IP: this really smells... bad

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 14:15:27 -0700
> From: brett watson <bwatson () mfnx net>
> To: dave () farber net
>
>
> the pentagon wants to place a four-star general in command of "homeland 
> defense".  i wander how long before we see tanks rolling down our hometown 
> streets (only half-kidding).
>
> http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42765-2002Jan26.html
>
> -b

Auto-abstract

The Pentagon has decided to ask the White House for approval to set up a 
new four-star command to coordinate federal troops used to defend North 
America, part of an intensified effort to bolster homeland security, 
defense officials said.

The move was prompted by the new domestic security demands placed on the 
military after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the Bush administration's 
declared war on terrorism.

Although the Pentagon has regional commanders in chief, known as CINCs, who 
are responsible for Europe, the Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East 
and South Asia, none exists for U.S. forces in the United States and Canada.

The proposed change would give a single four-star officer authority over 
such domestic deployments as Air Force jets patrolling above U.S. cities, 
Navy ships running coastal checks and Army National Guard troops policing 
airports and border crossings.

Before September, military leaders had resisted the idea of a homeland CINC 
(pronounced "sink"), reflecting a traditional aversion to -- and legal 
limits on -- the use of federal armed forces for domestic law enforcement.

Opposition also existed outside the Pentagon on both the political left and 
right, with civil libertarians and right-wing militia groups alike warning 
against military forces encroaching on areas traditionally considered the 
responsibility of civilian emergency response, law enforcement and health 
agencies.

But in recent months, as military air, sea and land patrols pressed into 
action by the Pentagon have answered to several four-star commanders, the 
Defense Department's top military officers have come to accept the need for 
streamlining the chain of command.

Earlier opposition from such groups as the American Civil Liberties Union 
has also waned, although concerns persist about possible "mission creep" 
and the risk that any military forces deployed around the country could end 
up threatening individual rights.

Initially, the military chiefs had argued for assigning the homeland 
defense mission to one of two commands already headquartered in the United 
States -- either the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) in 
Colorado, which is responsible for protecting U.S. skies, or the Joint 
Forces Command in Virginia, which has been charged with guarding the 
maritime approaches to North America and the land defense of the 
continental United States.

The thinking was that setting up an entirely new command would entail 
needless additional bureaucracy and expense.

Currently, the general who heads NORAD also runs the U.S. Space Command, 
which oversees the nation's military satellites and computer networks.

"All the chiefs and CINCs have seen the plan and have signed on to it, 
although it has not yet been briefed to the president," a senior military 
officer said yesterday.

"Everyone is moving down the track toward realizing it."

Defense officials also said that the geographic responsibilities of the new 
command would likely extend beyond U.S. borders to the rest of North America.

Among other advantages, this would facilitate the transfer of the air 
defense mission from NORAD, which is operated jointly with Canada.

The Army is fully deployed in 100 different countries, supporting our 
regional commanders in chief.


For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/