Will U.S. Army Be Used to Crush Public Resistance?

[akfools]

Will U.S. Army Be Used to Crush Public Resistance?


Army Crushes DissentThe Alternative Futures Symposium in Chantilly, Va. was all part of the U.S. Army’s Unified Quest 2012 exercise, the latest in a series of annual war games that in recent years has focused on America’s response to a global financial meltdown in which average citizens took to the streets en masse.

In November 2010, CNBC’s Eamon Javers had this to say about last year’s exercise: “Ever since the crash of 2008, the defense-intelligence establishment has been paying a lot of attention to global markets and how they can serve as a threat to U.S. national security interests.”

Javers went on to report: “The Army is having a very interesting yearlong exercise called Unified Quest 2011.

In that war-gaming series, the Army is looking at the implications of a large-scale economic breakdown in the U.S. that would force the Army to keep domestic order amid civil unrest and deal with global fragmented power and drastically lower budgets.”

According to Javers, 30 military officials from the Marine Corps War College were concerned enough to visit the trading floor of JP Morgan in October 2010 to study volatile markets and the economy.

Inside Defense magazine also reported on Unified Quest 2011 in a November 2010 article entitled “Army Officials Think Through the What-ifs of a Global Economic Collapse,” wherein it was revealed:

“Officials picked the scenario of a worldwide economic collapse because it was deemed a plausible course of events given the current global security environment. In such a future, the United States would be broke, causing a domino effect that would push economies across the globe into chaos.”

According to Army Lt. Col. Mark Elfendahl, these were some of the conclusions drawn during a three-day session connected to that exercise: “The Army would have to significantly alter its ‘investment portfolio,’ focusing on light and inexpensive forces . . . an increased focus on domestic activities might be a way of justifying whatever Army force structure the country can still afford.”

“The only silver lining,” concluded the article, is that “the Army would have an influx of qualified recruits as the result of an unemployment rate of 25 and 30 percent.”

Tracing the government’s contingency plans back even further—to 2008—we find The Washington Post and Russia Today both reporting on the Pentagon’s plans to train 20,000 troops by 2011 to help as a response to threats of a possible mass terror attack or civil unrest following an economic collapse.

In July, Shepard Ambelas wrote for the popular alternative news website The Intel Hub that the Pentagon’s 2008 announcement dovetails “into the current troop and equipment movements around the country reported by truckers as well as many troop sightings by citizens.”

Ambelas added: “The military is already taking an active role in numerous domestic policing activities in close to a dozen states including Florida, Tennessee, California, Alabama and Pennsylvania.”

It may be no coincidence that President Obama’s recent announcement to have all troops return from Iraq by the end of 2011 coincides with the anticipated economic collapse.

Will those troops now be deployed on the streets of America? An even more relevant question might be: Will those troops exact the same toll on this nation as they did to the one they just left?


http://americanfreepress.net/?p=1377

[Mark]

Published on Thursday, September 25, 2008 by Salon.com

Why Is a US Army Brigade Being Assigned to the 'Homeland'?


by Salon.com
by Glenn Greenwald

Several [1] bloggers [2] today [3] have pointed to this obviously disturbing article from Army Times [4], which announces that "beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the [1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry Division] will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North" -- "the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities." The article details:

They'll learn new skills, use some of the ones they acquired in the war zone and more than likely will not be shot at while doing any of it.
They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack. . . .

The 1st BCT's soldiers also will learn how to use "the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded," 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.

"It's a new modular package of nonlethal capabilities that they're fielding. They've been using pieces of it in Iraq, but this is the first time that these modules were consolidated and this package fielded, and because of this mission we're undertaking we were the first to get it."

The package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and, beanbag bullets.

"I was the first guy in the brigade to get Tasered," said Cloutier, describing the experience as "your worst muscle cramp ever -- times 10 throughout your whole body". . . .

The brigade will not change its name, but the force will be known for the next year as a CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force, or CCMRF (pronounced "sea-smurf").

For more than 100 years -- since the end of the Civil War -- deployment of the U.S. military inside the U.S. has been prohibited under The Posse Comitatus Act (the only exceptions being that the National Guard and Coast Guard are exempted, and use of the military on an emergency ad hoc basis is permitted, such as what happened after Hurricane Katrina). Though there have been some erosions of this prohibition over the last several decades (most perniciously to allow the use of the military to work with law enforcement agencies in the "War on Drugs"), the bright line ban on using the U.S. military as a standing law enforcement force inside the U.S. has been more or less honored -- until now. And as the Army Times notes, once this particular brigade completes its one-year assignment, "expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one."
After Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration began openly agitating for what would be, in essence, a complete elimination of the key prohibitions of the Posse Comitatus Act in order to allow the President to deploy U.S. military forces inside the U.S. basically at will -- and, as usual, they were successful as a result of rapid bipartisan compliance with the Leader's demand (the same kind of compliance that is about to foist a bailout package on the nation [5]). This April, 2007 article [6] by James Bovard in The American Conservative detailed the now-familiar mechanics that led to the destruction of this particular long-standing democratic safeguard:

The Defense Authorization Act of 2006, passed on Sept. 30, empowers President George W. Bush to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist "incident," if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of "public order," or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations. . . .
It only took a few paragraphs in a $500 billion, 591-page bill to raze one of the most important limits on federal power. Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807 to severely restrict the president's ability to deploy the military within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 tightened these restrictions, imposing a two-year prison sentence on anyone who used the military within the U.S. without the express permission of Congress. But there is a loophole: Posse Comitatus is waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act.

Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from "Insurrection Act" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act." The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only "to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy." The new law expands the list to include "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition" -- and such "condition" is not defined or limited. . . .

The story of how Section 1076 became law vivifies how expanding government power is almost always the correct answer in Washington. Some people have claimed the provision was slipped into the bill in the middle of the night. In reality, the administration clearly signaled its intent and almost no one in the media or Congress tried to stop it . . . .

Section 1076 was supported by both conservatives and liberals. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking Democratic member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, co-wrote the provision along with committee chairman Sen. John Warner (R-Va.). Sen. Ted Kennedy openly endorsed it, and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), then-chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, was an avid proponent. . . .

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned on Sept. 19 that "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law," but his alarm got no response. Ten days later, he commented in the Congressional Record: "Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy." Leahy further condemned the process, declaring that it "was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."

As is typical, very few members of the media even mentioned any of this, let alone discussed it (and I failed to give this the attention it deserved at the time), but Congressional Quarterly's Jeff Stein wrote an excellent article [7] at the time detailing the process and noted that "despite such a radical turn, the new law garnered little dissent, or even attention, on the Hill." Stein also noted that while "the blogosphere, of course, was all over it . . . a search of The Washington Post and New York Times archives, using the terms 'Insurrection Act,' 'martial law' and 'Congress,' came up empty."
Bovard and Stein both noted that every Governor -- including Republicans -- joined in Leahy's objections, as they perceived it as a threat from the Federal Government to what has long been the role of the National Guard. But those concerns were easily brushed aside by the bipartisan majorities in Congress, eager -- as always -- to grant the President this radical new power.

The decision this month to permanently deploy a U.S. Army brigade inside the U.S. for purely domestic law enforcement purposes is the fruit of the Congressional elimination of the long-standing prohibitions in Posse Comitatus (although there are credible signs [8] that even before Congress acted, the Bush administration secretly decided it possessed the inherent power to violate the Act). It shouldn't take any efforts to explain why the permanent deployment of the U.S. military inside American cities, acting as the President's police force, is so disturbing. Bovard:

"Martial law" is a euphemism for military dictatorship. When foreign democracies are overthrown and a junta establishes martial law, Americans usually recognize that a fundamental change has occurred. . . . Section 1076 is Enabling Act-type legislation-something that purports to preserve law-and-order while formally empowering the president to rule by decree.
The historic importance of the Posse Comitatus prohibition was also well-analyzed here [9].
As the recent militarization of St. Paul during the GOP Convention made abundantly clear, our actual police forces are already quite militarized. Still, what possible rationale is there for permanently deploying the U.S. Army inside the United States -- under the command of the President -- for any purpose, let alone things such as "crowd control," other traditional law enforcement functions, and a seemingly unlimited array of other uses at the President's sole discretion? And where are all of the stalwart right-wing "small government conservatives" who spent the 1990s so vocally opposing every aspect of the growing federal police force? And would it be possible to get some explanation from the Government about what the rationale is for this unprecedented domestic military deployment (at least unprecedented since the Civil War), and why it is being undertaken now?

UPDATE: As this commenter notes [10], the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act somewhat limited the scope of the powers granted by the 2007 Act detailed above (mostly to address constitutional concerns by limiting the President's powers to deploy the military to suppress disorder that threatens constitutional rights), but President Bush, when signing that 2008 Act into law, issued a signing statement [11] which, though vague, seems to declare that he does not recognize those new limitations.

UPDATE II: There's no need to start manufacturing all sorts of scare scenarios about Bush canceling elections or the imminent declaration of martial law or anything of that sort. None of that is going to happen with a single brigade and it's unlikely in the extreme that they'd be announcing these deployments if they had activated any such plans. The point is that the deployment is a very dangerous precedent, quite possibly illegal, and a radical abandonment of an important democratic safeguard. As always with first steps of this sort, the danger lies in how the power can be abused in the future.

Copyright ©2008 Salon Media Group, Inc.
Glenn Greenwald was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. He is the author of the New York Times Bestselling book "How Would a Patriot Act? [12]," a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, released in May 2006. His second book, "A Tragic Legacy [13]", examines the Bush legacy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org

URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/25-7

[Mark]

Army deploys combat unit in US for possible civil unrest


Bill Van Auken, WSWS

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m47519&hd=&size=1&l=e

25 September 2008

For the first time ever, the US military is deploying an active duty regular Army combat unit for full-time use inside the United States to deal with emergencies, including potential civil unrest.

Beginning on October 1, the First Brigade Combat Team of the Third Division will be placed under the command of US Army North, the Army’s component of the Pentagon’s Northern Command (NorthCom), which was created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks with the stated mission of defending the US "homeland" and aiding federal, state and local authorities.

The unit—known as the "Raiders"—is among the Army’s most "blooded." It has spent nearly three out of the last five years deployed in Iraq, leading the assault on Baghdad in 2003 and carrying out house-to-house combat in the suppression of resistance in the city of Ramadi. It was the first brigade combat team to be sent to Iraq three times.

While active-duty units previously have been used in temporary assignments, such as the combat-equipped troops deployed in New Orleans, which was effectively placed under martial law in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, this marks the first time that an Army combat unit has been given a dedicated assignment in which US soil constitutes its "battle zone."

The Pentagon’s official pronouncements have stressed the role of specialized units in a potential response to terrorist attack within the US. Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, attended a training exercise last week for about 250 members of the unit at Fort Stewart, Georgia. The focus of the exercise, according to the Army’s public affairs office, was how troops "might fly search and rescue missions, extract casualties and decontaminate people following a catastrophic nuclear attack in the nation’s heartland."

"We are at war with a global extremist network that is not going away," Casey told the soldiers. "I hope we don’t have to use it, but we need the capability."

However, the mission assigned to the nearly 4,000 troops of the First Brigade Combat Team does not consist merely of rescuing victims of terrorist attacks. An article that appeared earlier this month in the Army Times ("Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1"), a publication that is widely read within the military, paints a different and far more ominous picture.

"They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control," the paper reports. It quotes the unit’s commander, Col. Robert Cloutier, as saying that the 1st BCT’s soldiers are being trained in the use of "the first ever nonlethal package the Army has fielded." The weapons, the paper reported, are "designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them." The equipment includes beanbag bullets, shields and batons and equipment for erecting roadblocks.

It appears that as part of the training for deployment within the US, the soldiers have been ordered to test some of this non-lethal equipment on each other.

"I was the first guy in the brigade to get Tasered," Cloutier told the Army Times. He described the effects of the electroshock weapon as "your worst muscle cramp ever—times 10 throughout your whole body."

The colonel’s remark suggests that, in preparation for their "homefront" duties, rank-and-file troops are also being routinely Tasered. The brutalizing effect and intent of such a macabre training exercise is to inure troops against sympathy for the pain and suffering they may be called upon to inflict on the civilian population using these same "non-lethal" weapons.

According to military officials quoted by the Army Times, the deployment of regular Army troops in the US begun with the First Brigade Combat Team is to become permanent, with different units rotated into the assignment on an annual basis.

In an online interview with reporters earlier this month, NorthCom officers were asked about the implications of the new deployment for the Posse Comitatus Act, the 230-year-old legal statute that bars the use of US military forces for law enforcement purposes within the US itself.

Col. Lou Volger, NorthCom’s chief of future operations, tried to downplay any enforcement role, but added, "We will integrate with law enforcement to understand the situation and make sure we’re aware of any threats."

Volger acknowledged the obvious, that the Brigade Combat Team is a military force, while attempting to dismiss the likelihood that it would play any military role. It "has forces for security," he said, "but that’s really—they call them security forces, but that’s really just to establish our own footprint and make sure that we can operate and run our own bases."

Lt. Col. James Shores, another NorthCom officer, chimed in, "Let’s say even if there was a scenario that developed into a branch of a civil disturbance—even at that point it would take a presidential directive to even get it close to anything that you’re suggesting."

Whatever is required to trigger such an intervention, clearly Col. Cloutier and his troops are preparing for it with their hands-on training in the use of "non-lethal" means of repression.

The extreme sensitivity of the military brass on this issue notwithstanding, the reality is that the intervention of the military in domestic affairs has grown sharply over the last period under conditions in which its involvement in two colonial-style wars abroad has given it a far more prominent role in American political life.

The Bush administration has worked to tear down any barriers to the use of the military in domestic repression. Thus, in the 2007 Pentagon spending bill it inserted a measure to amend the Posse Comitatus Act to clear the way for the domestic deployment of the military in the event of natural disaster, terrorist attack or "other conditions in which the president determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."

The provision granted the president sweeping new powers to impose martial law by declaring a "public emergency" for virtually any reason, allowing him to deploy troops anywhere in the US and to take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of state governors in order to "suppress public disorder."

The provision was subsequently repealed by Congress as part of the 2008 military appropriations legislation, but the intent remains. Given the sweeping powers claimed by the White House in the name of the "commander in chief" in a global war on terror—powers to suspend habeas corpus, carry out wholesale domestic spying and conduct torture—there is no reason to believe it would respect legal restrictions against the use of military force at home.

It is noteworthy that the deployment of US combat troops "as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters"—in the words of the Army Times—coincides with the eruption of the greatest economic emergency and financial disaster since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Justified as a response to terrorist threats, the real source of the growing preparations for the use of US military force within America’s borders lies not in the events of September 11, 2001 or the danger that they will be repeated. Rather, the domestic mobilization of the armed forces is a response by the US ruling establishment to the growing threat to political stability.

Under conditions of deepening economic crisis, the unprecedented social chasm separating the country’s working people from the obscenely wealthy financial elite becomes unsustainable within the existing political framework

[Mark]

Obama implements Bush's Martial Law Councils

The "Council of Governors," which I will kindly call the Martial Law Council, is finally here.  Yesterday, Obama signed an executive order (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/2010executive_order.pdf) which establishes the the "Council of Governors" originally required by Section 1822 of the National Defense Authorization Act of FY 2008 (HR 1585, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h1585enr.txt.pdf ).  Proving that the monetary and military policy does not change even when "parties" in the White House do, it was, of course, President Bush who actually signed the NDAA 2008, including its Section 1822 "Council" clause, and how its President Obama who's implementing it on the American people.

The Martial Law Council--err, Council of Governors--according to the executive order, will be compromised of 10 governors, with 5 from each party (so its "bi-partisan," whatever that means).  It is a 3-pg order, and the real guts are in Section 2:

Sec. 2. Functions. The Council shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs of the Council to exchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs; the Commander, United States Northern Command; the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, and appropriate officials of other executive departments or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security.  Such views, information, or advice shall concern:
(a) matters involving the National Guard of the various States;
(b) homeland defense;
(c) civil support;
(d) synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and
(e) other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.

And to me, this is where the story is: the original Section 1822 which Obama cites is a short, single sentence in an over 600-page defense bill.  You can see it yourself.  The entire text of Section 1822 (pg 495 of pdf linked above) from the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 is as follows:

SEC. 1822. COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS.
The President shall establish a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions.

So where's the story?  Well, you tell me: where in Section 1822 does it mention anything about NORTHCOM and the "synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States"?!   Section 1822 is what Obama cited in his executive order, because that is the section which he can claim "requires" him to establish the Council.  He's correct, technically.  But remember, Obama was in the Senate when this bill passed, and if he opposed it, he could have voted against it.  Like so many bills, though, he didn't even bother to vote on it.  The bill was passed 92-3.

So, what I'm saying is that, in my opinion, the story is not the Martial Law Council (which we knew was coming because we read the 2008 bill), but instead, its everything else Obama expands his order to cover that is not mentioned in Section 1822.  Again, Section 1822 mentions nothing about "synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States" and NORTHCOM.  Interestingly, however, if you want to find where NORTHCOM is mentioned extensively in the NDAA 2008, its not Section 1822, but Section 1821:

SEC. 1821. UNITED STATES NORTHERN COMMAND.
(a) MANPOWER REVIEW.—
(1) REVIEW BY CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF.— Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall submit to the Secretary of Defense a review of the civilian and military positions, job descriptions, and assignments within the United States Northern Command with the goal of determining the feasibility of significantly increasing the number of members of a reserve component assigned to, and civilians employed by, the United States Northern Command who have experience in the planning, training, and employment of forces for homeland defense missions, domestic emergency response, and providing military support to civil authorities.
(2) SUBMISSION OF RESULTS OF REVIEW.— Not later than 90 days after the date on which the Secretary of Defense receives the results of the review under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to Congress a copy of the results of the review, together with such recommendations as the Secretary considers appropriate to achieve the objectives of the review.
(b) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘United States Northern Command’’ means the combatant command the geographic area of responsibility of which includes the United States.

The White House press release (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-signs-executive-order-establishing-council-governors) says that Obama's "Executive Order will Strengthen Further Partnership Between the Federal and State and Local Governments to Better Protect Our Nation."  Well, yes, if you think patrolling a "combatant command the geographic area of responsibility of which includes the United States" with a "synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States" and the help of a "significantly" increased group of Federal military at Northern Command--yeah, I guess we're all "safer" now!  Yes, indeed--"safer" in some kind of bizarre Orwellian sense which affirms that violating the Constitution actually makes us safer!

So, in my opinion, the story is not the Council itself--which people have known about since the bill passed in late 2007--its Obama's own choice to expand his Section 1822 "authority" into subjecting the Martial Law Council to the Federal military cooperation of NORTHCOM.   Bush authorizing (unconstitutionally) the Council is bad enough: now Obama will expand it.  I would guess that Obama will claim that since NORTHCOM itself was (again, illegally and unconstitutionally) originally established in 2002 "to provide command and control of Department of Defense (DOD) homeland defense efforts and to coordinate defense support of civil authorities" that section 1822 allows him to include NORTHCOM with the Council through NORTHCOM's connection to both DOD and DHS as something for "Homeland Defense."  But NORTHCOM is under the authority of the DOD the same way as the military branches are, and NORTHCOM itself has divisions of Army (ARNORTH), USAF (AFNORTH), and Navy (USFF) (http://www.northcom.mil/About/index.html).  Surely, Obama doesn't want the Governors telling him what to do with the US military--he's the Commander in Chief.  But, that's in a world where the US military is not used on the US people!

Another thing about this Council that is just disgusting to me is that this arrogant Federal government is "allowing" the Governors of States to "advise" on what happens with the States' own National Guard within their State, and the Governors are going along with it.  As you might remember, this was all "codified" under Bush through the John Werner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, which eliminated the Governors as the sole commanders-in-chief of their States' National Guard when used within the State, despite the unanimous outcry against it by the Governors.  Some of that section of the JWDAA was changed in 2008, but the President can still remove the Governor as commander and take over control of the National Guard within his State if there is a Congressionally-declared "national emergency."  Or, of course, if the President just uses Bush's NSPD-51 to declare whatever he wants.  The National Guard is supposed to be under the authority of the Governor, yet the "Council" will happily take whatever little sliver the Federal government chooses to give it.  I hope the Governors see this Council for what it is, and protest it.  The President cannot force them to cooperate, and it would be amazing victory for the States if every Governor refused to join the Council.

I doubt that will happen, but that would be so kick-ass.  I think we should all start calling our Governors now to encourage them not to participate in this unconstitutional circus.  This all seems to me more like an attempt towards de facto legality of something absolutely illegal by involving the governors of States to legitimize the illegal behavior of the Federal government.  And will probably work.


Check out my little blog for financially-inclined info at the Bankster Report, www.banksterreport.blogspot.com.  Thank you!

[Mark]

Source: Army News Service
FORT STEWART, GA. The exercise scenario was a sobering one: a 10-kiloton nuclear device detonated in America's heartland, quickly overwhelming civilian responders.

Military leaders who recently trained for this response say they are now thinking differently about how to move equipment, extract the injured and take care of people following this type of attack.

Their insights came from "Vibrant Response," a week-long command post exercise designed to train the commanders and staff of the nation's dedicated force for responding to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high-yield explosive incidents, or CBRNE incidents.

The units completed the exercise Sept. 18 at Fort Stewart, Ga., just two weeks before their force, the CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force, or CCMRF, will be assigned to U.S. Northern Command to begin its mission.

"Assigning them will allow Northern Command to directly influence the operational and training focus of the forces and ensure a trained and ready response force when needed," said Col. Lou Vogler, chief of future operations at U.S. Army North.

U.S. Army North conducted the exercise while its subordinate, Joint Task Force Civil Support, provided command and control for the CCMRF.

Joint Task Force Civil Support -- based at Fort Monroe, Va. -- plans, trains, develops policy and determines the way ahead for DOD CBRNE response, said the force's commander, Army Maj. Gen. Daniel "Chip" Long.

Commanders and staff in the three task forces - Operations, Medical and Aviation - say that the academics and command post exercise offered valuable new perspectives for the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines assuming this important mission.

Task Force Operations

Responding to a catastrophic chemical, nuclear or biological attack is challenging because there is no notice and it requires a fast response, Long said.

Developing the capability to deploy rapidly was a priority for the infantry unit assigned to the force, according to Army Maj. Marc Cloutier, planner for the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division. The unit forms the core of Task Force Operations, one of the three functional task forces within CCMRF.

It's the first infantry brigade to be assigned to NORTHCOM for a year in order to respond quickly to civil-support missions.

Cloutier said that one apparent challenge for the brigade will be turning an infantryman into a truck driver or a first responder. However, Cloutier said, the Soldiers and NCOs in the brigade are smart and adaptable and can easily learn to drive a truck or use a chain saw given a little instruction.

"When I got to the unit in July, I looked at the mission and realized the biggest challenge was going to be organizing to become rapidly deployable," he said. "I knew we would have to preposition containers and equipment to deploy ourselves on very short notice."

The brigade also began working with the division and the garrison at Fort Stewart to ensure there were mechanisms in place to support a short-notice deployment, Cloutier said.

Once the exercise started, the brigade planners looked at how to reorganize their habitual formations from an infantry or armor battalion in order to accomplish the mission.

"Do we want to take our internal assets and develop functional task forces like engineering, decontamination, heavy movement, and search and rescue, or do we want to develop multifaceted task forces and assign them by region?" he asked.

Their conclusion? That configurations would likely change based on the type of catastrophe or the size of the geographical area.

"We're developing something of a playbook from everything we do here," Cloutier said. "We'll capture everything and keep it on the shelf so if we see a similar situation down the road, we're starting that much further along."

Technical Support

Air Force Lt. Col. Kevin Martilla was especially impressed with the brigade's planning efforts, which structured the forces and established processes to efficiently execute any mission that comes down.

As chief of the Air Force Radiation Assessment Team, Brooks City-Base, Texas, Martilla leads a unit responsible for supporting health-protection efforts for the force, to help commanders understand and manage radiation risks so they can complete their missions.

The team has existed since 1968 to respond to Broken Arrow incidents, or those involving military nuclear weapons damaged during transport.

"We've always been involved in planning to respond to Broken Arrow incidents, so it made sense that (the services) included us when developing CCMRF," Martilla said.

The team provides technical advice and the capability to measure radiation levels, collect and analyze samples, and measure and track radiological exposure to the force.

Being assigned to Task Force Operations allowed the team to work closely with the brigade planners and staff, Martilla said.

"Our team gained an understanding we wouldn't get if exercising with units on paper," he said. "This exercise has been a great step forward toward accomplishing this mission in case it ever does happen."

Also assigned to CCMRF within Task Force Operations is a Marine Corps technical support force called the Chemical, Biological Incident Response Force based at Indian Head, Md.

The force, known as CBIRF, was created in the mid 1990s as a domestic response force following the sarin attacks on the Tokyo subway.

The biggest misconception, said the unit's operations officer, is that the force is a nuclear, biological and chemical unit.

"We are a life-saving organization," said Marine Corps Maj. Stan Bacon. "Although we can identify hazards and decontaminate personnel, those actions are all geared toward allowing our force to conduct search and extraction."

Every one of the 500 Marines and Sailors in the battalion is trained to perform search and extraction, Bacon said. In addition, all members have received additional training to perform specialized technical rescues, including confined space, advanced rope, trench, collapsed structure, and vehicle and heavy machinery extraction.

The battalion is able to "grab and drag" people from within the hazardous area. However, the force also developed procedures to stabilize casualties when moving them would cause more injury, Bacon said.

"Very few military or civilian agencies plan to have medical personnel in the hot zone, in suits, treating and extracting casualties," he said.

Bacon said the Marine Corps unit benefited from training with the forces that will provide its logistics, decontamination, aviation and command and control during a disaster.

"We know we won't have to reach back to Indian Head for logistics support or work on mitigating the hazard," Bacon said. "We'll be able to focus our entire effort on saving lives."

'The main effort'

Civil support missions also are logistics intensive, as Army Lt. Col. Johnney Matthews found out.

Matthews, a support battalion commander, knows what it takes to move the fuel, food and water for a brigade headquarters and four maneuver battalions for combat.

However, the support battalion soon found they had gone from being the "unsung heroes" of the brigade to being the main effort, he said.

As the exercise scenario unfolded, Matthews learned the importance of quickly building a supply base to keep their own forces sustained so he could focus on moving food and water to affected civilians.

The battalion designed "speed balls," bundles of daily rations that feed up to 1,500 people and can be rapidly rolled on and off a military flatbed truck.

"This exercise has been a good experience for us," Matthews said. "We've been able to shake out our staff and put some systems in place for future missions. And we've learned a lot about civil support - we've been given a picture of some of the things we might face."

Task Force Medical

The consequence management response force is able to deploy with robust medical capability, including patient treatment and evacuation, blood storage and distribution, environmental assessment, epidemiology, and even stress management.

They were all coordinated by 1st Medical Brigade from Fort Hood, Texas.

As with a number of units attending the week of academics before the exercise, the 1st Medical Brigade was on alert and planning for possible response to Hurricane Ike, which was barreling toward the coast of Texas.

During every break, the medical brigade's executive officer was returning phone calls.

"We knew that if Ike hit hard enough to trigger a federal response, we had to be ready to respond," Army Maj. Tim Walsh said. "We have a lot of ongoing requirements, but we know we have to be prepared to deal with the alligator that is in our room."

Walsh said the exercise gave them an opportunity to look at mission requirements and the brigade's capabilities, then identify shortfalls and try to mitigate them.

Although they may not be able to mitigate all the shortfalls, just knowing what they are is beneficial too, Walsh said.

"States and local responders go through the same process," he said. "Our goal is to fill their shortfalls until they are able to handle the incident with just their capabilities, then we leave."

As combat operations continue in Iraq and Afghanistan, military medical capability remains in high demand. Walsh said those deployments give the unit the credibility to do their mission within the United States.

"We are proud and honored to do our mission anywhere, but to do it in the United States - that's extra motivation," he said. "We treat everyone with dignity and respect, whether it's a captured suicide attacker or one of our own Soldiers - we give them the same level of care we'd give our own parents."

Task Force Aviation

 

Speed is essential for this type of response, and rapidly moving people and equipment is nothing new for the 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade, according to Col. Paul Bricker.

"We're not encumbered by roads or terrain, and we move vertically around obstacles that restrict vehicular movement," Bricker said. "If a bridge is out, we can move people or large equipment rapidly."

The commander of the Fort Bragg, N.C., based aviation brigade said each of the unit's CH-47 Chinook heavy lift helicopters can move 30 people and large pieces of equipment - ideal for medical evacuation, patient transfer, logistical resupply and personnel movement.

Each of the UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopters can transport 11 people or 8,000 pounds of cargo - perfect for transporting search teams, dogs, high-priority equipment and radiological survey teams, Bricker said.

The exercise allowed the brigade's staff to both come together as a team and to work with a joint task force headquarters.

"Working with the joint task force and the civilian sector exposes our folks to a whole different set of coordination requirements," he said.

'What if'

Long, the Joint Task Force Civil Support commander, agreed that having a dedicated response force assigned to Northern Command can only improve DOD's ability to help save lives, prevent injury and provide temporary critical life support.

"We've got to train like we've got to execute," he said. "There will be catastrophic deaths. Hospitals will be affected, first responders will be affected, and you've got to integrate all the response capabilities when citizens are trying to get away or trying to pull their lives together."

Since the joint task force was created in 1999, the nation has made tremendous progress on 'what if,' Long said.

"There are all sorts of deterrence capabilities, and this (force) is one of them," he said. "This exercise has been a great effort to prepare for a catastrophic CBRNE event. The nation needs to know we have this capability."

(Patti Bielling writes for the U.S. Army North Public Affairs Office.)

[Mark]

Concerns about deployment of military on U.S. soil growing -- while mainstream media buries its head in the sand: Naomi Wolf
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1813

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 9:40am.
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Naomi Wolf

The following is the spin of military spokespeople in response to questions about the deployment of the First Brigade on US soil for the first time in over 200 years.


The Army Times initially reported that the First Brigade would handle domestic crowd control and subduing 'unruly individuals' and that they had 'lethal and nonlethal technologies' to do so. Then it issued a correction declaring that the 'nonlethal' package was not for domestic crowd control. Then after a hue and cry was raised by many citizens, Northern Command (NorthCom) offered a wholesale revision of their mission – and the mainstream media is eating it up. Here is an excerpt from the articled linked to in the previous sentence:


Despite conspiracy theories that this could be a first step toward martial law in the U.S., there won't be tanks on Main Street or active-duty troops putting down demonstrations. That is barred by federal law banning the military from being used on U.S. soil for domestic law enforcement.


Instead, the soldiers of the 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Ga., have been training to back up civilian authorities in providing medical care and dealing with chemical, biological, high explosive or nuclear attack.


Not only does this entirely contradict the first Army Times reports, it also egregiously misrepresents to readers the status of US law in regards to this deployment. Yes, there are laws against military policing on US streets -- they are part of both the 1807 Insurrection Act and 1879's Posse Comitatus Act -- but the Defense Authorization Act of 2007 gutted them.


Congress restored some limitations on the President's ability to deploy troops to engage in military policing in 2008 -- but President Bush issued a signing statement declaring he did not feel bound by those limitations. He also can direct these troops -- and the National Guard, and Blackwater -- to engage in military policing of civilian populations simply by verbally and unilaterally declaring a national emergency of whatever kind he wishes.


Unfortunately, the US Army spokespeople are parsing their words and misleading us. And, whatever the stated mission is today, the fact remains that military up the chain of command report to the Commander in Chief -- not to Congress or to you and me, and not to the Governors as most of the National Guard do.


Why do I insist on raising an alarm about this deployment in spite of a great deal of opposition and criticism? (Though I am grateful, too, for a great deal of support.) I insist on raising an alarm because I am aware of world events and not just blinded by American recent history.

In Zimbabwe, a nominal democracy, President Mugabe sent troops to harass, arrest and even kill voters during a closely contested election. Mugabe's challenger called off his own supporters, telling them they should not risk being killed just in order to vote.


In Sierra Leone, a nation I visited shortly after elections, during a fragile democratic voting process troops and militias were both deployed by the contesting political parties to intimidate, beat and arrest voters. In Azerbaijan, troops were sent to intimidate the opposition during the elections -- and now there is no meaningful opposition. Don't trust me -- ask Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International. Troops are sent by leaders in power, even in weakening democracies, to intimidate voters, arrest and harass opposition leaders in tightly fought elections, all over the damn world.

And nothing, nothing, nothing prevents the First Brigade from being positioned around poll locations, intimidating or silencing or threatening or worse those who challenge their voting outcome or their having been purged from the rolls. This at a time when Prof. Mark Crispin Miller of NYU and Robert Kennedy and many others are documenting MILLIONS of voters being systematically purged from rolls -- overwhelmingly by Republican actions -- and early voting is already showing machines flipping selections from Democrat to Republican, and voters becoming upset.

I am having a surreal experience with the mainstream media, as well, as I try to raise questions. A source at The Philadelphia Inquirer says that nothing has appeared on the wires about the First Brigade -- so they can't cover it. A source at The New York Times says they are 'looking into it' -- but no coverage yet. "The Today Show" asked if I was a 'fear-monger' and 'paranoid' for raising alarms and reproduced NorthCom's soundbite intact about the First Brigade being here to help with communities affected by weapons of mass destruction -- but did no independent reporting of their own. I know from hearing from citizens across party lines that I am not the only American concerned about what information the Army may have about such threats to lead to this deployment now -- the first time since the Indian Wars that troops have been sent onto US soil.

If you would like to see how average Americans are responding to the news about the deployment of the First Brigade, check out some of the posts from readers on a military-oriented Web site that posted the recent Colorado Springs Gazette article on the subject:


'Since 9/11 the Department of Homeland Security has spent billions to prepare civilian law enforcement, local fire departments and civilian agencies to deal with such [crises]. This smells of despicable mission creep for the Armed Forces. In the late 1980's, I participated in several exercises focused on "counter insurgency" operations that specifically dealt with demonstrators and civil unrest. Backing up law enforcement officials is a end run around Posse Comitatus and this should be exposed for what it is, unconstitutional.'


'Just why is a combat brigade being tasked for these scenarios and not Chemical, Biological and Nuclear Warfare commands? Medical Commands? Construction Battalions?


'This seems much too similar to the use of troops to put down the Bonus March of WW I veterans in which Army Troops fired on and killed veterans in DC protesting the government's failure to pay their promised [bonuses].'


'This job can AND SHOULD be handled by National Guard troops (domestic issues).'


'This smells...no, it stinks. Posse Comitatus is in place for very valid reasons. This looks like pre-positioning equipment in preparation for a fight.

      'The Defense Authorization Act of 2006 empowers the president to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist "incident," if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of "public order," or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations.

      'The terms "incident" and "public order" are left wide open to interpretation under the Military Commissions Act...'


"Just why is a combat brigade being tasked for these scenarios and not Chemical, Biological and Nuclear Warfare commands? Medical Commands?

Construction Battalions?"

     'Back in the late seventies I was apart of a force that had a similar responsibility, except we were trained to handle "civil disturbance", thank god we were never needed. This is not the first time something like this has happened, the only difference, we were Arty. Every Batt. had to train so many troops, from Inf. to Medical. I enjoyed it, we all did because for the time we were apart of it, we were exempt from all duty. To have the troops on stand-by is not a problem, to deploy the troops to take over civil responsibilities is...'

'This is quite disturbing. 4000 troops may not be enough to impose martial law on an entire country, but they could do it to a moderately sized city.'


'There is already a group to do this its called the National Guard Civil Support team. They are all over the country and are more trained than these rotating people will ever be.'


'As a former member of the 10th Civil Service Detachment/Weapons of Mass Destruction, I do feel a bit insulted. The unit is a full time National Guard unit that was in place for two years before the 9/11 attacks. We were trained to do exactly what this article says this combat brigade is being trained to do. Is this another example of the services not talking to each other, or are these commanders really that ignorant of the world around them?'


'Reorganize FEMA and keep the Combat Military out of the picture. Our Combat troops are for Combat. SeaBees are Construction Battalions that have the expertise for disaster related occurrences. They understand support missions and are the best in the world when it comes to Can-Do.

If the Combat Military has to become involved, it means Martial Law is a scribble away with the pen.


'If we actually need this Brigade, take it away from the Combat Army and assign it to the SeaBees.'


'Did anyone catch the articles in the Army Times in September about this. The first article on 8 Sept. mentioned the Oct 1 deployment was to be prepared for any civil unrest during the election. The Next article I read on line around 26 Sept Changed 3 times in one day. From explaining about the extensive training they have received in IRAQ, the new non lethal weapons for use against (American Citizens) for civil unrest to a final article of they just here to help for emergencies.'


"Despite conspiracy theories that this could be a first step toward martial law in the U.S., there won't be tanks on Main Street or active-duty troops putting down demonstrations. That is barred by federal law banning the military from being used on U.S. soil for domestic law enforcement."

     'Did you read the Army Times article?

Have you read the Military Commissions Act 2006?

Have you read the Military Budget Act of 2007?

Have you read the Patriot act?...

     'What they are saying is that the local, state and federal police departments can't handle a crisis?'


'If you're reading these posts, you've already read the words "mission creep," "end-run around Posse Comitatus" and "unconstitutional"'.


'I joined the Navy to make sure NO GOVERNMENT WOULD NEVER DEPLOY TROOPS ON OUR SOIL. Why did you join? I believe every Governor should recall all National Guard troops to defend your states.... This detachment must stand down. This is an illegal order.'


So don't take the warning from me. Take it from many these patriots in military circles.

[Kilika]

Have you read the Military Commissions Act 2006?

Have you read the Military Budget Act of 2007?

Have you read the Patriot act?...

     'What they are saying is that the local, state and federal police departments can't handle a crisis?'


'If you're reading these posts, you've already read the words "mission creep," "end-run around Posse Comitatus" and "unconstitutional"'.


'I joined the Navy to make sure NO GOVERNMENT WOULD NEVER DEPLOY TROOPS ON OUR SOIL. Why did you join? I believe every Governor should recall all National Guard troops to defend your states.... This detachment must stand down. This is an illegal order.'

Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes. That is exactly the excuse they are setting things up for; "national emergency". The reason being that the military cannot legally participate in any police action on US soil, BUT, the Constitution does say that they can step in when the states are not able or unwilling to handle a "situation" in their own state. Thus the feds can step in at any time and claim the governor isn't doing their job and take over under "martial law", legally using the military to "restore order".

It doesn't matter whether or not it's legal, THEY claim it is legal, thus they have every intention to use the military in any "national emergency" that might flair up. They've already got the laws in place that they claim allows them.

Their biggest problem has been with the fact that there are nearly 90 guns for every 100 US citizens, and megatons of ammo. The military knows full well if they bear arms against US citizens, they will have a serious fight on their hands. They think Vietnam was a gorilla war? They ain't seen nothing yet if they stir up the US.

And I can assure you, any real Southerner hasn't forgot!

Thank you Jesus we are not of the world.

[Christian40]