Skip to comments.Pentagon Plans Could Mean Troops for Homeland Defense
Posted on 07/05/2005 11:52:00 AM PDT by Man50D
Pentagon Plans Could Mean Troops for Homeland Defense Secret plans being considered by the Pentagon could lead to a relaxation of the Posse Comitatus Acts restrictions on the use of U.S. military forces in the enforcement of laws within the country.
The plans under discussion would reduce the emphasis on fighting conventional wars and devote more resources to defending American territory and anti-terrorism efforts within our borders.
Consideration of the shift is at the center of an in-depth review of U.S. military strategy now being conducted at the Pentagon, as ordered by Congress every four years.
The Posse Comitatus Act was passed after the Civil War to prohibit the use of the military in enforcing laws. Its application to anti-terrorism efforts in the U.S. today is not totally clear, but the Pentagon plans could signal an intention to use regular troops, and not just the National Guard, to fight terrorism on our soil.
Current Pentagon strategy embraces the "two-war model, which calls for sufficient forces to launch a major campaign, like the 2003 invasion of Iraq, while maintaining enough reserves to mount a similar campaign elsewhere.
But the current reassessment is the first by the Pentagon to seriously question the two-war strategy, according to a report in the New York Times. "The concern that the concentration of troops and weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan was limiting the Pentagons ability to deal with other potential conflicts was underscored by Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a classified risk assessment to Congress this spring, the Times revealed.
A decision to increase the emphasis on domestic defense and counter-terrorism would have a significant impact on the make-up of the military. The two-war model requires more high-tech weapons, especially warplanes, while a one-war model and increased counter-terrorism duties would call for lighter, more agile forces, "more Special Operations units, and a range of other needs, such as intelligence, language and communications specialists, the Times reports.
The shift would be an acknowledgement that future American wars will most likely be against urban guerillas and insurgents, rather than conventional fighters.
Loren Thompson, an analyst with the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va., said: "What we need for conventional victory is different from what we need for fighting insurgents, and fighting insurgents has relatively little connection to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.
But one senior military officer cautioned: "Whether anybody believed we could actually fight two wars at once is open to debate. But having it in the strategy raised enough uncertainty in the minds of our opponents that it served as a deterrent. Do we want to lose that?
Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, told us so.
Janet Reno already ignored it anyway.
My bad. You're right. I meant screaming. I have ten thumbs.
I think you were right the first time with Creaming :)
They never show any fear of using federal power when they rule, only when we pull the levers.
Alexander Hamilton just sat up in his grave.
Troops should not be used in law enforment situtations period..
The "two-war model" has been devalued. At one time, it meant being able to take on the Soviets and the Chinese simultaneously. Now it means being able to take on Iraq and, well, no one else.
The Posse Comitatus Act was passed after the Civil War to prohibit the use of the military in enforcing laws<<<
This act has been used to prove we can not have MIlitary on the Borders, to Protect the Borders..it is CLEAR to me that that was NOT the intent..It is RIGHT and PROPER to use the MIlitray to Protect Citizens of the United States.
Anything less in this time of terrorists and War..and the President and Congress are FAILING to Protect this Country.
Let's say Al-Queda have taken control of several small towns and have sealed them off. The police forces can't handle the increasing numbers of terrorists. They are beheading Americans within those towns...are you saying no military action should be taken to free those Americans?
Only in that situtation..
As opposed to the Cold War, where we faced down a foe with hydrogen bombs and enough chem/bio weapons to strerilize the planet. And we didn't need a domestic military force then.
An unfree place is not worth defending.
How about some on the borders to stop the invasion!
You can't be a little bit pregnant.
You either are...or you aren't.
Seeing troops patrolling our streets will give me bad mojo. If there is a real problem like you said the Al - Qeda takes over a town, then I would have no problem using our troops on our soil..
You're entitled to your opinion. But American history and the law are against you.
The Posse Comitatus Act is widely misunderstood by both the left and right. The author is basically wrong to write "prohibit[s] the use of the military in enforcing laws." It's semi-common for military forces to enforce laws or help enforce laws.
(For one thing, the Act only applies to the U.S. Army, not to National Guard or other troops working under state command. And even with regard to the U.S. Army there are exceptions in the law.)
Were you bothered when National Guard soldiers patrolled airports for 6 months after 9/11? I wasn't. State troops are frequently on duty today guarding certain bridges and tunnels. I don't think most people have a problem with that.
This article seems overblown to me -- trying to stir up people over something that's just not a big deal.
If there is a real problem like you said the Al - Qeda takes over a town, then I would have no problem using our troops on our soil..
So, you've changed your opinion?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.