[BigV]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

What is posted is here is merely my informed opinion, with assumptions based on my knowledge of the Army and our mission sets.

The main mission of this infantry unit in support of NORTHCOM will be an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks. Title 10 US Code is very specific about the use and the limitations on using US Military forces in the United States. I can think of two times soldiers have been deployed in the states during my service, the L.A. riots in the 90's and Katrina. Fire fighting missions happen every year; I have participated while on active duty...I'm wild land fire certified.

I personally think that the setting up of a response to disaster and terror attacks is a good thing, and should be done. Especially in this day and age with the current climate in the world. Military Commanders, as well as the NCO corps are very aware of our role in most circumstances. I'd say more so then the civilians who are sometimes appointed as our top leadership.

For instance the Armies policy, training and doctrine on interrogation seem to be quite a bit different than the current civilian leadership. I think that you can trust most commanders and SR level NCO's judgment.

Can and will mistakes be made at the human level on the ground? Yes. Is it possible in an L.A. Riots scenario for a US Soldier to shoot a civilian? Yes. Is it orders of magnitude more likely to confront a terrorist cell composed of foreign national combatants on U.S. soil right now? Yes, I think so. I think the need for a unit prepared for that fight is paramount.

[spacing added for clarity]

Hey joe:

Thanks for you participation in this thread. I appreciate the input from someone that is knowledgeable and articulate—you’re both.

I don’t have a problem with our military. I’m not afraid of them; I’m not ashamed of them. I have less confidence in the governmental leadership responsible for issuing orders to units deployed domestically. And I have practically no confidence in the general public’s ability to think and act rationally about any serious subject for a sustained period, never mind in a crisis. And it is these last two factors that make me very uneasy about a plan like this. I have little doubt the troops will do what they’re told. I fear that what they’ll be told, by the governmental leadership, will be suspect and that the general public’s behavior in a crisis will give them apt reason to yield to the panic.

I think our military is a first class organization, built for fighting war. I think the further the mission strays from that core responsibility, the more trouble we’re asking for. And to compound that risk, we’re doing it here at home.

I’m glad you’re wildfire certified. Honestly, thank you. I live in the Evergreen State, and up here fire==bad. But the portions of the article that talk about “helping with civil unrest and crowd control” chill me. If we’re talking about disaster relief, I’m all for it. But if we need the military to cope with these kinds of inevitabilities, it is a symptom of two larger more important problems. One, we’ve dangerously underfunded the civilian protective infrastructure and two, we’re changing what our military is.

I won’t be ungrateful if y’all show up when we’re on fire or the earthquake flattens us. I’ll be extremely grateful for the help and for the fact that you’ve trained in order to deliver that help. But I need y’all to do other jobs I can’t do, jobs my local community can’t do. And that’s be soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines. You know, “Over there!”, shooting stuff. I can’t do that part. I can make sure my first responder community is properly designed and funded and trained. I can make sure my community has the right resources to maintain law and order. Of course, that means an enormous political and governmental and community effort to “stand up” the appropriate civil units. But it can be done, and should be done. Because I don’t want your job. You’re awesome at it and I’m profoundly grateful. Please keep your eye on that ball.

As for your last paragraph, we disagree.

Can and will mistakes be made at the human level on the ground? Yes. Is it possible in an L.A. Riots scenario for a US Soldier to shoot a civilian? Yes. Is it orders of magnitude more likely to confront a terrorist cell composed of foreign national combatants on U.S. soil right now? Yes, I think so. I think the need for a unit prepared for that fight is paramount.

I think the likelihood of a civilian casualty at the hands of a US soldier is far greater than a confrontation between a US soldier and a terrorist cell of foreign national combatants on US soil. I am certain of that. There are 300 million citizens on the ground here. What is the population of the terrorists? How will you make the distinction? Please don't take offense at this, but the same effort in Iraq, for example, has produced many civilian casualties. And in Iraq the proportion of bad guys to good guys is much much higher. Still civilians die. I don't want ONE civilian to die here. I think we're all begging for trouble if we take the safeties off here at home.