Comments on: Give Homeland Security an Army http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/16/give-homeland-security-an-army.html All of us against the machine Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:09:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: tdaxp http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/16/give-homeland-security-an-army.html/comment-page-1#comment-192218 tdaxp Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:22:29 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/16/give-homeland-security-an-army.html#comment-192218 Brendan & Jim, Excellent points! If plussing-up the DHS uniformed service is a choice between a USCG Land Force or another service, then which way is chosen is a method of which is easier bureaucratically and politically, rather than a high-minded discussion. Feedback like this is why I blog -- thanks! Brendan & Jim,

Excellent points!

If plussing-up the DHS uniformed service is a choice between a USCG Land Force or another service, then which way is chosen is a method of which is easier bureaucratically and politically, rather than a high-minded discussion.

Feedback like this is why I blog — thanks!

]]> By: Jim Tortolano http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/16/give-homeland-security-an-army.html/comment-page-1#comment-187889 Jim Tortolano Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:15:37 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/16/give-homeland-security-an-army.html#comment-187889 The Coast Guard did an exemplary job in Katrina .... it was probably the most effective government agency there. It demonstrates that government agencies can be efficient if properly led, organized and staffed. I'm not sure we need a a full-scale army for DHS, however. Perhaps a better (and less expensive and intrusive) approach would be to create a professional core around which qualified volunteers (including people with medical, firefighting, search and rescue, law enforcement, military backgrounds) could be rallied. While the volunteer groups would be locally mustered, they could be utilized regionally or even nationally. For instance, in California we have forest fires 10 months out of the year. A fire in, say, the Bay Area, could draw teams from Sacramento, the North Coast, even the Central Valley and LA Basin. It need not interfere with existing first responder professionals; a fit 50-year-old retired police officer, military or fireman would be a tremendous asset. Cross-training folks to set up evacuation centers, run field kitchens and more would provide further services. We're talking CERT teams on steroids, and more. There's almost no limit to what can be done, with the proper levels of desire and expertise. The Coast Guard did an exemplary job in Katrina …. it was probably the most effective government agency there. It demonstrates that government agencies can be efficient if properly led, organized and staffed. I’m not sure we need a a full-scale army for DHS, however. Perhaps a better (and less expensive and intrusive) approach would be to create a professional core around which qualified volunteers (including people with medical, firefighting, search and rescue, law enforcement, military backgrounds) could be rallied. While the volunteer groups would be locally mustered, they could be utilized regionally or even nationally. For instance, in California we have forest fires 10 months out of the year. A fire in, say, the Bay Area, could draw teams from Sacramento, the North Coast, even the Central Valley and LA Basin. It need not interfere with existing first responder professionals; a fit 50-year-old retired police officer, military or fireman would be a tremendous asset. Cross-training folks to set up evacuation centers, run field kitchens and more would provide further services. We’re talking CERT teams on steroids, and more. There’s almost no limit to what can be done, with the proper levels of desire and expertise.

]]> By: Brendan Ward http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/16/give-homeland-security-an-army.html/comment-page-1#comment-77483 Brendan Ward Tue, 27 May 2008 22:43:18 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/16/give-homeland-security-an-army.html#comment-77483 Well, DHS already has a uniformed corps, the USCG. In what is very likely an odd and unintended result, the USCG has the broadest authority of any uniformed force in the country. For example, the USCG is at ALL times, a military force. They are also a member of the intelligence community and have a law enforcement capability. It is not a coincidence that DHS was ultimately represented at New Orleans during the Katrina mess by a USCG Admiral who I believe has become the Commandant of the USCG. There is no other organization, including the FBI and CIA that has this breadth of authority. What needs to be examined in depth is whether it makes sense to have something like a land-based USCG. I see this as a version of something like the Italian Carabinieri. Military and Police and more. Yes, there would be issues with things like Posse Comitatus, but in all but the most reactionary mindsets, Posse Comitatus is a relic and there is little likelihood of a power grab by the military or a use of the military for a purely political purpose. Checks and balances in government and public opinion would clearly limit a significant misuse of a domestic military force. I would suggest that an examination of this area begin with a study of the Carabinieri and criticism and commendation that they have received over time. In a pet hypothesis of mine, I believe that a number of good ideas in terms of HLS can only be brought close to domestic debate through a thorough study of external similar concepts. I believe that many smart ideas hit too many hot buttons if brought up without a thorough study that can only be accomplished by looking at systems operating externally and not domestically. Well, DHS already has a uniformed corps, the USCG. In what is very likely an odd and unintended result, the USCG has the broadest authority of any uniformed force in the country. For example, the USCG is at ALL times, a military force. They are also a member of the intelligence community and have a law enforcement capability. It is not a coincidence that DHS was ultimately represented at New Orleans during the Katrina mess by a USCG Admiral who I believe has become the Commandant of the USCG. There is no other organization, including the FBI and CIA that has this breadth of authority. What needs to be examined in depth is whether it makes sense to have something like a land-based USCG. I see this as a version of something like the Italian Carabinieri. Military and Police and more. Yes, there would be issues with things like Posse Comitatus, but in all but the most reactionary mindsets, Posse Comitatus is a relic and there is little likelihood of a power grab by the military or a use of the military for a purely political purpose. Checks and balances in government and public opinion would clearly limit a significant misuse of a domestic military force. I would suggest that an examination of this area begin with a study of the Carabinieri and criticism and commendation that they have received over time. In a pet hypothesis of mine, I believe that a number of good ideas in terms of HLS can only be brought close to domestic debate through a thorough study of external similar concepts. I believe that many smart ideas hit too many hot buttons if brought up without a thorough study that can only be accomplished by looking at systems operating externally and not domestically.

]]> By: Dan tdaxp http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/16/give-homeland-security-an-army.html/comment-page-1#comment-17346 Dan tdaxp Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/16/give-homeland-security-an-army.html#comment-17346 <p>TDL,<br /> <br /> "I am saying any centralized approach to Katrina type events will ultimately fail (centralized planning does not work, especially in very large and complex matters.)"<br /> <br /> The dictum of "decentralize tactically, centralize strategically" (as Col. Dr. Osinga mentioned at the Boyd conference) is just as true in system administration as in leviathan operations. It is not a cause to scrap the leviathan nor abort the sysadmin, however.<br /> <br /> "What are the nine scariest words in the English language? We're from the government, and we're here to help.""<br /> <br /> In the context of a functioning society, this may be true. The SysAdmin is not designed to intervene in functioning societies, however.</p> TDL,

“I am saying any centralized approach to Katrina type events will ultimately fail (centralized planning does not work, especially in very large and complex matters.)”

The dictum of “decentralize tactically, centralize strategically” (as Col. Dr. Osinga mentioned at the Boyd conference) is just as true in system administration as in leviathan operations. It is not a cause to scrap the leviathan nor abort the sysadmin, however.

“What are the nine scariest words in the English language? We're from the government, and we're here to help.”"

In the context of a functioning society, this may be true. The SysAdmin is not designed to intervene in functioning societies, however.

]]> By: Michael http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/16/give-homeland-security-an-army.html/comment-page-1#comment-17343 Michael Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/16/give-homeland-security-an-army.html#comment-17343 <p>Dan, TDL,<br /> Seems to me your viewpoints aren't so far apart. The current military is limited from sysadmin work (foreign and domestic) by training. Given that training, though (assuming it could be acquired without losing too much leviathan ability), it would still be limited by Posse Comitatus from domestic activities. The challenge, then, is a new force: sysadmin from the ground up, with its own governing laws to prevent abuse.</p> Dan, TDL,
Seems to me your viewpoints aren't so far apart. The current military is limited from sysadmin work (foreign and domestic) by training. Given that training, though (assuming it could be acquired without losing too much leviathan ability), it would still be limited by Posse Comitatus from domestic activities. The challenge, then, is a new force: sysadmin from the ground up, with its own governing laws to prevent abuse.

]]> By: Dan tdaxp http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/16/give-homeland-security-an-army.html/comment-page-1#comment-17344 Dan tdaxp Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/16/give-homeland-security-an-army.html#comment-17344 <p>Michael,<br /> <br /> Exactly!</p> Michael,

Exactly!

]]> By: TDL http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/16/give-homeland-security-an-army.html/comment-page-1#comment-17345 TDL Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/16/give-homeland-security-an-army.html#comment-17345 <p>I do not think I was being clear. I am saying any centralized approach to Katrina type events will ultimately fail (centralized planning does not work, especially in very large and complex matters.) If you are looking for a ground up solution to these problems it is already provided through the market with countless numbers of individuals, groups, and organizations giving their time, money, and expertise. No entity, like the one Dan describes, is necessary because the work gets done. The only thing that a "sysadmin" force will provide is a barrier to an effective response to a catastrophe. Leviathans are nothing more than power aggregators; that do not resolve problems, merely use them to gain power. Remember Ronald Reagan's quip; "What are the nine scariest words in the English language? We're from the government, and we're here to help."<br /> <br /> This link speaks to my point:<br /> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071901039_pf.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071901039_pf.html</a><br /> <br /> Regards,<br /> TDL</p> I do not think I was being clear. I am saying any centralized approach to Katrina type events will ultimately fail (centralized planning does not work, especially in very large and complex matters.) If you are looking for a ground up solution to these problems it is already provided through the market with countless numbers of individuals, groups, and organizations giving their time, money, and expertise. No entity, like the one Dan describes, is necessary because the work gets done. The only thing that a “sysadmin” force will provide is a barrier to an effective response to a catastrophe. Leviathans are nothing more than power aggregators; that do not resolve problems, merely use them to gain power. Remember Ronald Reagan's quip; “What are the nine scariest words in the English language? We're from the government, and we're here to help.”

This link speaks to my point:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071901039_pf.html

Regards,
TDL

]]> By: Dan tdaxp http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/16/give-homeland-security-an-army.html/comment-page-1#comment-17341 Dan tdaxp Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/16/give-homeland-security-an-army.html#comment-17341 <p>The regular military is a closed society of people, mostly men, who are trained to kill. That is a poor skillset to use when trying to pacify a non-hostile but wary population (post-Tsunami, post-Katrina, post-War, etc).<br /> <br /> Regarding duplication of the National Guard: yup. The purpose of supporting a DHS Uniformed is to build the Military-Industrial-Syadmin-Complex in financial and political party. We need federal deployable units, not nondeployable local projects [1,2,3].<br /> <br /> [1] <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0719homeland-security0719.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0719homeland-security0719.html</a><br /> [2] <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/18/AR2007071801507.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/18/AR2007071801507.html</a><br /> [3] <a href="http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070718-1355-bn18grants.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070718-1355-bn18grants.html</a></p> The regular military is a closed society of people, mostly men, who are trained to kill. That is a poor skillset to use when trying to pacify a non-hostile but wary population (post-Tsunami, post-Katrina, post-War, etc).

Regarding duplication of the National Guard: yup. The purpose of supporting a DHS Uniformed is to build the Military-Industrial-Syadmin-Complex in financial and political party. We need federal deployable units, not nondeployable local projects [1,2,3].

[1] http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0719homeland-security0719.html
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/18/AR2007071801507.html
[3] http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070718-1355-bn18grants.html

]]> By: TDL http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/16/give-homeland-security-an-army.html/comment-page-1#comment-17342 TDL Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/16/give-homeland-security-an-army.html#comment-17342 <p>Dan,<br /> I certainly do oppose the repeal of Posse Comitatus. I have to also point out a historical flaw in your argument. Right after Katrina the most effective response "units" were non-governmental (Red Cross, Wal-Mart, etc.) In fact they were prevented from being even more effective by DHS. Furthermore, FEMA now has standing orders that after every event that they are called into action they have a process of confiscating all weapons, whether or not they are legally owned (this is one example of the powers they claim.) This begs the question, if the existing agencies under DHS already have extra-constitutional powers (attempt to speak your mind to a TSA agent in airport and see how much your 1st Amendment rights matter) how much more extensive will these unconstitutional powers be when they have an organized, uniformed, military force to deploy to "problem" areas? The DHS should not be further empowered, it should (and most likely the bulk, if not all, of the agencies it controls,) be scrapped entirely.<br /> <br /> Regards,<br /> TDL</p> Dan,
I certainly do oppose the repeal of Posse Comitatus. I have to also point out a historical flaw in your argument. Right after Katrina the most effective response “units” were non-governmental (Red Cross, Wal-Mart, etc.) In fact they were prevented from being even more effective by DHS. Furthermore, FEMA now has standing orders that after every event that they are called into action they have a process of confiscating all weapons, whether or not they are legally owned (this is one example of the powers they claim.) This begs the question, if the existing agencies under DHS already have extra-constitutional powers (attempt to speak your mind to a TSA agent in airport and see how much your 1st Amendment rights matter) how much more extensive will these unconstitutional powers be when they have an organized, uniformed, military force to deploy to “problem” areas? The DHS should not be further empowered, it should (and most likely the bulk, if not all, of the agencies it controls,) be scrapped entirely.

Regards,
TDL

]]> By: Steve French http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/16/give-homeland-security-an-army.html/comment-page-1#comment-17337 Steve French Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/16/give-homeland-security-an-army.html#comment-17337 <p>Could you give a list of what these people would do? The first two items you list are definite, fire fighting and disaster relief are specific enough, but "state-building" seems like a black hole we'll throw money and people into forever.</p> Could you give a list of what these people would do? The first two items you list are definite, fire fighting and disaster relief are specific enough, but “state-building” seems like a black hole we'll throw money and people into forever.

]]>