Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by LineInTheSand, Jul 5, 2011.
Doesn't make me uncomfortable. Abuse of such a commander by a CIC or otherwise would get swift voter retaliation. Rather save lives when a disaster strikes.
I understand the "rather save" mentality but the plan, as presented in the article doesn't do that. It just blurs the lines. First, all domestic federal responses are headed by non-DOD departments or agencies. DOD support can be requested, but the response remains the job of a federal agency's leadership.
Above that general response framework, active duty DOD officials are not known to "speak the language" of civilian agencies, whether that be at the national, state or local level.
I was at a school in 2009 where an uninformed, or misinformed Air Force Lt. Col. proceeded to cover the national response framework. She was under the impression that DOD would take over a response. Nope.
Katrina was headed first by Brown at FEMA and then Vice Adm. Thad Allen with the U.S. Coast Guard. While Lt. Gen. Russ Honore provided the media with great one liners, his understanding of the response, and how agencies at different levels relate, was underwhelming to say the least.
The National Guard and Air Guard are there work for the state governor when needed. There is absolutely no need to include active duty DOD officials in that fold. None at all.
I see what LITS is saying. But i also agree with how hornet perceives the combined mission. I think in an ideal world, it wouldn't be a problem.
Here's my suggestion.
In time of war, guard members are assigned overseas and are assigned to the DOD under control of the commander in chief. Basically, they become active duty military members and fall under the DOD.
So why not have the reverse? If a state, like Louisiana has an issue like katrina, and they need/want/request assistance from the DOD/President for active duty military support, then why not just allow the active duty members temporarily assigned to that domestic location, fall under the direction and authority of that state's governor and guard unit.
1. You maintain the cohesiveness that they are looking to do by not having different authorities, but you put the authority with the local state.
2. Instead of a guard member becoming a temporary active duty member, make an active duty member a temporary duty guard member. If we can have members of our military assigned to NATO and similar, we surely can have some temporarily assigned to a guard unit.
Mostly because of Posse Comitatus.... and we should not have active duty U.S. military operating on U.S. soil.
Why? Well, because I don't trust them, not stateside. I don't want a group of people who have learned the rules of engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq, well learned, having deployed multiple times, to then have to make the differentiation between what use of force is in Afghanistan against the bad guys, and how to handle Joe Blow American who expects to interact with forces who are trained.
Example: Joint exercises in the Gulf of Mexico with the federal government and DOD brought a very interesting test. Hurricane rolling into the gulf, oil rigs abandoned, terrorist threat. Navy ship IVO oil platform observes small craft heading towards platform. They hail the vessel. No reply. Navy commander hails of more time, and then fires (destructive).
"WHOA WHOA WHOA" says Coast Guard LE officers associated with the drill. "You can't shoot at that boat in U.S. waters"
"Yes we can, we were protecting the platform from an attack" says the Navy.
"You're in U.S. waters and there is no threat to human life. Destructive fire is not authorized. What if this is a fishing boat heading to the rig to fish for species that like to hide near the rigs?" says the Coast Guard.
I don't trust the soldier, Marine, sailor or airman to enforce U.S. law or act within the U.S. borders. I trust them to no end overseas.
Now come on, you have countless members of local, state and federal agencies, many many law enforcement agencies, and other who are trained and well practiced it working within the United States. Active duty military is not needed. Not here.
I'd say we need to be cautious about this, but not necessarily alarmed.
If a large disaster struck, and local/guard units were not able to deal with the situation, sending in some AD personnel could help. This "Dual-Hat" idea can deal with that IF it is organized well (without severe risk to Civil Liberties).
Perhaps children should be issued their own little daggers and be ready to turn their parents in. If the strain is so great that AD must be brought in for Guard, why not divert Guard home and send AD troops where they were meant to be.
Children have been trained to turn their parents in, first during the "war on drugs" and now to CPS if they are disciplined. But that is another topic. I agree with LINS, civilian issues require civilian responses; if military precision is required a governor can call in the guard. FEMA has already overfederalized disaster relief and caused way more problems than they solve. My town was inundated-literally- by a hurricane after Katrina; nearly 3 years later we are enslaved by FEMA regs. Let's not make it worse with even more federal involvement.
Agree with jj - some of the military commanders I deal with have difficulty understanding civilians during a normal work day. Throw in a major disaster and multiple federal, state, and local civilian agencies and non-governmental organizations and it's a recipie for chaos.
Aside: This line from the article made me say "Huh? Isn't that what their all supposed to be doing?"
This should make you....
Question - This is a possible move to have the CIC use the military for disaster response and get rid of FEMA? For some reason in the back of my head was not this a military role in the 1960's or so.
Not sure I understand what the fuss is all about, and I'm positive this article is nearly a decade behind in the times.
A simple review of USNORTHCOM's mission statemetn should suffice for now:
"USNORTHCOM conducts homeland defense, civil support and security cooperation to defend and secure the United States and its interests."
Nowhere does it state the USNORTHCOM will LEAD the efforts for natural disaster events such as Katrina. It is, instead, providing civilian leadership military support as required during these times of crisis, providing a unified chain of command and oversight for all miltiary operations supporting these efforts.
Based on the confusion during Katrina, something LITS specifically mentions, having a unified command in charge is a GOOD thing.
The unified command already exists. I dare to assume many in DOD have no idea what ICS is, have not completed the training, and have no idea how they would fold into a response.
NORTHCOM is "homeland defense". Many believe "homeland defense" and "homeland security" are one in the same. They are not. NORTHCOM commander described it as "homeland defense starts at the border and looks outward, homeland security starts at the border and looks inward". Anything happening with in the United States would most likely be a "homeland security" issue, which is what DHS sec. would request assistance from DOD (through NORTHCOM) if needed.
And I'll dare to assume back that quite a few directly assigned to USNORTHCOM would take exception to your statement.
Look again at USNORTHCOM's mission statement. Security cooperation is clearly and sepcifically mentioned as one of their prime duties. Are they the "security experts" in coordinating the ovreall effort? Certainly not. At the tactical level does the primary mission of the active force perfectly match the requirements and activities involved in homeland security operations? Again, certainly not, and you give some very good examples at the Tactical level where active duty forces do not understand the nuanses of a tactical situation involving homeland security operations.
But the article is discussing strategic command and its implications.
Having a leader at the strategic level who understands the nuances of coordinating security AND defense operations on US soil, and whom utlimately has single "belly-button" authority to make command level decisions and guidance based on that knowledge... That IS a good thing. Maintaining two seperate beuracracies with two seperate leadership chains leads to examples like the response efforts during Katrina, where beuracratic in-fighting and lack of coordiantion led to tragedy.
Training future leaders to understand the process and be prepared to act as the recognized lead to best coordinate military forces in response to civilian need makes you uncomfortable?
Violating current law or blurring the lines makes me uncomfortable and is not needed.
Believe it or not, it was an Air Force Lt. Col. who incorrectly briefed the role of NORTHCOM, and its role in a federal response. It was also the comments of a flag officer at NORTHCOM during a national exercise that prompted the Vice Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard to get on the phone with the DHS S-2 to address that very thing.
That bell button authority exists, just not in DOD. Maybe that's why DOD wants to push this.
"Perhaps children should be issued their own little daggers and be ready to turn their parents in. If the strain is so great that AD must be brought in for Guard, why not divert Guard home and send AD troops where they were meant to be. "
Could we give them matching uniforms?
Absolutely! Little tan ones.
As long as they are not Khaki.....
I feel that there is a valid points to both sides. In theory, one man who could control both the AD and Guard units in a time of emergency should be able to resolve the issues faster. However, the other side obviously feels that this is a breech of States rights. One could argue that when someone loyal to the federal govt has the ability to take over the armed militia of a state, then bad things could happen. Of course that is a very extreme example, but a valid point none the less.
There's no need for active duty acting within the borders of the U.S. in a response, so there is no need to coordinate between National Guard and AD units.
That's pretty inaccurate and is more about bureaucratic turf protection than streamlining effective assistance to the civil population in times of disaster. To begin with - invoking Posse Comitatus is a red herring- Posse Comitatus is a limitation on LAW ENFORCEMENT activities of active military troops- not civil disaster response - In fact the Active Duty DoD has a long history as well as recent experience in providing major support to civil domestic disaster relief. Federal law identifies lead agencies for providing disaster response and limits the length of time that DoD AD foces can be used without a declaration by the President:
However, AD forces have in recent memory both contributed and been the lead agency- for example:
The question isn't " do active duty forces have a role to play in Civil disaster relief"- it's clear that they legally and historically do. This is about how they best fulfill that mission and ensure that there is an effective command and control coordinating headquarters to coordinate all of the military assistance. Northcom already has that mission in its charter - this merely streamlines that mission execution.
In 2009 I attended a briefing with the NORTHCOM commander, who, without hesitation, declared it was not the mission of the active duty U.S. military under his command (duel hat NORTHCOM and NORAD) to lead a response within the borders of the United States. He did say his people were available for a SUPPORT role. I'm comfortable with that. There is nothing in their training, contrary to fun National Guard recruiting videos or Navy "Global Force for Good" commercials that leads me to think the Department of Defense is good at domestic response. What do they have? They have hauling power and they have money. They've haven't been the easiest groups to work with and again....it's hard for the Department of Defense to ask for more money while declaring their stretched thin, while attempting to expand their role in everything else....they aren't good at it. National Guard/Air Guard troops I worked with at the oil spill last year weren't the happiest folks to be deployed for two months are returning home from Iraq. It's a power grab by DOD....nothing more....a way to justify not having budgets cut. "We need a huge Navy".....not because we've had a naval battle in the past 40 years, but because of "a global force for good". It's a sham.
Separate names with a comma.