NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: The military in a democracy is in an anamolous postion, especially on the issue of taking charge of disaster assistance operations. If they take charge they may be placed in the position of having to function as a police force and fire on American civilians. If they don't take charge, the situation could spiral out of control. It's a conundrum: damned if you do, and damned if you don't.


Military Wary of Disaster Role (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,77875,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl)


Christian Science Monitor | September 29, 2005

WASHINGTON - When President Bush asked Congress this week to consider whether the military should take the leading role in disaster response, he was merely picking up where other politicians have left off. Washington has long sought to induce the Pentagon to take a larger share of homeland security in times of crisis - from the war on drugs to the war on terror.

The notion has enraged civil libertarians and wary members of Congress, who fear the power of a military let loose on its own people. Yet in many respects, the greatest opponent of giving the military more authority at home has been the military itself.

It is a reluctance born of a martial ethos - the insistence that the military exists to fight the nation's wars, not to act as police. The fact that America remains at war in Iraq and Afghanistan has only deepened those reservations. So far, the Department of Defense has not taken a public stance on the president's idea, yet among many in the military community, there is concern that any major revision of the military's homeland mission could be both unnecessary and counterproductive.

"The military needs to focus on its core competencies - fighting wars," says Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va. "If we load the military with every mission that other cabinet agencies don't do well, then it won't be able to do its job well."

Indeed, Mr. Bush appears to be turning to the military in part because it was the only federal institution perceived to be competent in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Now, he and others are saying that the military might be the only federal asset able to respond quickly and effectively to disasters that overwhelm local police, fire, and emergency teams - as Katrina did. "Is there a natural disaster of a certain size that would then enable the Defense Department to become the lead agency in coordinating and leading the response effort?" Bush asked at a briefing last weekend.

What this might mean for the military, however, is a task that the president has left to Congress. Sen. John Warner (R) of Virginia, chair of the Armed Services Committee, has said that Congress needs to consider amending Posse Comitatus - the Reconstruction-era law that prohibits federal troops from taking part in law-enforcement operations.

The law does not affect National Guard troops, because they are called up by their governors and therefore under local control. But with so many Guard soldiers in Iraq, and with the scope of the damage in the Gulf Coast region, other lawmakers agree that Congress must consider expanding the authority of active-duty forces after a catastrophic disaster.

"[Katrina] does represent a significant change, and I think we'll have to explore carefully whether the only option we have to increase the effectiveness of response ... is to break the normal line that keeps the military out of certain civilian activities," Sen. Susan Collins, chair of the Homeland Security Committee, said at a Monitor breakfast this week.

It is a move that military leaders have resisted in the past. The issue is not so much Posse Comitatus itself, which legal experts say has many loopholes, but what Posse Comitatus represents. It is part of a doctrine that sees the American military primarily as a war-fighting force. It shields the armed forces from the burden of additional domestic duties - and the possibility of being involved in an incident like Kent State, where National Guard soldiers killed four antiwar protesters in 1970.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Gen. Thomas White told Congress that Posse Comitatus "is fine the way it sits."

Today, any move to amend Posse Comitatus, say military analysts, would represent not only a move in the wrong direction, but also a misapprehension of the situation.

For one, it is unnecessary, they say. The active-duty military can already support disaster relief in a variety of ways that are in accord with Posse Comitatus - providing logistics and humanitarian aid, for example, as has happened in the Gulf Coast region. For law enforcement, emergency officials have the National Guard - and if one state's Guard is depleted by overseas deployments, it can ask for help from other states through their network of Emergency Management Assistance Compacts.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested as much in a Pentagon briefing this week, noting that some 300,000 Guard members were available across the country even at the peak of the Katrina deployment. "And of course the Guard, as opposed to the active force, tends to have a higher proportion of people who do things that are appropriate in a domestic setting," he added.

Moreover, if a disaster is deemed too great even for the National Guard, the president has the authority to federalize the response, which would bring in active-duty troops as law enforcement - something that occurred in 1992 during the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles.

But federalizing disaster response can be a tricky prospect, fraught with tensions between Washington and state officials. Those tensions were apparent Tuesday, when Michael Brown, former Federal Emergency Management Agency director, blamed local officials for the ineffectual response to Katrina.

With no concrete plans in place, Secretary Rumsfeld said Tuesday that it is too early to pass judgment on the president's comments. But some observers wonder whether the current push to increase military involvement is simply a way for the administration to avoid the tough choices.

The military can help with logistics and planning and response, but "the important decisions that need to be made are political," says retired Col. Randall Larsen, founder of the Institute for Homeland Security. "It's not a four-star general who should be making them."

Here's what I think the problem is:The law does not affect National Guard troops, because they are called up by their governors and therefore under local control. But with so many Guard soldiers in Iraq, and with the scope of the damage in the Gulf Coast region, other lawmakers agree that Congress must consider expanding the authority of active-duty forces after a catastrophic disaster.The issue isn't so much that the active military needs to do more in disaster relief--it's that the Guard is being tasked to do things that aren't typically its duty, and they're missing from their normal functions as first responders and members of the affected communities. The solution, so far as I can tell, isn't to task the active duty military, but to get the guard back and let them do their jobs here instead of in Iraq.

Here's what I think the problem is:The issue isn't so much that the active military needs to do more in disaster relief--it's that the Guard is being tasked to do things that aren't typically its duty, and they're missing from their normal functions as first responders and members of the affected communities. The solution, so far as I can tell, isn't to task the active duty military, but to get the guard back and let them do their jobs here instead of in Iraq.
I agree, to a point, but as long as Iraq is ongoing this is highly unlikely. Perhaps after Iraq has been resolved, one way or another, some "trigger" mechanism could be devised that would involve the active military only after certain criteria for the seriousness of the disaster had been reached?

I'm sorry, but the military has no right to complain. They have sworn to serve their commander-in-chief, and if he says that the entire Army should march to Mars in their birthday suits, then by God they better do it.

I'm sorry, but the military has no right to complain. They have sworn to serve their commander-in-chief, and if he says that the entire Army should march to Mars in their birthday suits, then by God they better do it.
Um... how shall I put this... NO.

The oath is to uphold the Constitution, not to "serve their commander in chief". Please learn somthng about the US military before attempting to use us to bash Bush. :rolleyes:

Good for them. I dislike using the military for police enforcement at all, even the national guard, if only because it's a civilian job, nothing for the military to get involved with. The military should stick to fighting wars, not policing cities.

Um... how shall I put this... NO.

The oath is to uphold the Constitution, not to "serve their commander in chief". Please learn somthng about the US military before attempting to use us to bash Bush. :rolleyes:
How's this a bash against Bush? The role of the president is clearly outlined in the constitution is the commander in chief of the armed forces. The military is not some form of democracy where every general has a say. If anything, I am exonorating Bush.

How's this a bash against Bush? The role of the president is clearly outlined in the constitution is the commander in chief of the armed forces. The military is not some form of democracy where every general has a say. If anything, I am exonorating Bush.
Glad to hear it, because it seems that in most cases on this board when people make comments like yours they are intended to make Bush responsible for everything the military does or is likely to do.

But being Commander in Chief actually gives a president only very limited power over the military. Sure he can say "go forth" (within certain parameters), but in the end it is Congress that has the final say.

Here's what I think the problem is:The issue isn't so much that the active military needs to do more in disaster relief--it's that the Guard is being tasked to do things that aren't typically its duty, and they're missing from their normal functions as first responders and members of the affected communities. The solution, so far as I can tell, isn't to task the active duty military, but to get the guard back and let them do their jobs here instead of in Iraq.
Precisely. The National Guard is supposed to be guarding this nation, not augmenting overseas actions, which it wouldn't have to do if recruitment for the regular forces hadn't dipped so low, which it might not have done if the Iraq war wasn't such a worthless mess (there was no lack of recruitment for Afghanistan, an arguably more legitimate war).

Typically, rather than undo a mistake and start rotating Guard units back to the US, the government proposes to plaster over the mistake with an even bigger one.

Glad to hear it, because it seems that in most cases on this board when people make comments like yours they are intended to make Bush responsible for everything the military does or is likely to do.

But being Commander in Chief actually gives a president only very limited power over the military. Sure he can say "go forth" (within certain parameters), but in the end it is Congress that has the final say.
Lotus Puppy will never blame Bush for anything. I, on the other hand... ;)

But being Commander in Chief actually gives a president only very limited power over the military. Sure he can say "go forth" (within certain parameters), but in the end it is Congress that has the final say.
The Constitution gives Congress power only over funding. Congress, in affect, gives the military its tools, but it's at the commander-in-chief's discretion on how they are used. And in my view, certain laws that providie for Congressional power, such as the War Powers Act, are unconstitutional.

Lotus Puppy will never blame Bush for anything. I, on the other hand... ;)
I blame him for a few things, like being a compassionate conservative. He has the inability to say no.

The Constitution gives Congress power only over funding. Congress, in affect, gives the military its tools, but it's at the commander-in-chief's discretion on how they are used. And in my view, certain laws that providie for Congressional power, such as the War Powers Act, are unconstitutional.
The war powers act permitted the president to engage in 'military actions' in certain cases without congressional approval. For a state of war to exist, congress must approve it (although it is a wonderful american tradition to run around attacking people without getting a declaration of war).

The constitution and the intent of the founders is pretty clear on not having the army operate on home soil . Its bad Idea in a democracy to put an army of the people in a position of enforcing its will on the people . Even the national guard should only be used as a " force " in extreme emergency . Now the trouble to define "extreme emergency " and in what role ? I hesitate having to use them as police . Unless specifically trained for that role .

Whoever said active duty enlistment is low, is dead wrong.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2005/20050810_2387.html

The Army, Marine Corps and Air Force met or exceeded their goals for the month, and the Navy achieved 99 percent of its July goal, DoD officials reported.

The Army recruited the most new members, more than 8,000, 9 percent above its July goal. The Marines recruited more than 3,600 members, 103 percent of their goal; and the Air Force, almost 2,100, 101 percent of its goal. The Navy added more than 4,700 new sailors to its ranks, just 41 short of its July goal.

--

So kiss mi culo. :p

First off there are more than enough National Guard to respond to the needs of the nation. Thier use does require competant leadership from the states governor.

Want to know the main reason that the guard is in Iraq? During the 90's, active military componets had their funding and manpower slashed, making it impossible for active componets to deploy without the Guard and Reserves. All combat and combat support units were removed from the Reserves, leaving the Guard as the only componet that has the military specialties to support combat units. Thank you president Clinton.

Military forces should only be used as a last resort to help in the case of an extreme situtions. The military's main job is to kill and destroy. The military has more asked of it all the time, and doesn't need this added on top of existing duties.

However, arranging FEMA or another orginization along the military model would greatly help relief be delivered more quickly.

Increase the coast guard's funding!

I believe that they are the only division of the military that is actually trained in law enforcement anyway. And they need more money.

I agree, to a point, but as long as Iraq is ongoing this is highly unlikely. Perhaps after Iraq has been resolved, one way or another, some "trigger" mechanism could be devised that would involve the active military only after certain criteria for the seriousness of the disaster had been reached?
That would be the best, and I think the active military certainly has a place, but I'd say it would be more of a "get material where it's needed so the locals who know the area and the needs can do the job" sort of thing. The first, and most important part of doing that, however, is to get the Guard back where it belongs--in the states.

That would be the best, and I think the active military certainly has a place, but I'd say it would be more of a "get material where it's needed so the locals who know the area and the needs can do the job" sort of thing. The first, and most important part of doing that, however, is to get the Guard back where it belongs--in the states.

By what stretch of the imagination do you think the National Guard belongs in the states ? since when ?

Throughout the 19th century the regular Army was small, and the militia provided the majority of the troops during the Mexican War, the start of the American Civil War, and the Spanish-American War. In 1903, part of the militia was federalized and renamed the National Guard and organized as a Reserve force for the Army. In World War I, the National Guard made up 40 percent of the U.S. combat divisions in France. In World War II the National Guard made up 19 divisions. One hundred forty thousand guardsmen were mobilized during the Korean War and over 63,000 for Operation Desert Storm. They have also participated in the US peacekeeping forces in Somalia, Haiti, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo as well as for natural disasters, strikes, riots and security for the Olympics when they have been in the states.

The National Guard is not subject to the Posse Comitatus Act and can engage in law enforcement activities, except when federalized.

Following World War II, the National Guard aviation units became the Air National Guard. There is no Naval National Guard due to the constitutional provision against states having ships of war in time of peace, though Alaska, California, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio have incorporated Naval Militia units.

National Guard members and reservists now comprise a larger percentage of frontline fighting forces than in any war in U.S. history (About 43 percent in Iraq and 55 percent in Afghanistan). There are now 183,366 National Guard members and reservists on active duty nationwide who leave behind about 300,000 dependents, according to U.S. Defense Department statistics.



Take note of the exception for the Guard from the Posse Comitatus Act .
As a rule you would much rather have the National Guard then regular troops.
Force levels in the US military would have to be changed to reflect reality if our geniuses in government want to use troops in an emergency to replace the guard units in the field . I would never want regular Army troops in any city in the US . IMO McArthur should have been strung up and shot for using them against the bonus marchers. Never again .