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 Act’s 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 Pentagon’s 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?”
New London property values now at issue in eminent domain
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1437016/posts
Connection?
National Guard yes... Federal Troops no..
I miss understood the law my mistake..
An unfree place is not worth defending.<<<
The United States of America, is a free place (so far, still) and well worth defending. Our Borders need to be militarized NOW.
If they are not, I'm sure we WILL seeE fighting in the streets soon enough...we are still free enough to have the Right to Bear Arms and the Right to protect ourselves and our property.. . and I WILL DO SO, if needed.
If the current USA TYRANNICAL Government does not Protect this Country according to Constitutional Mandate..we WILL STILL DEFEND OURSELVES...
Is the National Guard oath, the same as all military oaths?
They are beheading Americans within those towns...are you saying no military action should be taken to free those Americans?<<<
If this were to happen, and I actually believe it will in some form or another, I, for one, would not wait for the Military, (though the Militray is to protect US, even if the Pres. does not think so) I'd be putting notches in my gun/rifle..whatever..
Yeah, that's getting closer to how I feel.
Yet even now, there are lots of exceptions in the law for federal troops.
For example, the National Guard unit in my town was deployed (under federal command) for security duty at the Atlanta Olympics. Other federal troops were used by the first President Bush to help put down the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles. Other federal troops have been deployed to help with security and cleanup after a natural disaster like an hurricane. I could go on.
I really don't have a problem with these roles, and I'm wary of journalists who try to get people all alarmed about "federal troops enforcing the law."
What do you think the Iraq war is??
No, it's not exactly the same. It includes wording about "following the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of the state of ____."
Good detective work! It amazes me the government will do very little if anything to protect U.S. property and at the same time is willing to violate the constitution to take a citizen's property.
The same on this end. I think the military will have their hands full protecting and guarding out political leaders and their families, the rest of us average Joe's and Jane's may have to protect our own families.
But, do they swear to protect us should the call go out? If so, I don't see anything different at all. If they are killing terrorist, why would I care if it were the Army or the National Guard? They are still our military.
What do you think the Iraq war is??<<<
We've set the iraqis free..so we can fight the enemy on their shores, not our..blah, blah, blah..
Unfortuantely, a lot of us believe, that Terrorists are ALREADY here, are trying to get here through our own borders..THIS COUNTRY HAS A MILITARY!!!! IT IS OURS>>>IT IS TIME THEY PROTECTED THE CITIZENS OF THE USA..
I watched a rather liberal documentary last night, was about McNammara, in it, Johnson was giving a speech about the reasons we were staying in Vietnam..he sounded JUST LIKE BUSH...
I immediately sent my membership fees in to join the Constitution party....BUSH NEEDS TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY< HERE AND NOW!!!!!!
The actual oaths are here on this form, on page 3. Section 16 and 17 apply only to the National Guard, while Section 15 applies to everyone else who is joining the federal military (i.e. not joining the National Guard). (There are other oaths for soldiers joining a state defense force, but I don't want to get too technical here.)
The same on this end. I think the military will have their hands full protecting and guarding out political leaders and their families, the rest of us average Joe's and Jane's may have to protect our own families.<<<
I absolutely BELIEVE this will happen. I am ready, I am waiting...
Dont worry they wont put them on the borders anyway
Yeah, there is no "bright line" today about what roles the military should and should not take. Those who think there's a bright line are misinformed, I think.
There are dozens of ways that the military helps with domestic security in one way or another, and I think that will continue.
The basic rule I've been taught in my military classes is that it's best for "situations" to be handled at the lowest possible level -- it's best if local police and fire and ambulanes, etc, can handle most chores, with state resources (civilian and military) coming second, and federal resources only used for very unusual roles or for backup in the worst emergencies.
Makes a good deal of sense to me. I think we already see so much confusion from folks on the left who want to treat terrorism as just a "law enforcement" problem where we read everyone their rights and apply a presumption of innocence that I would hate to see greater involvement of the millitary in domestic affairs worsen that problem.
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.