Why is a U.S. Army brigade being assigned to the "Homeland"?

[bombus]

Why is a U.S. Army brigade being assigned to the "Homeland"? Maybe someone somewhere fears social unrest? Martial Law on the cards maybe?

 

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/24/army/index.html

[Pangloss]

Because Cindy Sheehan is running for the House of Representatives.

[tomgwyther]

Hmmm, interesting article.

it could be a legitimate concern; an insurance policy. Something which sounds like a bad idea at the time, but turns out to be useful some time in the future (Useful for who?)

 

Or it could be a precursor to totalitarianism; a sneak preview of things to come.

 

One thing is sure though, the US government is expecting civil unrest in the future, and is trying to insure against it..

 

Thankfully, I live in 'America-Lite' (Britain) so needn't worry too much.

Our head of state can use her army against the populous anytime she pleases, and has been able to for ages - but she doesn't. let's just hope she doesn't go nuts!

 

Imagine if George W Bush were a queen.

[padren]

The National Guard is being drained to serve in Iraq, and now we are putting an Army Brigade to operate actively in the nation?

 

Is down suddenly the new up??

The mind boggles,

And yet the goggles,

They do nothing.

[Pangloss]

Don't they all operate "in the nation" when they're not deployed overseas?

[Phi for All]

Don't they all operate "in the nation" when they're not deployed overseas?

Not on a dedicated assignment specific to Homeland Security. This means they've been given orders, and I'd love to know what they are.

 

A federal posse comitatus with a new modular package of nonlethal capabilities. I'm thinking we're in for more than just a bad economy.

[Pangloss]

It's taser and teargas training. They're not actually even being deployed.

 

Revolution postponed, sorry guys!

[Phi for All]

It's taser and teargas training. They're not actually even being deployed.

Really. Then why is the Army Times reporting that 1st BCT will be an *on-call* federal response force? And after the 1st of the 3rd performs this mission for a year, the mission will be reassigned to another brigade permanently?

 

Revolution postponed, sorry guys!

My first thought was actually that the Pentagon was expecting some terrorism on US soil but didn't want to say that. My second thought was that the Bush administration was trying to sow the seeds of doubt about our security so McCain could play the axis of evil card.

 

It was the non-lethal crowd control package that made me think they were expecting mass rioting by former homeowners, Diebold victims and Nader disciples. But now the AT has printed a correction of their earlier story:

A non-lethal crowd control package fielded to 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, described in the original version of this story, is intended for use on deployments to the war zone, not in the U.S., as previously stated.

So while the tasers and tear gas will probably be used, the question still stands. Why are they gearing up for a regular army brigade to be stationed stateside?

[Pangloss]

Because with all the national guard and reservists rotating through combat they're all trained up on roadside bombs and field-stripping M-14s, and not so much on anti-terrorism and disaster relief. This brigade (that's only 4700 people, folks) has that training, so the only news here is that 4700 families will be celebrating Christmas normally this year instead of worrying about their kids in Iraq with the rest of their division.

 

BTW, this author is a well-known anti-Bush alarmist. His new book goes on sale in April, and here he is telling everyone the president is doing something "quite possibly illegal". I guess that sounds more exciting than "not in the least bit illegal", doesn't it?

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/ats-bc-co--northcom-responseforcesep30,1,5531801.story

PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo. (AP) _ A specialized military unit designed to respond quickly to nuclear, chemical, biological or other catastrophes in the U.S. will be activated Wednesday.

 

The 4,700-person force is trained for search and rescue, decontamination, medical care, aviation, communications and logistics.

 

It's called a Consequence Management Force and includes personnel from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.

 

Two similar units are scheduled to start up in the next two years. All will report to the U.S. Northern Command, the military command responsible for homeland defense, at Peterson Air Force Base, Colo.

 

The core unit of the first team is the Army's 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Ga.

Edited October 2, 2008 by Pangloss

[Phi for All]

Because with all the national guard and reservists rotating through combat they're all trained up on roadside bombs and field-stripping M-14s, and not so much on anti-terrorism and disaster relief. This brigade (that's only 4700 people, folks) has that training, so the only news here is that 4700 families will be celebrating Christmas normally this year instead of worrying about their kids in Iraq with the rest of their division.

Wow, that's a really good spin. But it's not just 4700 people, it's 4700 of our most experienced and battle-ready soldiers paving the way for a permanent brigade of crack soldiers to work on US soil. And with the joint forces involved, that 4700 could be anywhere in the lower 48 within hours. I don't have to be an alarmist to dislike this new deployment of our troops, no matter how much it's spun into disaster relief and anti-terrorism. What's wrong with our National Guard for this job? Will the CIA be allowed to work on US soil next? Slippery slope it may be, but now the precedent is set and it would be that much easier to assign more troops stateside because of it, or change the writ of other government agencies.

 

The Christmas thing was nice, though.

 

BTW, this author is a well-known anti-Bush alarmist. His new book goes on sale in April, and here he is telling everyone the president is doing something "quite possibly illegal". I guess that sounds more exciting than "not in the least bit illegal", doesn't it?

Tbh, I never made it past Greenwald's second paragraph. After his mention of The Posse Comitatus Act, I clicked his link to the Army Times article and never looked back.

 

Once again, I'd like to point out that when a bad thing happens, it can always be traced back to a series of misjudgments and poor choices which, individually, are not cause for alarm, but taken together will almost always lead to a high probability of disaster. This is not the first heavy-handed choice this administration has made, seemingly to protect us from all we fear. I don't have to cry "coup" to be concerned about yet another questionable change in our country's operational parameters.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, I don't like this at all. I understand the "training" of these 4700, but that doesn't trump the check that posse comitatus provides. There's a reason for that act, and it's just silly that we'd send the national gaurd to Iraq and send the Army to the homeland. WTF?

 

Sure, I suppose you could make a case on cross training and flexibility, but this is too far in my opinion. This should be the national guard's jurisdiction.

 

I'll be looking for sneaky legislation after the election, when we're looking in the wrong direction.

[bombus]

My first thought was actually that the Pentagon was expecting some terrorism on US soil but didn't want to say that.

 

Probably being arranged by the CIA as we speak:-)

 

Yeah, I don't like this at all. I understand the "training" of these 4700, but that doesn't trump the check that posse comitatus provides. There's a reason for that act, and it's just silly that we'd send the national gaurd to Iraq and send the Army to the homeland. WTF?

 

Sure, I suppose you could make a case on cross training and flexibility, but this is too far in my opinion. This should be the national guard's jurisdiction.

 

Indeed. This is strange - and virtually unreported by the sounds of it...

Edited October 2, 2008 by bombus
multiple post merged

[Pangloss]

That was my honest opinion, Phi, not an attempt at spin. I spend a considerable amount of time reading about military matters. You're certainly welcome to feel otherwise, but I felt that was somewhat dismissive of my opinion (though perhaps deserved after my "revolution postponed" comment). I just think this is the sort of thing that happens all the time in operational matters that this one particular author decided to see if he could turn into something that would help him sell his new book, which he has a track record of doing in the past. But we can certainly agree to disagree.

 

I did answer your question "What's wrong with our National Guard for this job?", but I think you blew by it (and ParanoiA too, apparently). You might want to reconsider it.

[ParanoiA]

If you're referring to this:

 

Because with all the national guard and reservists rotating through combat they're all trained up on roadside bombs and field-stripping M-14s, and not so much on anti-terrorism and disaster relief. This brigade (that's only 4700 people, folks) has that training, so the only news here is that 4700 families will be celebrating Christmas normally this year instead of worrying about their kids in Iraq with the rest of their division.

 

...Yes, I did catch this answer, which is why I mentioned "training". It's a good point, but in my opinion not quite good enough not to go through more trouble to get the National Guard trained to do this instead, even if it doesn't add up to the quality the brigade possesses.

 

That in mind, I actually responded a bit too quickly. I have some reading and pondering to do before I start running my mouth off, or my fingers as it may be.

[bombus]

If you're referring to this:

 

 

 

...Yes, I did catch this answer, which is why I mentioned "training". It's a good point, but in my opinion not quite good enough not to go through more trouble to get the National Guard trained to do this instead, even if it doesn't add up to the quality the brigade possesses.

 

I'd agree. Most Police are trained for disasters/emergencies and terrorist attacks and probably the national guard are too. You don't need combat trained troops for these roles. In fact it would be a waste of all their specialist training.

[Pangloss]

Oh really. And yet in normal times those roles are carried out by the National Guard and Reserve. And where are the National Guard and Reserve at the moment? Carrying out combat roles in Iraq. So, gee, I guess combat troops really can carry out disaster relief roles.

 

This thread is one of the most disappointing I've seen on SFN in years. I'm seriously regretting my support for you on this board, Bombus. I defended you and avoided shuffling you off to Pseudoscience and Speculations because I thought you would have something to contribute here and that people would see through your baser tendencies. I am seriously re-thinking that decision.

[padren]

Oh really. And yet in normal times those roles are carried out by the National Guard and Reserve. And where are the National Guard and Reserve at the moment? Carrying out combat roles in Iraq. So, gee, I guess combat troops really can carry out disaster relief roles.

The point is that the National Guard is already who we use for this exact function, and that we have them overseas providing another function, to back up a strained Army.

Now, we bring back - not the guard, but an Army brigade to do what the Guard has always done.

 

I really am not trying to turn this into the drawings of a tinfoil hat scenario, but just examining the facts (as per that Army Times article, not the Salon one) and discussing that.

 

It's fair to analyze and reassess how our military is deployed. The army would always be on American soil should there ever be a foreign military invasion, and now we do live in a world where those sorts of attacks are very unlikely and terrorist attacks are far more likely.

 

That said, I still don't see the usefulness regarding the Army's specialization being of great benefit in that case, which really leaves issues of civil crisis and emergencies, which we have long established the National Guard is for.

 

If we can bring back an entire brigade - why can't we bring back Guardsmen?

 

As for training, the small gain we could get out of that training, in my mind, does not offset the precedent this sets. We can also increase the training of the National Guard, and at this point they certainly do have some extensive combat experience if that really is helpful.

 

It just feels like a rather cavalier hack and slash patchwork approach to suddenly throw an Army brigade on US Soil for a long term mission of this nature, at a time I'd be much happier to see more consistency and application of the structure we already have.

 

Also, should they have to respond to a crisis, how will they inter operate with the State level National Guard in that area? Won't this be just more confusion of jurisdiction?

 

This issue is far more political and ideological than most, so I can understand many points will be disagreed upon for reasons that are hard to resolve.

 

This thread is one of the most disappointing I've seen on SFN in years. I'm seriously regretting my support for you on this board, Bombus. I defended you and avoided shuffling you off to Pseudoscience and Speculations because I thought you would have something to contribute here and that people would see through your baser tendencies. I am seriously re-thinking that decision.

 

I'll admit, that I've stopped reading a thread before due to Bombus's posts, but in this thread, I'd like to say is the only comment I saw that was borderline (to me) was the "CIA" one earlier (I thought it was a joke, but I could be wrong), otherwise, he's basically responded in agreement with other posters' views.

[bombus]

Oh really. And yet in normal times those roles are carried out by the National Guard and Reserve. And where are the National Guard and Reserve at the moment? Carrying out combat roles in Iraq. So, gee, I guess combat troops really can carry out disaster relief roles.

 

This thread is one of the most disappointing I've seen on SFN in years. I'm seriously regretting my support for you on this board, Bombus. I defended you and avoided shuffling you off to Pseudoscience and Speculations because I thought you would have something to contribute here and that people would see through your baser tendencies. I am seriously re-thinking that decision.

 

Pangloss, there is absolutely no excuse for these comments. I fear your own prejudices are affecting your ability to moderate objectively. As others have pointed out, why move combat troops from Iraq and deploy them at home when National Guard troops are being sent out there. I think I have something serious to contribute thank you very much. Oh, and what are my 'baser tendencies' exactly?

 

And yes, my CIA comment was in jest, mostly anyway. Is even questioning the truth of, say, 911 or the anthrax attacks considered to be pseudoscience. So much for free speech!

 

T

I'll admit, that I've stopped reading a thread before due to Bombus's posts, but in this thread, I'd like to say is the only comment I saw that was borderline (to me) was the "CIA" one earlier (I thought it was a joke, but I could be wrong), otherwise, he's basically responded in agreement with other posters' views.

 

I'm not sure whether to be pleased or upset about that:-)

Edited October 2, 2008 by bombus
multiple post merged

[padren]

And yes, my CIA comment was in jest, mostly anyway. Is even questioning the truth of, say, 911 or the anthrax attacks considered to be pseudoscience. So much for free speech!

 

I think the issue there is that those issues have been discussed heavily, and can only derail a topic like this. In a science forum like this, even in the politics section, we are trying to discuss the observable facts, and the conjectures on the "911 inside job" front have already been discussed and not found to have enough observable facts, therefore belong with other such conjectures in pseudoscience.

Those arguments here can only derail these threads, leading to yet more rehashing of what has already been debated, and can only be debated in terms of pseudoscience.

 

I can't say if that's Pangloss's perspective, but if it is, I am with him on that one.

[bombus]

Padren, I accept what you say, but the concept of the CIA arranging an/another event in the USA (regardless of whether one believes 911 etc were inside jobs) is not re-hashing the 911 thread. Anyway, as I said, I was not really being serious, and was alluding to conspiracy theories.

 

Thank you for defending my postings on this thread by the way.

Edited October 2, 2008 by bombus

[Mr Skeptic]

If they are being trained to use non-lethal methods for use in Iraq, then it is quite appropriate that it is the army that should be receiving the training, so they can use it when they return. Accidentally killing Iraqi civilians is just going to cause problems.

[padren]

If they are being trained to use non-lethal methods for use in Iraq, then it is quite appropriate that it is the army that should be receiving the training, so they can use it when they return. Accidentally killing Iraqi civilians is just going to cause problems.

 

I definitely agree. However I see the training of the Army as a rather separate issue though, from the issue of whether we should have a Brigade on standby for deployment in civilian situations at home where we are not likely to be fighting a foreign military anytime soon, or storming terrorist strongholds.

 

It reminds me of the "Synergy" buzzword, of seeing the strengths of one element and applying it to another area previously unrelated to increase efficiency. That's fine in the business world, but we have strong separations when it comes to government operations for a reason, where efficiency is intentionally sacrificed for checks and balances.

 

I want the CIA to work with the FBI, and share information, but I don't want the CIA to do the FBI's job on US soil (regardless of efficiency) because we have that separation for a reason.

I think our checks and balances and distribution of powers are well thought out, and while we can improve how they work together I don't think we need to break them down like this to adapt to our changing world.

[ParanoiA]

And yes, my CIA comment was in jest, mostly anyway.

 

Maybe we're misinterpreting your jests then, because there have been many posts from you that I just shook my head and went on since they were too over-the-top, layer upon layer, one charged tongue-in-cheek poetic phrase after another.

 

Personally, I like your inclusion on these threads because you've demonstrated a strong marxist quality, and that's an interesting extreme to play with.

 

My favorite membership would include extreme right wingers, extreme left wingers, and bunch of poor folks in the middle to yank around.

[Pangloss]

The point is that the National Guard is already who we use for this exact function, and that we have them overseas providing another function, to back up a strained Army. Now, we bring back - not the guard, but an Army brigade to do what the Guard has always done.

 

I really am not trying to turn this into the drawings of a tinfoil hat scenario, but just examining the facts (as per that Army Times article, not the Salon one) and discussing that.

 

Great, then you won't have any problem with these. The Guard and Reserve cover each of the states. Many tens of thousands of troops fill that role. This is one brigade being asked to help cover that role for the entire country in emergencies because (a) it's what they're trained for (they're trained for this, not for combat), and (b) the Guard and Reserve are busy and incorrectly trained because of years of war.

 

Bear in mind that the Guard and Reserve are still fulfilling that role as much as they can. The states are complaining constantly, such as after Katrina, that it isn't adequately covered. This is part of the military's response to that demand for assistance.

 

 

If we can bring back an entire brigade - why can't we bring back Guardsmen?

 

We're not discussing Iraq. If you mean why can't we bring back a smaller group if we're already bringing back a larger one, then you have it backwards. The Guard is something like 100x as many people. And finally, they're not talking about bringing anybody back, they're talking about not sending a unit over.

 

 

As for training, the small gain we could get out of that training, in my mind, does not offset the precedent this sets.

 

Then you need more facts about military training. And there is no precedent here, so far as I'm aware, except for the wild accusation that "it may be illegal" without any substantiation whatsoever and directly in the face of history and normal operating procedure.

 

 

We can also increase the training of the National Guard, and at this point they certainly do have some extensive combat experience if that really is helpful.

 

It isn't. That's the point.

 

 

It just feels like a rather cavalier hack and slash patchwork approach to suddenly throw an Army brigade on US Soil for a long term mission of this nature, at a time I'd be much happier to see more consistency and application of the structure we already have.

 

What it seems like? I thought we were taking a look at facts.

[Phi for All]

All right, let me clear the air on at least my opinion here.

 

Pangloss, I overreacted to your "revolution over, guys" comment because you adroitly lumped me in with bombus, tomgwyther and padren, spun the story your way and marginalized all of us (in the movie, bombus will be played by Ralph Nader, padren by Ron Paul, and Dennis Kucinich gets to play me). You have a tendency to group people in often disturbing ways, Panglossing over what is said in favor of this categorization. In this case, I think you saw Greenwald's name and put on your leaping shoes.

 

I *thought* I explained my concerns without drawing any conclusions I had to leap at. I have a new client right now that requires my absence from my home office so I have a tiny window to post in most mornings. I apologize for not being here today to clarify my points and thwart any tinfoilinism, and for my overreaction to your comment.

 

bombus, you often worry the fringe on top of the political surrey, your avatar is creepy and I would absolutely hate it if you weren't around. Like ParanoiA said, you represent an extreme and I find that extreme views help me focus my own, usually more towards the center than I normally hang.

 

padren, you've been around here a long time and I always love your posts. I think I relate most to your POV in this matter of the 1st BCT (which did return from Iraq, just not specifically for this mission) being put in a ready state for deployment on US soil, for a mission that is the first of its kind. Honestly, I don't see the problem with wondering exactly why this is needed for the first time ever. Did I mention this has never been done before?

 

... 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.

 

I have a right to be concerned, and I will be trying to learn more as things unfold.