With WMD Attack Likely, 15000 Troops In US Not Enough

[Mrs. Sharon B. Hodge]

With WMD Attack Likely, 15000 Troops In US Not Enough

ABC NEWS-- experts say 15,000 Troops inside USA not enough

ABC NEWS-- National Security Experts Say 15,000 Troops inside
America isn't Enough

With WMD Attack Likely, Can the U.S. Cope?

National Security Experts Say 15,000 Troops Aren't Enough

By EMILY FRIEDMAN
Dec 3, 2008


(Oh, wait a minute here. Let's just pause to refresh our memories. 62 thousand combat troops were already redeployed for homeland security a few months ago. Then just a few days ago another 20 thousand combat troops were also redeployed for homeland security. So where does this number 15 thousand come from? It is probably a trick so that more troops can be brought home and everyone will think we have to bring more home because there is not enough already. do they think no one is paying attention to how many troops they have already brought back? This is really getting serious. If they bring back another 15 thousand or more and also count up the recent ones that were brought back, then add up the ones on military bases that are already stationed here, and also count up the reserves, that would be a mind boggling huge head count. The number of military combatants would soon rival the number of civilians left. You would also have to count up the number of the total police forces, sheriff's department, marshals offices, secret services, and all of the reserves in those departments. Something is going terribly amiss here. Do you see what is coming? How can we defend ourselves and our families from such great a number of professional killers that is head set to depopulate the masses? We are in a lot of trouble here. they are going to try to wipe out as many as possible with biological weapons first releasing pandemics. How can we hide from that? The forced abductions will come systematically sweeping over the country like a plague of aunts. They will be everywhere, and they can track you from satellites. we already have tracking chips in our cars, our credit cards, tracking strips in our money, and they want to put RFID chips in our bodies also. Yes, this is indeed getting serious.)

Story begins here:

The recent report revealing a likely biological or nuclear terror attack on the United States by 2013 has left some national security experts questioning what, if anything, a government plan to station 15,000 military troops inside the United States might do to counteract a domestic catastrophe

The report, released by the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism, determined that, because of the availability of biological weapons and, to a lesser extent, the distribution of nuclear material, "it is more likely than not" that an attack on the United States using a weapon of mass destruction will occur in the next five years

A representative for the U.
S Northern Command told ABCNews. com that 15,000 trained military troops will be stationed inside the United States by 2011, ready to respond to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high-yield explosive incidents

"These troops are not designed to be first responders," said spokesman Mike Kucharek.
"They are designed to be in place to supplement the state and local efforts"

Of the 15,000 troops, Kucharek said that 5,000 will be active-duty troops and the remaining 10,000 will be a combination of reserve forces and National Guard

Several national security experts told ABCNews. com that they applaud the military's plan to ready the country against what they say is an inevitable terrorist attack. But others voiced concern that having an active brigade within the United States would increase the possibility of a police state and may even violate the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law designed to limit the U.S.
government's use of the military for domestic law enforcement purposes

Kucharek said that the troops would not be doing any law enforcement or crowd control

"They will inevitably have to act to protect themselves, but they will not be acting as law enforcement," Kucharek said

President Bush temporarily reversed the Posse Comitatus Act after Hurricane Katrina in an attempt to restore order to the devastated New Orleans area, but his changes were eventually repealed and the act was reinstated

Security experts said President-elect Obama will also be able to make changes to the federal law in order to deploy U.S.
troops within the country and is likely to do so in the event of a terrorist attack

The Obama camp did not immediately respond to ABCNews. com for comment on how the Obama administration might use troops should such an event occur

Can Troops Avoid Policing?

Critics of the plan, such as Kyle Olson, a homeland security specialist and president of the Olson Group, argue that despite what military officials say, the active troops will not be able to avoid policing civilian areas during a catastrophic event

"By definition, if the troops are operating in a civilian environment they're going to find themselves policing, and that's where you run into Posse Comitatus," said Olson

Olson also said that even if these troops are stationed in the United States they may miss the most crucial movements after an attack because of the time it will take them to travel to the scene

"There's a golden hour -- if you've had people who have been injured, the first hour is critical in whether you'll live or die and inherently becomes the job of local responders," said Olson.
"The [15,000] troops don't buy me much 2,000 miles away"

Olson said that unlike proponents of the plan, who believe local law enforcement will get overwhelmed almost immediately in the event of a terrorist attack, he believes states are more prepared to handle catastrophes than people think

"Local responders are better prepared now than they have been in the past," said Olson. "They haven't totally frittered away the past 10 years.
They're better equipped now"

"Yes, they're going to get overwhelmed, but on the other hand they're going to be the ones that are there"

Ben Friedman, a national security analyst at the Cato Institute, said putting troops in the United States will be "a waste" and may "sap their readiness for other missions"

"Domestic incidents have traditionally been handled by the police and National Guard; there aren't any instances where this has been insufficient," he said

Friedman said that even when Bush reversed the Posse Comitatus Act and sent U.S.
troops into New Orleans, the need for troops wasn't due to failures of local law enforcement but rather because of a lack of management over the entire situation

"The danger [with this plan] is the creeping militarization of American society where we rely more and more heavily on the military to accomplish civilian tasks," he said

'Civil Liberties Gone Wild'

But supporters of the plan say the large military response may be crucial to handling a potential disaster

Former New Hampshire Sen. Warren Rudman, who co-chaired the U.S. Commission on National Security before Sept.
11, 2001, refers to fears of a police state as "civil liberties gone wild"

"I can guarantee you that when the people in New Orleans after Katrina saw Army forces they weren't worried about their civil liberties, they were worried about their lives," said Rudman

"I would assume that Obama would do [what Bush did]," said Rudman

"If we are faced with a massive disaster it's important to have a well-trained military force with their skills in communication and medical support and food support.
It would be silly not to use them, they're a valuable resource," he said

Jerry Hauer, one of the nation's leading experts on biological and chemical terrorism and an ABC News consultant, supports the Pentagon's plan and says that those who criticize it need to face reality that any future attack on the United States will be unlike any other the country has faced

"I'd rather enhance state and local personnel's training, but having said that I also believe that in the event of a catastrophic event like a nuclear attack it becomes very clear that the National Guard in most states would not be enough and that troops would clearly be needed," said Hauer

He added that the 15,000 number might be conservative

Hauer said that through exercises in various cities, including one three years ago with the Joint Chiefs of Staffs in which they reacted to a mock terrorist attack, he is certain that at least 100,000 additional troops would be necessary in the event of a biological or nuclear attack

In the event of an attack, Hauer said that military troops would be vital in helping move injured patients, providing medical treatment and securing the city where the incident occurred

"And you've not only got to keep roads open to get aid in but you've got to keep roads open so that people can get out, and that's very labor intensive," he said.
"That's where the military plays a very important role"

"Certainly there are valid concerns [about this plan], but at some point we need to look at the reality here and see that a lot of people are going to die because we don't have the resources in place in any state or local government to cope with one of these disasters," said Hauer

"There is not one city in the country that is even close to prepared for dealing with even a small nuclear event"



****************************************
US soldiers re-enlisting because of poor economy
****************************************

Associated Press
By JOHN MILBURN and STEPHEN MANNING, Associated Press Writers John Milburn And Stephen Manning
Tue Dec 2, 2008

http://news. yahoo. com/s/ap/20081202/ap_on_re_us/meltdown_choosing...

FORT RILEY, Kan. – Sgt. Ryan Nyhus spent 14 months patrolling the deadly streets of Baghdad, where five members of his platoon were shot and one died.
As bad as that was, he would rather go back there than take his chances in this brutal job market

Nyhus re-enlisted last Wednesday, and in so doing joined the growing ranks of those choosing to stay in the U.S.
military because of the bleak economy

"In the Army, you're always guaranteed a steady paycheck and a job," said the 21-year-old Nyhus. "Deploying's something that's going to happen.
That's a fact of life in the Army — a fact of life in the infantry"

In 2008, as the stock market cratered and the housing market collapsed, more young members of the Army, Air Force and Navy decided to re-up.
While several factors might explain the rise in re-enlistments, including a decline in violence in Iraq, Pentagon officials acknowledge that bad news for the economy is usually good news for the military

In fact, the Pentagon just completed its strongest recruiting year in four years

"We do benefit when things look less positive in civil society," said David Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness.
"What difficult economic times give us, I think, is an opening to make our case to people who we might not otherwise have"

The retention rate of early-career soldiers in the Army has risen steadily over the past four years and now stands 20 percentage points higher than it was in fiscal 2004. As for the Navy and the Air Force, early- and mid-career sailors and airmen re-enlisted at a higher rate in October than during the same period in 2007.
The Marine Corps was not immediately able to provide comparative figures on re-enlistments

Alex Stewart joined the Army two years ago, when the factory where he worked as a welder started laying off.
He was sent to Afghanistan with the 82nd Airborne Division, which suffered 87 deaths last year, the highest total suffered by the 20,000-member unit since the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan began

When his hitch was up in earlier this year, the 32-year-old from Grand Rapids, Mich.
, didn't hesitate to re-up for five more years

"I want a stable life for my wife in a very shaky economy," Stewart said.
"There were no other options"

Stewart's new assignment will take him to Germany, where he will serve as a truck driver, though it is always possible he could be sent back into combat

"I figure if I do another five or 10 years in the Army," he said, "the economy will turn around and I can get a truck-driving job"

Army Spc. Alicia Fauls, 20, of the Woodlands, Texas, had two years to go when she re-enlisted last week at Fort Riley, home of the Army's 1st Infantry Division, which has one brigade in Iraq, one headed home and another preparing to ship out.
She has not been sent into the war zone yet but knows an assignment in Iraq or Afghanistan is probably in her future

"I did have only two years left, but I'm not sure what I would do," Fauls said. "It's harder to find jobs.
If I do wait to get out, the economy should be in better shape"

When Nyhus' tour in Iraq ended last April, he talked to his wife about getting out of the Army and working toward a college degree.
But the father of a 2-year-old daughter opted for the job security, even though he is likely to be sent back to Iraq as a member of the 4th Infantry Division, which has shouldered a heavy burden of the fighting

Marine Staff Sgt. Angela Mink, who was injured in a helicopter accident in Iraq in 2004 and now works in public affairs at the Corps' New River air station in North Carolina, said the thought of taking a civilian job "without my fellow Marines just didn't appeal to me.
" Moreover, she had little hope of finding a private-sector job that pays as well as the Marines

"Equivalent pay is nonexistent, once you factor in insurance premiums, housing costs," said Mink, 37.
"And we would definitely have had to relocate I have a child with a disability and what civilian employer is going to take that into consideration when they think of moving you somewhere?"

And so the married mother of five signed up recently for four more years

Roughly 208,000 men and women left the military in 2007. Some were rank-and-file warriors, while others worked in specialized fields such as satellite communications or computer networking.
Only about 30 percent of enlisted soldiers hold a bachelor's degree

The job market is still fairly good for veterans with technical skills, especially those coveted by defense contractors, said Carl Savino, a retired Army major who runs a company outside Washington that offers employment services to new veterans

Sgt. Michael Rodriguez, 29, of San Antonio, decided to get out after he landed a job with a defense contractor working on communications systems.
"I feel pretty secure with them," said Rodriguez, who will leave the military soon

But even defense-contractor jobs could dry up as the economic crisis deepens, Savino said

"Jobs are getting harder to come by for veterans," Savino said.
"The farther they deviate from the defense contractors, who are still in reasonably strong shape, the more challenging it is"



************************************
US prepares for "continuity of government"
************************************

Bruce Fein: Army to deal with potential domestic "civil unrest and crowd control"

December 1, 2008

US prepares for "continuity of government"
Bruce Fein: Army to deal with potential domestic "civil unrest and crowd control"

The US federal government has made strong preparations for "continuity of government" in the event of a national catastrophe, A full army brigade is now on active duty within domestic borders, and the Bush administration has issued a directive which allows the president to coordinate all three branches of the federal government in such an event


MILITARY TO TAKE OVER US STREETS


Oct 26, 2008 - US Combat Brigade on Domestic Mission


Oct 7, 2008 - Pentagon dedicated unit for US Patrol - Martial Law


CBS On The Trail With The Nuke Hunters - WASHINGTON, Nov 24, 2008 -...


*************************************************
Pentagon to detail military to bolster security
*************************************************

Plan would dedicate 20,000 uniformed troops inside U.
S by 2011

Washington Post
By Spencer S Hsu and Ann Scott Tyson
Nov 30, 2008

http://www. msnbc. msn. com/id/27989275/

The U.S.
military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials

The long-planned shift in the Defense Department's role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said

There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement

But the Bush administration and some in Congress have pushed for a heightened homeland military role since the middle of this decade, saying the greatest domestic threat is terrorists exploiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction

Before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, dedicating 20,000 troops to domestic response -- a nearly sevenfold increase in five years -- "would have been extraordinary to the point of unbelievable," Paul McHale, assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, said in remarks last month at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
But the realization that civilian authorities may be overwhelmed in a catastrophe prompted "a fundamental change in military culture," he said

The Pentagon's plan calls for three rapid-reaction forces to be ready for emergency response by September 2011. The first 4,700-person unit, built around an active-duty combat brigade based at Fort Stewart, Ga., was available as of Oct. 1, said Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr., commander of the U.S.
Northern Command

If funding continues, two additional teams will join nearly 80 smaller National Guard and reserve units made up of about 6,000 troops in supporting local and state officials nationwide.
All would be trained to respond to a domestic chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive attack, or CBRNE event, as the military calls it

Military preparations for a domestic weapon-of-mass-destruction attack have been underway since at least 1996, when the Marine Corps activated a 350-member chemical and biological incident response force and later based it in Indian Head, Md., a Washington suburb. Such efforts accelerated after the Sept.
11 attacks, and at the time Iraq was invaded in 2003, a Pentagon joint task force drew on 3,000 civil support personnel across the United States

In 2005, a new Pentagon homeland defense strategy emphasized "preparing for multiple, simultaneous mass casualty incidents." National security threats were not limited to adversaries who seek to grind down U.S. combat forces abroad, McHale said, but also include those who "want to inflict such brutality on our society that we give up the fight," such as by detonating a nuclear bomb in a U.S.
city

In late 2007, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England signed a directive approving more than $556 million over five years to set up the three response teams, known as CBRNE Consequence Management Response Forces.
Planners assume an incident could lead to thousands of casualties, more than 1 million evacuees and contamination of as many as 3,000 square miles, about the scope of damage Hurricane Katrina caused in 2005

Last month, McHale said, authorities agreed to begin a $1.8 million pilot project funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency through which civilian authorities in five states could tap military planners to develop disaster response plans.
Hawaii, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Washington and West Virginia will each focus on a particular threat -- pandemic flu, a terrorist attack, hurricane, earthquake and catastrophic chemical release, respectively -- speeding up federal and state emergency planning begun in 2003

Last Monday, Defense Secretary Robert M.
Gates ordered defense officials to review whether the military, Guard and reserves can respond adequately to domestic disasters

Gates gave commanders 25 days to propose changes and cost estimates.
He cited the work of a congressionally chartered commission, which concluded in January that the Guard and reserve forces are not ready and that they lack equipment and training

Bert B. Tussing, director of homeland defense and security issues at the U.S. Army War College's Center for Strategic Leadership, said the new Pentagon approach "breaks the mold" by assigning an active-duty combat brigade to the Northern Command for the first time.
Until now, the military required the command to rely on troops requested from other sources

"This is a genuine recognition that this [job] isn't something that you want to have a pickup team responsible for," said Tussing, who has assessed the military's homeland security strategies

The American Civil Liberties Union and the libertarian Cato Institute are troubled by what they consider an expansion of executive authority

Domestic emergency deployment may be "just the first example of a series of expansions in presidential and military authority," or even an increase in domestic surveillance, said Anna Christensen of the ACLU's National Security Project.
And Cato Vice President Gene Healy warned of "a creeping militarization" of homeland security

"There's a notion that whenever there's an important problem, that the thing to do is to call in the boys in green," Healy said, "and that's at odds with our long-standing tradition of being wary of the use of standing armies to keep the peace"

McHale stressed that the response units will be subject to the act, that only 8 percent of their personnel will be responsible for security and that their duties will be to protect the force, not other law enforcement.
For decades, the military has assigned larger units to respond to civil disturbances, such as during the Los Angeles riot in 1992

U.S. forces are already under heavy strain, however. The first reaction force is built around the Army's 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team, which returned in April after 15 months in Iraq.
The team includes operations, aviation and medical task forces that are to be ready to deploy at home or overseas within 48 hours, with units specializing in chemical decontamination, bomb disposal, emergency care and logistics

The one-year domestic mission, however, does not replace the brigade's next scheduled combat deployment in 2010.
The brigade may get additional time in the United States to rest and regroup, compared with other combat units, but it may also face more training and operational requirements depending on its homeland security assignments

Renuart said the Pentagon is accounting for the strain of fighting two wars, and the need for troops to spend time with their families. "We want to make sure the parameters are right for Iraq and Afghanistan," he said.
The 1st Brigade's soldiers "will have some very aggressive training, but will also be home for much of that"

Although some Pentagon leaders initially expected to build the next two response units around combat teams, they are likely to be drawn mainly from reserves and the National Guard, such as the 218th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade from South Carolina, which returned in May after more than a year in Afghanistan

Now that Pentagon strategy gives new priority to homeland security and calls for heavier reliance on the Guard and reserves, McHale said, Washington has to figure out how to pay for it

"It's one thing to decide upon a course of action, and it's something else to make it happen," he said.
"It's time to put our money where our mouth is".

[James and Terry Hamilton]

Now I like this,..... Sovereignty in the west, but the state of Washington not California