â€
Err...doesn't this run into the Posse Comitatus Act. The amendment that allowed U.S. troops to operate in the U.S. during the Katrina aftermath was repealed.
Err...doesn't this run into the Posse Comitatus Act. The amendment that allowed U.S. troops to operate in the U.S. during the Katrina aftermath was repealed.
The whole idea is a tad suspicious to me.
It almost sounds like they are setting up for martial law.
I suppose. From the description of their training, "on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks," it sounds like it could over lap with law enforcement activities. It's a bit ambiguous if it's just clean-up efforts or something requiring the use of force.
Err...doesn't this run into the Posse Comitatus Act. The amendment that allowed U.S. troops to operate in the U.S. during the Katrina aftermath was repealed.
Maybe, maybe not. They could be acting in a non-law-enforcement capacity (active-duty troops can fight forest fires and fill sandbags, and have indeed done so in the past). Or, alternately, they could be placed under the command of the state's governor for a limited duration.
They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.
That falls under law enforcement, but I have no idea if the intention itself is enough or if they should actually be deployed to be in breach of the act.
I'm going to chime in with my, "this is not a bad idea, but...". This should be done with National Guard units. If you need to set up a department that allows federal coordination, I understand that, but it's not something that the Army should be doing. The reason they involved the Army in Katrina was because National Guard units were deployed in Iraq and were unavailable (which is an issue for another thread). Militarization of law enforcement and disaster relief as a policy, at the federal level, just doesn't sit right with me.
The idea that our military is preparing for martial law is rather absurd. For one, we have about enough soldiers to cover 1 or 2 medium sized states if for some reason everybody rioted. For two, this is America. The land of the apathetic. Even though most people are generally displeased with our government, there's no way in hell anyone will ever do anything about it.
I have no problem using the military for crowd control after a disaster, whether natural or terrorist attack.
Err...doesn't this run into the Posse Comitatus Act. The amendment that allowed U.S. troops to operate in the U.S. during the Katrina aftermath was repealed.
The John Warner Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2007 basically repealed both it and the Insurrection Act, so no, it doesn't.
I'm not particularly worried, though.
It does kinda suck that they have to do it during their off-time.
The paranoid side of me wonders if the powers-that-be might expect the economic crisis to get MUCH worse and are planning ahead.
You make a good point there. Not to derail the thread, I hope, but i was speaking with my grandfather a few days ago and it was his thought that is was very possible, if the bailout goes through, that they'd have to freeze all the banks for several days including ATMs, and that this might lead to possible food riots.
Sounds like the "Bad Idea Fairy" has been lurking at the DOD.
First they send damn near all of the National Guard over to Iraq for extended tours, now they are having active duty units on call for emergencies stateside...
If you have a nail, hit it with a hammer.
If you have a screw, use a screwdriver.
Don't waste time and money teaching a hammer to do the screwdrivers job and vice versa
Err...doesn't this run into the Posse Comitatus Act. The amendment that allowed U.S. troops to operate in the U.S. during the Katrina aftermath was repealed.
Maybe, maybe not. They could be acting in a non-law-enforcement capacity (active-duty troops can fight forest fires and fill sandbags, and have indeed done so in the past). Or, alternately, they could be placed under the command of the state's governor for a limited duration.
That wouldn't require the same kind of training as peace-keeping in Iraq, which is what the OP implied.
...dunno...some here know I'm a bit of a nut anyway...this kinda raises the hair on my neck
I don't believe this is being done for martial law (as mcdermott notes, a brigade is a pretty small force and wouldn't give you jack squat). I believe this is being done for expedience so that federally-controlled troops can be brought to bear in a crisis without having to worry about all the red tape it takes to federalize the Guard. As with other things the administration has done to try to sidestep what are basically controls around a segregation of duties, I believe their hearts are in the right place, but I also think the red tape exists for a reason. They need to work more on preperation, "governor hotlines", and continuity plans than on "oh shit we gotta do something."
Having just been through a natural disaster, I can promise you that the hold up on getting help was not at the state level. The first responders didn't have anything to eat because it was the FEDS who dropped the ball and private enterprise and individual donations made up the slack. Having a brigade available to have someone run up and down the street in fatigues wouldn't have helped that situation unless it was a brigade of mess hall attendants.
A brigade would include helicopters and other general logistics personnel, who could certainly assist in moving basic supplies like MREs and bottled water into hard-hit areas over land or air. As well as personnel to maintain security of those supplies.
I'm not sure the amount of helicopters/trucks that were available was the hold up, especially when the grocery stores were able to mobilize with more alacrity. The feds showed up a good 24 hours late.
No need to waste time and money training active duty units to do the job the National Guard is supposed to do.
Sounds to me like the DOD is just craving the need for attention for some reason.
So it's clear, I'm not saying this is a good idea or anything. Just not buying a lot of the "martial law!" alarmism. I just don't see keeping an active-duty brigade on-call to assist local forces in accordance with the law (which is fairly restrictive, but allows exceptions) as a terrible thing.
A brigade, for these purposes, you're right. It's what the idea can be twisted into over time that really scares me. *shrug* Once you have the precedent, it's much easier to widen the scope later. Again, it's why I think Bush has created all the preconditions necessary for a Hitler figure in the US. Same sort of precedent.
Hell, if we have the troops to do this, why not put them on the borders?
For one, it would be hard to justify doing so during their dwell time...remember, these guys will still be deploying as usual. Sending them away from their families to Asscrack, NM between trips to Alblowyouupah, Iraq isn't going to help retention any. They're doing this at home station.
Also, we're already using the National Guard for that. Though it's largely bullshit...they're just using (and extending) our Annual Training time to...not train. Even though they're in deployable units. Makes sense to me. Also real classy using Guardsmen as low-paid laborers (no breaks, no days off, no overtime) building fences and shit for three weeks at a time instead of hiring "real" workers, especially since at least some of those Guardsmen are taking pay cuts for their civilian jobs to be there.
I agree with the annual training abuse bit.
However, quite a bit of difference has been made in Texas since funding for a full-time operation was approved:
That's actually pretty cool. I fully support creating temporary or permanent full-time positions for Guard personnel to help out. Because, you know, they get things like good pay, benefits, comp time, days off, etc. Oh, and such positions are generally voluntary (beyond having volunteered for the Guard, of course). And aren't taking the place of the training you theoretically need for the combat tour you will be pulling.
Sorry, that last bit wasn't aimed at you so much (since you agree) but at the majority of people who tend to throw out "have the Guard do it!" for all manner of things.
No no, I wholeheartedly agree. These days "Annual Training" time is used for anything but.
And its really shady of the leaders to have thier troops pull manual labor for 2-3 weeks straight, since OSHA technically doesnt apply to Guardsmen on active duty.
But I guess the point Im trying to make is that the National Guard is great asset when used properly. The article cited in the OP is another example of an unnecesary expidenture (see also Department of Homeland Security) to cover for the job Guardsmen are supposed to be doing, but can't because they're being kept in Iraq all the time.
And its really shady of the leaders to have thier troops pull manual labor for 2-3 weeks straight, since OSHA technically doesnt apply to Guardsmen on active duty.
Then those same leaders are the first ones to complain about low retention rates.....
Err...doesn't this run into the Posse Comitatus Act. The amendment that allowed U.S. troops to operate in the U.S. during the Katrina aftermath was repealed.
The whole idea is a tad suspicious to me.
It almost sounds like they are setting up for martial law.
Err...doesn't this run into the Posse Comitatus Act. The amendment that allowed U.S. troops to operate in the U.S. during the Katrina aftermath was repealed.
The whole idea is a tad suspicious to me.
It almost sounds like they are setting up for martial law.
Isn't this what the National Guard is for? Maybe if we stop sending the Natl. Guard to Iraq to fight our silly war they'd be at home to assist with national disasters.
Err...doesn't this run into the Posse Comitatus Act. The amendment that allowed U.S. troops to operate in the U.S. during the Katrina aftermath was repealed.
The whole idea is a tad suspicious to me.
It almost sounds like they are setting up for martial law.
Someone set up us the martial law...
Sammo would have kicked Katrina's ass.
And he would have caught everybody's plates before they smashed.
Posts
The whole idea is a tad suspicious to me.
It almost sounds like they are setting up for martial law.
GM: Rusty Chains (DH Ongoing)
That falls under law enforcement, but I have no idea if the intention itself is enough or if they should actually be deployed to be in breach of the act.
I have no problem using the military for crowd control after a disaster, whether natural or terrorist attack.
The John Warner Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2007 basically repealed both it and the Insurrection Act, so no, it doesn't.
I'm not particularly worried, though.
It does kinda suck that they have to do it during their off-time.
You make a good point there. Not to derail the thread, I hope, but i was speaking with my grandfather a few days ago and it was his thought that is was very possible, if the bailout goes through, that they'd have to freeze all the banks for several days including ATMs, and that this might lead to possible food riots.
First they send damn near all of the National Guard over to Iraq for extended tours, now they are having active duty units on call for emergencies stateside...
If you have a nail, hit it with a hammer.
If you have a screw, use a screwdriver.
Don't waste time and money teaching a hammer to do the screwdrivers job and vice versa
That wouldn't require the same kind of training as peace-keeping in Iraq, which is what the OP implied.
...dunno...some here know I'm a bit of a nut anyway...this kinda raises the hair on my neck
Having just been through a natural disaster, I can promise you that the hold up on getting help was not at the state level. The first responders didn't have anything to eat because it was the FEDS who dropped the ball and private enterprise and individual donations made up the slack. Having a brigade available to have someone run up and down the street in fatigues wouldn't have helped that situation unless it was a brigade of mess hall attendants.
GM: Rusty Chains (DH Ongoing)
Already there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Jump_Start
No need to waste time and money training active duty units to do the job the National Guard is supposed to do.
Sounds to me like the DOD is just craving the need for attention for some reason.
A brigade, for these purposes, you're right. It's what the idea can be twisted into over time that really scares me. *shrug* Once you have the precedent, it's much easier to widen the scope later. Again, it's why I think Bush has created all the preconditions necessary for a Hitler figure in the US. Same sort of precedent.
I agree with the annual training abuse bit.
However, quite a bit of difference has been made in Texas since funding for a full-time operation was approved:
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/news_releases/archives/2007_news_releases/032007/03082007_2.xml
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3731/is_200712/ai_n21279310
No no, I wholeheartedly agree. These days "Annual Training" time is used for anything but.
And its really shady of the leaders to have thier troops pull manual labor for 2-3 weeks straight, since OSHA technically doesnt apply to Guardsmen on active duty.
But I guess the point Im trying to make is that the National Guard is great asset when used properly. The article cited in the OP is another example of an unnecesary expidenture (see also Department of Homeland Security) to cover for the job Guardsmen are supposed to be doing, but can't because they're being kept in Iraq all the time.
Yes, tyranny always starts small.
Hitler was the seventh member of the party.
It's how it ends that you should be worried about.
The "Bad Idea Fairy" is a GS-13 employee with her own office.
Someone set up us the martial law...
Don't worry citizens, it is for your protection.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Hey guys.
shit
GM: Rusty Chains (DH Ongoing)
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Wasn't it changed to say the president can use them if he wants?
GM: Rusty Chains (DH Ongoing)
MORE LIFE UNDER BUSH!
Sammo would have kicked Katrina's ass.
And he would have caught everybody's plates before they smashed.