http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/30/AR2008113002217.html

The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.

The long-planned shift in the Defense Department's role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.

There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement.

Long planned? Huh?

Not even a year ago, people told me I was crazy for suggesting that they were doing this. Now it's "long planned"?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/30/AR2008113002217.html



Long planned? Huh?

Not even a year ago, people told me I was crazy for suggesting that they were doing this. Now it's "long planned"?

Yeah I saw this. 20,000 is a division, that is a pretty hefty force. Makes one curious as to why in this day of an over extended military we would be able to devote an active division to just sit around the US. Oh wait, I guess there were logistic points set-up just this past summer with the exercise that involved the taking and holding of cities.

I still say that IF there is something going on a major portion of troops will not follow orders when it comes to shooting US citizens.

Could this also be a ploy to bolster our borders without the Mexican president crying foul?

Just curious mind you, plus with the new powers in charge might this not be revoked if it's as you fear San?

The first unit is stationed in Georgia, not near the border. Not sure where these additional 15k are going.

I didn't mean to say you were wrong, just a thought that crossed my mind. I seem to recall we wanted to place more troops on the southern border and the Mexican President was very unhappy for it.

The first unit is stationed in Georgia, not near the border. Not sure where these additional 15k are going.


Maybe they are concerned with the Russians....

I didn't mean to say you were wrong, just a thought that crossed my mind. I seem to recall we wanted to place more troops on the southern border and the Mexican President was very unhappy for it.

Yeah. I'm just saying that's what I know about their location.

The first unit is literally 2-3 hours from my front door. I'm not crazy about that.

Are they falling under the auspices of National Guard? If not how do they justify them falling under State control? Isn't there some sort of law of state/federal military powers they might be circumventing doing this?

Sorry if the info is in the link, I can't check them from work.

They are under the command of Northcom.

Yes, it should be in contravention of Posse Comitatus.

The first unit is literally 2-3 hours from my front door. I'm not crazy about that.

They want you Sanchek, it's obvious....:p

I still say that IF there is something going on a major portion of troops will not follow orders when it comes to shooting US citizens.


It does not matter what size portion would follow the orders; ask the parents of those students at Kent State if it mattered whether 5 or 50 were shooting.

I still say that IF there is something going on a major portion of troops will not follow orders when it comes to shooting US citizens.

I don't doubt that a large majority of them won't fire on people standing around, but what about actively rioting in front of a federal building? What about after they start throwing things? When one of them pulls a gun? When they're unruly at a checkpoint?

What was that great comment about Iraqi driver education being the cause of death?

There have been lots of disturbing observations on the behavior of people when they are granted relative anonymity in authority -- the last time this really came up was during the furor over Branch Dividian compound raid, but we've only seen further militarization of the police since then, and now, well, we've got the military.


But the Bush administration and some in Congress have pushed for a heightened homeland military role since the middle of this decade, saying the greatest domestic threat is terrorists exploiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

How many times do we have to hear this with no evidence before anyone says "Huh?"

I fully expect the Faux News circuit to be all over WMD again, I've already seen three other mentions of it this last week.

It does not matter what size portion would follow the orders; ask the parents of those students at Kent State if it mattered whether 5 or 50 were shooting.

You are correct in a case like Kent state, which could be anywhere, what does matter if those who refuse just stand there or try to stop it from happening. Sometimes, one just has to stand up and at least try to stop something.

Or we could sit around and say how unpatriotic the news is for printing things that are truthful like the deployment of a combat division in the US and wave the flag thinking that's all it takes to be patriotic.

You are correct in a case like Kent state, which could be anywhere, what does matter if those who refuse just stand there or try to stop it from happening. Sometimes, one just has to stand up and at least try to stop something.

Or we could sit around and say how unpatriotic the news is for printing things that are truthful like the deployment of a combat division in the US and wave the flag thinking that's all it takes to be patriotic.

I never once said it was unpatriotic (assuming you are alluding to my earlier stance). I said I was totally against any press covering any type of military movement. I took my training serious and well common sense says you have to be careful when it comes to such things.

I fully expect the Faux News circuit to be all over WMD again, I've already seen three other mentions of it this last week.

Because they know that the IQ challenged buy into the whole "24" action drama thing and it is certainly not as exciting for them if lets say, 10 guys walk into a city and split into 5 teams and shut down that city for oh lets say three full days, with less than $5000.00 worth of weapons and ammo, while assault troops have to flush them out like friggin rats in a sewer...well...that is certainly much less exciting than a bright flash and a mushroom cloud.

And definitely not as good for ratings.

The lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina. Oh how they fade so fast.......

People would like to see that such a move is a step toward government oppression or some show of force towards a neighbor, but truth be told in the event of a major disaster, only the military, trained in disaster recovery, has the resources to move the equipment and manpower as well as field hospitals and berthing, to mount a major humanitarian operation in the event a major city is devasted. You gain access to strategic and tactical aircraft as well as vehicles, heavy equipment and planning to execute a huge movement for evacuation and relief. Machines designed to operate in the devastion of war. Also, its not just the disaster itself that is a concern. Its the lawlessness that follows. The first few weeks after Katrina demonstrated this. There was a few times that my team of Seabees with our 5 ton trucks full of chainsaws and gas cans tasked to clear post offices and schools were denied access due to criminal activity in the area. We did not travel armed on our own soil.

New Orleans demonstrated our level of unpreparation in the sense that a major US city was essentially destroyed and our response was disorganized in many ways due to the fact that at the time, our military was not focused on much other than Iraq and Afghanistan. Troops did not have the training and commanders did not have the knowledge to effectively execute that kind of mission. This might be a step in the right direction to have units dedicated to these events.

If there is an ongoing operation, or an imminent threat, obviously the military needs to operate under secrecy. The embedded reporters in Iraq, for example, were forbidden to broadcast anything that might give away troop locations or any pending or ongoing operations.

If we receive credible information that there is a nuclear threat in the United States we must be able to react swiftly and without compromise. Any media reporting which hampers our efforts in any way should be censured immediately.

That said, I'm not sure how I feel about this. It reeks of the fear-mongering bullshit that was responsible for getting us into Iraq. If all they're acting upon is the notion that "Duh, of course we're going to get nuked someday!" then fuck that (Although I agree that it will happen someday, hopefully not when I'm in Washington!).

The lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina. Oh how they fade so fast.......

We already have an existing organization exactly for those purposes ... but one wonders what happened to our National Guard.

We already have an existing organization exactly for those purposes ... but one wonders what happened to our National Guard.


They changed its name to Halliburton and Blackwater during Katrina.

I just don't see the point of turning the US into a military state.

We are already pretty damn passive and docile. Who needs troops when you have mountains of apathy and ignorance.

We already have an existing organization exactly for those purposes ... but one wonders what happened to our National Guard.

They're busy doing the work in Southworst Asia

I went Active so I could stop deploying :p

I just don't see the point of turning the US into a military state.

We are already pretty damn passive and docile. Who needs troops when you have mountains of apathy and ignorance.

The troops are for people like you so they can blast you until you relent.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28006645

I don't know who said it but here is an article just *trying* to spark fear... and placing some weight behind having a domestic army.... :(

It's like Charles II and his militia all over again. No one is actually fooled they're really for national defence!

The troops are for people like you so they can blast you until you relent.

Instigating butthead. I wish I could take the morale high road like you do...

oh wait....

"The United States should be less concerned that terrorists will become biologists and far more concerned that biologists will become terrorists," the report states.

Great. Now we've got the Simpletons (http://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/A_Canticle_for_Leibowitz) in charge. How is it possible for experts to be worse at risk analysis than the general public?

I love the bit about the 1917 Flu strain, like it's some hidden One Ring or Excalibur waiting for a befuddled biologist to quit his day job in a tiff and be seduced by angry Muslims.

What a steaming piece of hysterical crap that MSNBC article is - but that particular brand of tin-hat paranoia isn't anything new. The DoD, spurred on by some of the more wingnut thinktank neocon groups, has been holding endless bioterrorism training sessions and seminars for years (there was a big one in laredo in 2005, and I was getting so many anthrax papers from my former military students that I had to ban it as a topic in my microbiology class).

I see a major bioterrorism event as being *less* likely than an (also ludicrous) 'backpack' nuclear attack because, while the technology necessary to harvest and culture an agent isn't that difficult, guns and bombs are just so much... easier, and most of the good candidate agents for 'weaponization' (anthrax, as the much touted example) just aren't that communicable and are easily noticed/treated - and I don't see a rogue biologist, or group of terrorists, going to all the trouble to cook up something worthwhile when plain old explosives can be made via a trip to the home and garden department of a Home Depot. Even something like a cholera inoculation into a reservoir is easily tested for and doesn't kill people often in first world countries. I have to admit I got a laugh at the image of a what a carefully targeted cholera drop into one of those think tanks' water supply would result in though, or rather the resulting posture of the affected 'dignitaries'... ;)


He noted last week's rampage by a small group of gunmen in Mumbai.

"If those people had had access to a biological or nuclear weapon they would have multiplied by orders of magnitude the deaths they could have inflicted," he said.



And if they'd gotten some sharks, and attached lasers to them...

Regards,
Nydia

And if they'd gotten some sharks, and attached lasers to them...

Regards,
Nydia


They did have sea bass...

If you want to know if something is about to jump off with those troops in Georgia, just keep track of the Almond snack sales. :rolleyes: