To those who have served or are currently serving...

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

Many of us have put forward many assumptions, based on the past, as to what might happen if we put troops on the ground in the US. These are not facts, they are assumptions. We want to validate, or invalidate these assumptions. We do this with things like exercises. I'm sure this exercise will answer many questions about the who, what, when, where, should we? of this course of action.

Who are the "we", that are putting forth these assumptions? What are the assumptions? What the hell will these exercises prove, except everyone involved on your side understands the pecking order and what frequency to tune?
If these exercises are to determine how to assist my side, in case of a disaster, and not just practice on seizing control of the country, how will this exercise answer how it will work? Do you really think the John Wayne motherfuckers out here are just going to say, " Duh, whatever you say boss"? I gotta move just because you say so, without a damn good reason? I don't think so, I don't care how many fucking exercises you held.

Just to throw out a question off the top of my head. What happens if MS13 decides to take over every aspect of their turf pulls out the smuggled and stolen AT-4 rocket launchers, and belt fed weapons and kills a fair amount of law enforcement? What if, they do this in multiple cities, synchronized. Hmm...while I'm brainstorming about possible scenarios, what if this same group allies themselves with a common enemy of the US state, say some jihadists from the middle east?

Better pick another boogeyman. M-13 is a parasite. They know if their host dies, they die.

The civilian population of the US has charged me with their defense. Should I let the fears of some of these civilians in my country dissuade me from finding out what is viable, or not, through actual experience? Especially when that experience can be gained without casualties, in a situation where no one will be hurt or killed?

No, you're charged with the defense of the country from foreign powers, the police are charged with the defense of the people from internal threats.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

No, you're charged with the defense of the country from foreign powers, the police are charged with the defense of the people from internal threats.

No, our oath says "all enemies, foreign and domestic".

'"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm

[xoxoxoBruce]

Defend the Constitution of the United States, not the people of the United States. Not the government, for that matter.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Who are the "we", that are putting forth these assumptions? What are the assumptions? What the hell will these exercises prove, except everyone involved on your side understands the pecking order and what frequency to tune?
If these exercises are to determine how to assist my side, in case of a disaster, and not just practice on seizing control of the country, how will this exercise answer how it will work? Do you really think the John Wayne motherfuckers out here are just going to say, " Duh, whatever you say boss"? I gotta move just because you say so, without a damn good reason? I don't think so, I don't care how many fucking exercises you held.

Most would do it, but plenty of people would question it. It depends on what is being asked. Training and exercises make those action more like reactions, it is how you learn to stay alive in a hostile environment. I think they would have more problems with Guard and Reserves since they are from the home towns. But hey, I remember Kent State, so I guess anything is possible.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

No, you're charged with the defense of the country from foreign powers, the police are charged with the defense of the people from internal threats.

IRRELAVENT.

Just as law enforcement officers qualified to perform military duty (i.e. those in the National Guard or Reserves) can be converted (called up) from civilian police duty against internal threats to active military duty against external threats, so too can active duty military personnel who are qualified in law enforcement procedures be converted to civilian status for law enforcement purposes and it can all be done with the stroke of a pen.

Each branch of service has a regulation covering this action. The Army's regulation is AR 635-200, CHAPTER 5, SEC II. Any service member may be separated from active duty at any time "For the convenience of the government." That literally means for the government's MERE convenience. It's the catch all regulation that allows the military to downsize as necessary without breach of contract with service members. It also allows the government to separate from active duty a company, brigade; or, even a division and transfer it from the Department of Defense to the Department of Homeland Security (rather than the Reserves) for fulfillment of the service members' obligations [the regulation can be applied unilaterally]. Military service members can be transferred to civilian General Schedule (GS) positions in the same pay grades with a comparable chain of authority (vs command) structure.

It was inevitable that as the active duty military went to the Total Force concept, which downsized the active components and emphasized reliance on the Reserves and Guard to be activated during conflict, that the process would be reversed to augment civilian law enforcement during domestic crises. The "John Wayne motherfuckers" who don't like it are inconsequential in capability, numbers, and organization. They will fall by the wayside: that includes you.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by NoBoxes

It was inevitable that as the active duty military went to the Total Force concept, which downsized the active components and emphasized reliance on the Reserves and Guard to be activated during conflict, that the process would be reversed to augment civilian law enforcement during domestic crises. The "John Wayne motherfuckers" who don't like it are inconsequential in capability, numbers, and organization. They will fall by the wayside: that includes you.

Total Force - Crises created and resolved, at will - Citizens, and their Constitutional rights, be damned - We are the government, you will obey - resistance is futile.

Thank you for proving my point.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Total Force - Crises created and resolved, at will - Citizens, and their Constitutional rights, be damned - We are the government, you will obey - resistance is futile.

Thank you for proving my point.

You're welcome; but really, there's no need to thank me. I was just doing my part to help encourage the elderly to get out and vote. :p

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by BrianR

Congress, which is the source of most of our current ills. Of course. What did you think?

Originally Posted by classicman

I was wrong - After rereading it again there is a bunch of legalese in there and it was actually modified in 1981 and as recently as 2006 & 2008 by our current fearless leader.

Originally Posted by glatt

Yeah, well, the Bush administration doesn't believe the act applies to them anyway, so it's not worth the paper it's written on.