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?”
I agree.
Our home as well. Only an extreme optimist would expect our military to protect them should an all out battle for the survival of our country begin, to which I might add, that our enemy has said many times that they would destroy our cities, and have proven they can. The military will have bigger fish to fry than us.
Thanks for the link. Very interesting.
Troops on the borders to stop illegal immigration, no problem. But the use of troops anywhere else in the United States for homeland defense is just a little scary. Of course the Democrats/liberals/progressives/socialists (or whatever they're calling themselves this week), if they ever got back in power, would make firearms ownership illegal under the guise of homeland defense. That's why it's important that they stay out of power, and I mean not even allowed to hold the position of dogcatcher.
No problemo.
:-)
I would see troops on the border as guarding our border which I would assume is one of their potential duties. Protecting the border would not seem to fall under enforcing the law to me. If they catch someone crossing then they turn them over to the law enforcement agency charged with such activities. No different than a civilan catching an illegal and turning him over to the Border Patrol. Now if you have soldiers running around arresting people for civilian crimes then there might be a problem with that. Also, if the military cannot enforce laws while located inside the country then how do they prevent people from stealing stuff from their bases here?
>>> Secret plans being considered by the Pentagon <<<
Nothing keeps the military from repelling attacks on the US now
>>>> "more Special Operations units <<<<
Just think about that one.
>>>> urban guerillas and insurgents <<<<<
And just who could that be??
New London property owners saying NO!
Want some more?
Illegals Caught Working on US Military Aircraft
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1409715/posts
PROPOSED BASE CLOSINGS TO REVEAL LOSS OF INDUSTRY
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1408916/posts?page=20#20
Red dawn??
Panama’s President Ignoring Chinese Smuggling
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/8/22/100034
Chinese Enter U.S. Through Virgin Islands
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/8/10/214414
Gee let's make it easy for them. Let put all our egg in one basket /s
House Passes Extreme Penalties For Some Who Use Guns In Self-Defense
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1433374/posts
FEMA swat team raids the Clearwater County Flood Control Center
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a393c4e532804.htm
Tin foil or not?
U.S. CONCENTRATION CAMPS FEMA AND THE REX 84 PROGRAM - (WHAT???!!)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1433331/posts
FEMA - The Secret Government
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a4b880877ca.htm
You got to have some humor too.
Dept of Education to form SWAT Team
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a390763d14910.htm
There's more but that's enough for now
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.