This should be in the WTF sidebar...



  • ...this bends my mind and lead to my new sig:

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/24/army/index.html


    "beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the [1st Brigade Combat Team of the
    3rd Infantry Division] will be under the day-to-day control of U.S.
    Army North" -- "the first time an active unit has been given a
    dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002
    to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and
    coordinate defense support of civil authorities."


    We have a national guard for a reason - why the hell are we doing this??



  • @BeenThere said:

    We have a national guard for a reason - why the hell are we doing this??

    I thought the National Guard was just somewhere for G W Bush to sit out Vietnam, are you saying this isn't the case?







  • @morbiuswilters said:

    (pics)


    Certianly relevant, but I mostly want to point out: (sublink to main article:  http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/)

    But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given
    a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002
    to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and
    coordinate defense support of civil authorities.

     

    “Right now, the response force requirement will be an enduring mission.
    How the [Defense Department] chooses to source that and whether or not
    they continue to assign them to NorthCom, that could change in the
    future,” said Army Col. Louis Vogler, chief of NorthCom future
    operations. “Now, the plan is to assign a force every year.”


    What I want to point out here, is that we actually have an Army Brigade tasked with responding to such possible situations even when such rare situations do not exist:

    “I don’t know what America’s overall plan is — I just know that 24
    hours a day, seven days a week, there are soldiers, sailors, airmen and
    Marines that are standing by to come and help if they’re called,”
    Cloutier said. “It makes me feel good as an American to know that my
    country has dedicated a force to come in and help the people at home.”

    The insurrection act as you mentioned, already allows for the National Guard to be directed at the Federal level in those extreme cases.  Why do we need a Brigade from the US Army here ready to go at any moment when we are supposed to have the National Guard for that express purpose?

    We have the National Guard, for civil issues (or repell military invasion of course) that can be used overseas if needed
    We have the main branches of the Armed Forces, for use overseas (or repell military invasion of course) that can be used for civil issues if needed

    So, we send our National Guard overseas - that's okay, the Army is strained. 
    Then we want military support here - and we bring back....... the Army over the National Guard?

    That's what I don't get.  It seems completely backwards to me.  It seems to say the Army will be on call to do what the National Guard would be doing if they were not sent off to fight with the Army.  

    I'm not trying to come across as tinfoil hat "OMG TAAANKKS!!" or anything, just - this seems waaaay backwards from how things have worked in the past, and were designed to work.



  • @BeenThere said:

    This should be in the WTF sidebar...

     

    So why did you post it in the "General Discussion" forum?



  • @gremlin said:

    So why did you post it in the "General Discussion" forum?
     

    Because I think it is a WTF, but its a political topic and if everyone posted something they thought was a WTF regarding politics in the side bar it would be a total mess.



  • @BeenThere said:

    @gremlin said:

    So why did you post it in the "General Discussion" forum?
     

    Because I think it is a WTF, but its a political topic and if everyone posted something they thought was a WTF regarding politics in the side bar it would be a total mess.

     

    In other words, you're saying it shouldn't be in the WTF sidebar 😉



  • @BeenThere said:

    What I want to point out here, is that we actually have an Army Brigade tasked with responding to such possible situations even when such rare situations do not exist:

    I'm not too worried about having a Unified Command for North America.  Of all the things the Feds have done in the last 7 years, this is low on my list of concerns.  It's not like any attempt at coup would succeed with out armed forces and they're only going to enforce martial law if the shit really hits the fan.  By having a UCC for North America, they're just doing what the Army loves to do: establishing a bureaucracy to manage a problem that will probably never come up.  Think of it this way: prior to 9/11, NORAD had no authority over US airspace and didn't even have radar pointing inward.  That turned out to be tragic because the FAA was slow in communicating problems to NORAD who then had to try to scramble fighter jets.  If on 9/11 a system had been in place where NORAD could be alerted of a hijacking immediately and track the plane while scrambling jets, we most likely would have had 4 airliners shot down but no buildings damaged.  It's a tragedy in its own right, but not nearly so bad as what did happen.

     

    @BeenThere said:

    The insurrection act as you mentioned, already allows for the National Guard to be directed at the Federal level in those extreme cases.  Why do we need a Brigade from the US Army here ready to go at any moment when we are supposed to have the National Guard for that express purpose?

    Well, you answer this later on, but partially it's because they're all stationed elsewhere.  The other problem is that Guardsmen tend to not be nearly as well-trained as soldiers and the Guards themselves don't have the type of equipment the national military does.  Remember, the President can no more use Federalized Guardsmen to enforce the law than Army personnel.  Depending on the situation, it might be far better to have the military respond rather than go through the trouble of Federalizing a state's Guard (or even several states in the case of a big emergency) and then trying to organize from there.  With this amendment to the law, the military can be called up if needed and can establish a UCC before hand to better manage response.

     

    Arguably, this is one of the only things almost all Americans believe the military should be doing.  There's plenty of debate over whether we should do peacekeeping missions and police actions, plus the usual politics over when and where and how and why and what that come up.  But defending the homeland and being prepared to serve as a very skilled police force in times of absolute disaster are pretty basic duties of a military.  I don't think hardly anybody likes the idea of martial law, but sometimes it is necessary.  It's good to be diligent and make sure that we don't become accustomed to having armed soldiers on every block, but it's also good to recognize when a military response is the best option.  The Army is very highly-trained and those soldiers are not going to turn their weapons on peaceful, law-abiding citizens unless this country declines very, very far.

     

    I'm honestly more concerned about policing being done by Guardsmen than the Army; remember Kent State?  Guardsmen are generally not adequately prepared to handle a situation like that (at least, they weren't at the time).  I'm also more concerned about an overly-aggressive civilian police force.  Transit cops standing on train platforms with assault rifles is a bit scary.  The chances that a weapon like that would be more useful against a terrorist attack than more standard arms are pretty slim.  If you are concerned about living in a police state, I would look more towards the increasing number of civilian cops and even private security guards who are pacing around with automatic weapons drawn.  Sure, most of them are trained and they all mean well, but one day there's going to be an incident that's going to highlight how dangerous it is to have civilian police armed with such overpowered weapons.  Any good police officer will tell you that his best weapon is his voice and that a handgun is pretty much a last resort.  The automatic weapons are meant more for intimidation factor, but potential terrorists are unlikely to be intimidated.

     

    I'm not trying to imply some conspiracy to turn the US into a police state; quite the opposite, actually.  I think the aggression was turned up for good intentions: to make people feel safer and head-off potential attacks.  However, these things have a way of becoming normal and that's what I'm afraid of.  The fact is, we shouldn't have to live in a country where cops all over are armed with automatic weapons.  Even if we get used to it, there's an undercurrent of fear that permeates the whole spectacle and it affects everyone involved.  Not having to feel that low-level yet omnipresent fear is one of the things that defines a free country and makes it so much better than the alternative.  When I am subjected to security theater, I really start to feel like my beloved country is slowly turning into some Eastern Bloc hellhole and that's scary and depressing.



  •  Morb, are you self employed?  You sure do have a lot of time durring normal work hours to be writing novels in the forumns lol


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.