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

[Pangloss]

True enough. Padren, I didn't mean that post above to sound so snotty (not to mention RevPrez-like, ugh). I was in a rush with students walking into our open house and I had to hurry. I do understand where you're coming from with your concerns, and I really should know better than to post under time pressure.

 

Maybe I'm being too harsh about this in general; I'll reconsider my thoughts on this. I'm utterly convinced that it's worth it to maintain a certain level of decorum in the subject matter, but I do realize that it's not always easy to decide what falls into that category.

[padren]

I appreciate everyone's comments, I also have been stressed for time and trying to gather more information on the topic, but a work crunch is coming first at the moment.

 

I did find this bit of information about the 3 ID 1st Brigade:

 

http://www.stewart.army.mil/3didweb/1st%20BCT/1stBrigadehom.htm (text only shows up in IE, not FF it seems)

 

In January 2007, the Raider Brigade Combat Team deployed to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom V, making it the Army’s first brigade combat team to deploy to Iraq three times.

 

 

 

The brigade combat team served in Anbar Province, the largest province in Iraq, under the command and control of Multi-National Forces West, headquartered by the United States Marine Corps for 15 months.

 

The First Brigade Combat Team was a joint task force consisting of more than 8,000 Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen. The units came from all across the world including California, North Carolina, Colorado and Germany.

 

The brigade combat team assumed its area of operations in the central part of the Anbar Province, primarily concentrating its forces in and around the city of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar Province. No other brigade in Iraq covered a larger area than First Brigade.

 

The brigade combat team conducted nine brigade level operations and quickly transformed Ramadi from the second deadliest city in Iraq to its most passive in six weeks. The average number of daily attacks fell from 35 per day to less than one per day, as the city experienced nearly 300 violence-free days during the brigade’s deployment. Its friendship with the area tribes, mentorship of the Ramadi municipal government and partnership with 14,000 Iraqi police and army stabilized the area. President Bush acknowledged the brigade’s achievements, claiming that Anbar became the beacon of hope for Iraq.

 

I haven't digested it fully, or really plan to comment on it at this time other than to note "...making it the Army’s first brigade combat team to deploy to Iraq three times." regarding their service, though I am not sure what all they did while there.

 

It does sound like they did an outstanding job which, even though the info is from their own website I don't have any reason to doubt it, and am in no way trying to bunch them in with some black helicopter conspiracy plan (or propose any such plan of any nature, of course).

 

 

Just a side note: Pangloss, I'll often preface something with "It seems to me" or include "(in my view)" when I want to be clear on something that I know is just my opinion or sentiment. I do that instead of saying something like "This is a rather cavalier hack and slash patchwork approach" which would recklessly state as fact something that is an opinion.

 

In those cases I am not trying to argue by emotion, but trying to clarify an underlying concern that motivates my exploration of the topic, to be more clear where I am coming from and acknowledge my own personal bias on why the issue concerns me.

[Pangloss]

I can understand that.

 

I just got a message back from a friend of mine who actually works (as a civilian) directly with the brigade in question, the 1st BCT of 3rd ID. He tells me that these guys have been training for civilian rescue and disaster relief operations, and that's why they're not going back to Iraq with the rest of 3rd ID. The word on the military grapevine is that this is a direct response to Katrina criticism. Northcom's mission is disaster relief and domestic counter-terrorism. Obviously that doesn't speak to the Bush administration's intentions, but that's the word on the street. (I thought about emailing my nephew over in Iraq, but decided against it. He's got enough to deal with. But I do know other people I can ask if there's further interest.)

 

We could probably talk some more about the domestic deployment of military forces, but I really think there's a misconception here about how often that happens already, and why. The CIA (I know, it was a joke) is specifically prohibited from operating domestically by law. No such law has ever existed for the military -- that "illegal" comment by the author was completely out of the blue so far as I can tell -- nor would that make any sense. Have we really gotten so used to fighting our battles overseas that we've forgotten that the primary purpose of the military is domestic defense?

 

But yes, I do understand and acknowledge the legitimate concerns over repression-of-opposition, etc. But this strikes me as no different from the stories that say Bush will use the military to stay in power after his term ends, declare this to be a christian theocracy, or a dozen other similar things. I do agree that the Bush administration is partly to blame for people's fear, and we do have to pay attention.

 

But when it's just nonsense, then we have to kill it. Hard. Fear mongers deserve a particularly nasty level of hell, as far as I'm concerned.

[Phi for All]

The CIA (I know, it was a joke) is specifically prohibited from operating domestically by law. No such law has ever existed for the military -- that "illegal" comment by the author was completely out of the blue so far as I can tell -- nor would that make any sense.

Aww, I had hoped you understood that the concern was over the army being used against US citizens, not fighting *for* us on US soil.

 

United States Code, Section 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

 

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

 

We lost a really good check with H.R. 5122. And it's possible I'm just incensed that Bush got more power, but any president using the military against our own citizens would be a tragedy.

[iNow]

Maybe the plan is to steal the election and have a force in place to suppress the revolt.

[Phi for All]

Maybe the plan is to steal the election and have a force in place to suppress the revolt.

bombus, turn the fan to "low" before iNow comes home to find you on his computer. Less mess when the shit hits it.

[iNow]

No assumption necessary when you use the big green smile.

[Pangloss]

I had hoped you understood that the concern was over the army being used against US citizens, not fighting *for* us on US soil.

 

No, I get it, I'm just saying it's a pretty fine line. Guns pointed one direction can be pointed another pretty quickly. Who needs a change in law?

[ParanoiA]

The thing is, totalitarianism isn't done overnight. I'm not even saying it's a "plan" by anyone - I doubt it's even consciously pondered by those who made the decision, as I believe the Katrina Criticism intent you shared. Just like the North American Union agenda isn't a "conspiracy" or a planned exercise, it's more of a natural progression that some see as eventually ending in this union. Conspiracy nutcases get ahold of these ideas and run like hell.

 

To me, it's akin to the preemptive strike doctrine (maybe not the best example). It's a line we shouldn't cross because the consequences, though decades and perhaps centuries away, are too fatal to take the chance. I don't think we've reached that threshold where not crossing that line ends with a greater consequence.

 

Just like we must afford due process with eradicating gang violence, and can't just arrest every idiot with a gang sign, we must afford the trouble to leave this with the national guard, even if they aren't as qualified at the moment. My two cents anyway.

 

Also, I do appreciate the point about turning the guns in the other directon. It sure is a fine line between protecting us on our own soil, and oppressing us on our own soil in terms of tactic.

[Phi for All]

The thing is, totalitarianism isn't done overnight. I'm not even saying it's a "plan" by anyone - I doubt it's even consciously pondered by those who made the decision, as I believe the Katrina Criticism intent you shared. Just like the North American Union agenda isn't a "conspiracy" or a planned exercise, it's more of a natural progression that some see as eventually ending in this union. Conspiracy nutcases get ahold of these ideas and run like hell.

 

To me, it's akin to the preemptive strike doctrine (maybe not the best example). It's a line we shouldn't cross because the consequences, though decades and perhaps centuries away, are too fatal to take the chance. I don't think we've reached that threshold where not crossing that line ends with a greater consequence.

 

Just like we must afford due process with eradicating gang violence, and can't just arrest every idiot with a gang sign, we must afford the trouble to leave this with the national guard, even if they aren't as qualified at the moment. My two cents anyway.

Damn, you absolutely nailed it, ParanoiA. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Extremely well put.

[Pangloss]

That's a valid concern, I agree.

[npts2020]

Anyone remember Kent State in 1970?

[ecoli]

Not personally, no, but I've read about it.

 

Don't worry though, there won't be another Kent State. People are too lazy to riot like that anymore.

[bombus]

Martial Law in the USA threatened to get the bail out bill through:

 

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d_4zij8

 

Article here:

 

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20975.htm

 

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.

 

Well, as the saying goes, many a true word spoken in jest. I certainly have a 'strong marxist quality', but I am not a marxist. I am sure you would think me extreme left-wing, but I am not that either IMO. It depends on ones perspective, e.g. I consider both Democrats and Republicans to be right-of-centre parties.

 

Damn, you absolutely nailed it, ParanoiA. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Extremely well put.

 

I agree with Paranoia too. It doesn't need to be conspiracy for the effects to be as if it is a conspiracy. If disparate elements are pointing in the same direction and benefit from things developing in a certain way, a kind of unplanned 'conspiracy' can emerge.

[ParanoiA]

It doesn't need to be conspiracy for the effects to be as if it is[/b'] a conspiracy.

 

You said it "is a conspiracy" (bold and all). We discuss conspiracy theories in Pseudoscience and Speculations.

 

I don't see that. He said AS IF it is a conspiracy.

[Pangloss]

I'll go ahead and move it back to Politics, then, but I'm not happy about extremist discussions on the Politics board and I'm absolutely determined not to allow it to degenerate into DU/Freeper territory.

[bombus]

I'll go ahead and move it back to Politics, then, but I'm not happy about extremist discussions on the Politics board and I'm absolutely determined not to allow it to degenerate into DU/Freeper territory.

 

Pangloss, what are you talking about 'extremists' for? What about free speech? We're just having a discussion about a real event. You appear to be the only one acting like an extremist here! However, thank you for returning it to the Politics thread, it shows character, and I mean that sincerely. I have never heard of DU's or freepers before. Interesting, but is it real or just a conspiracy theory?

[ParanoiA]

Democratic Underground is essentially a high-five site for left wingers, while freepers appears to be the right wing equivalent. They are more interested in extremist trashing and bashing than facts and evidence. It's the kind of stuff 9/11 truthers, and Alex Jones use for their news source.

 

I completely understand why Pangloss is trying to avoid that and we should all thank him for it.

[bombus]

I completely understand why Pangloss is trying to avoid that and we should all thank him for it.

 

Yes, I fully agree with the sentiment, but not necessarily the judgement.