Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: Military Reviews Placing Special Ops on U.S. Soil

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default Military Reviews Placing Special Ops on U.S. Soil

    21 June Washington Examiner - Military Reviews Placing Special Ops on U.S. Soil by Rowen Scarbourgh.

    The U.S. military command in charge of protecting the homeland asked the Pentagon earlier this year for a contingent of special operations officers to help with domestic anti-terrorism missions.

    Military sources told The Examiner that U.S. Northern Command, established at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado in 2002, requested its own special operations command similar to ones assigned to overseas war-fighting commands, such as U.S. Central Command.

    A spokeswoman for NorthCom this week issued a statement to The Examiner saying, "This capability resides in every other geographical combatant command and would allow the commander of U.S. Northern Command to deploy these unique capabilities for homeland defense and civil support operations."

    The request was approved six months ago by the then-commander of NorthCom, Adm. Timothy Keating, who has since moved to U.S. Pacific Command.

    But now, the new NorthCom commander, Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, is reviewing Keating's decision...

  2. #2
    Council Member TROUFION's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    212

    Default Slippery Slope

    There are reasons why military forces are restricted from internal operations. We should leave it that way. There are also means by which miltary forces can be utilized inside the US and the Constitution is explicit in this. I for one would not want to be part of a military operation inside the US without the localized declaration of Martial Law as a protection for the servicemembers conducting that operation. Col Jones, SgtMaj Johnson and and Cpl Jackson don't need to be sued in civil court or threatened with criminal prosecution for conducting an authorized action within the borders.

  3. #3
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Slippery slope or jumping off a precipice...

    Totally agree Troufion, that is a bad move and hopefully the review will trash the idea.

    Sheesh. Every time I think we've done the dumbest thing in the world, somebody comes up with a new one...

  4. #4
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default is it really that dumb?

    My knee jerk reaction is this is too stupid to do, but I think for select operations it could make sense. Much like UK's SAS operations within UK for select CT missions, we could employ our unique direct action capabilities within the U.S. effectively, although it would probably require deputizing the force temporarily. My concern, and slapout can address it best, is that our law enforcement organizations are getting distracted by homeland defense focused on "potential" terrorist attacks, which is allowing the gangs to regain lost ground. What is the greatest threat to our citizens, Abu dumbass with a suicide vest in the mall or resurgent Bloods, Crips, Aryan Nation, and other gangs? The gangs are killing our people today, and we don't seem to have enough beat cops out their securing our population, nor does the FBI have enough resources to track both gangs and terrorist suspects. This plays out further, in that the gangs (especially evolved gangs) can provide safe haven for potential terrorists, since they are business men and will provide a service for a price potentially.

  5. #5
    Council Member sgmgrumpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ft Leavenworth Kansas
    Posts
    168

    Default

    Maybe they need to be more specific. Another example of the misuse of terminology. (Anti- or Counter- Terrorism).

    Seems alot of the useage of the term anti-terrorism has been ill defined on multiple occassions. Lets be sure of what they are talking about. Just because they would have a plans cell in Northcom, and I am not so sure they have not always had one, if it's for anti-terrorism purposes it would seem perfectly logical. All you need to do is spend a week around Ft Bliss AO


    Antiterrorism Definition: Those passive defensive measures taken to minimize vulnerability to terrorism.

    Counterterrorism Definition: The full range of offensive measures taken to prevent, deter, and respond to terrorism.

    My 2cents.

    Ok, all you doctrinal phds fire away

  6. #6
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Antiterrorism Definition: Those passive defensive measures taken to minimize vulnerability to terrorism.

    Counterterrorism Definition: The full range of offensive measures taken to prevent, deter, and respond to terrorism.
    You are doctrinally correct!

  7. #7
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default The UK has a long history of Armed Forces

    involvement in 'Support to the civil power' as do Canada and Mexico, Bill. We do not and we have traditionally avoided that with only rare exceptions -- such exceptions can and probably will occur in the future -- and my bet would be that most Americans want to keep it that way. I'd be even more willing to bet that the Armed Forces, mostly, will also want to keep it that way. Not to mention Congress...

    Gangs are a problem, no question but a percentage of the public goes bonkers whenever the Cops crack down on them too hard (hard being in the eye of the beholder). Try to hit them with an Armed Forces direct action crew and the ACLU, the relatively far left element in Congress and the netroots crowd would froth at the mouth -- IOW, it would likley create more problems that it would solve.

    The Cops, per se, are not overly oriented on the Terrorism bit; I've got two sons who are Cops, one on each coast. Their and neighboring departments get only peripherally and sporadically involved in the effort. The FBI and the other Federal LE agencies are another matter; they are too heavily involved to the detriment of their basic mission.

    Lack of resources is not nearly as much a problem as is allocation of those resources (plus their 'public relations image' and concern for pandering to Congress). Instead of setting Cops (the Feds) to catch Terrorists we should have a dedicated anti-espionage and counter terror agency ala the UK MI5. The cultural, operational and ethical requirements for law enforcement work and for CE/CT operations are dramatically, almost diametrically different -- the cops are in all respects poorly equipped and trained for the job. We didn't do it right due to the politics involved so we'll have to live with what we have.

    The FBI HRT is pretty capable in spite of some goofs and it can be expanded; most local and State Police have tactical response teams and some are quite good. There is adequate civil capability out there, it just isn't wisely organized and used and I expect that situation will improve as we move along, I know that efforts are underway to obtain such improvement.

    Full disclosure. Though a former SF Intel guy, I am not a USSOCOM fan, I think it was almost as great a mistake as was the formation of DHS -- though I will give SOCOM credit for great R&D, super good and well executed equipment procurement and forward thinking in many respects and will acknowledge that much of my dislike revolves around the long existing bureaucratic parochialism engendered by the way Congress allocates funds and favors and the turf and ego battles that engenders. I mention that mostly to say that SOCOM will always look for other missions; means more money and more spaces. This Northern Command mission, IMO is a bad, really bad, idea...
    Last edited by Ken White; 06-21-2007 at 04:29 PM. Reason: Added "Bill"

  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Rancho La Espada, Blanchard, OK
    Posts
    1,065

    Default Posse Comitatus

    Beginning with the Whisky Rebellion when President Washington led federalized militia into Western Pennsylvania we have used the military in a wide variety of situations domestically. In 1878, as part of the agreements ending Reconstruction (the occupation of the South) Congress passed the posse comitatus act making it a crime for the Army to serve in a domestic law enforcement role - with very limited exceptions, many honored in the breach over the years. (The act really was enabling legislation for domestic terrorist like the Ku Klux Klan.) Recently, Congress has loosened the strings a bit particulary with regard to CD and CT ops. The Air Force is bound by posse comitatus as it was created from the Army while the Navy and USMC are not - DOD has applied it to them by policy but it is not the law. These are the ground rules under which the discussion needs to take place.

    Which brings us to NORTHCOM: 1. NORTHCOM's AOR is North America and adjacent waters - it includes Mexico and Canada. 2. As a unified command, it should have a SOF organization as does any other unified command. 3. JTF 6 has long operated with SOF components. 4. 19th and 20th SFG are National Guard units that can be used in either Title 32 or Title 10 status. (How to tie Title 32 NG units into a NORTHCOM controlled domestic op is an interesting but, I submit, not insoluble question.)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •