Senator Warner, a word with you, please? I deeply respect and appreciate the way that you seem to be supporting us (read: The Troops) and you seem to think highly of our abilities.
That’s fine, sir, but please remember that the primary purpose of the Armed Forces of the United States is, and I quote from a top-secret memo long forgotten, “To Kill People and Break Their Shit.” I apologize if those words offend you, sir, but you as the head of the Armed Services Comittee should be used to them by now.
The 1878 law of Possee Comitatus, the regular components of the Armed Forces are restricted from engaging in civilian law enforcement. One major reason is that the Army isn’t such a good police force. It’s purpose is to kill people and break things. Another thing is they are responsable only to the Pentagon. Not the local authorities. Even the commander of the contingent of the 82nd AB was quoted a week ago saying “I don’t report to her” (her being the LA govenor.)
Just because the USAF has the heavy lift capabilities to put a fighting division anywhere in the world in 36 hours doesn’t mean we have the resources or the knowhow. Nor does that fighting division want to play traffic cop. Hell, I’m a SP, and I don’t want to play traffic cop to civilians.
What you say is basically true if you are leaving out the National Guard units. However, that doesn’t mean that it has to stay that way. This is the military’s major flaw. It sucks at occupation, relief, and peacekeeping. All of those jobs are more important than destroying stuff. That is what got us into trouble in Somalia, Iraq, and Katrina. Most military equipment is not directly used for destruction. It is things like cargo planes and medical teams. Those can easily be used for broader missions like disaster relief all over the world.
The U.S. has the biggest, most expensive, and most advanced military in the world. It might be beneficial to train them on some other missions while we are waiting for WWIII to break out. Besides domestic benefits, it would allow the military to invade areas and know how to occupy and relieve it afterwards. It is all related.
The military, whether it is the Army, Navy, Marines, any of them, are there for one purpose - to smash the enemy. It is not in their charter or training to be police or peace keepers. Sometimes, they do perform rescue missions. When they do, they are good at it. But again, that is not their normal purpose.
Yup. Also, isn’t the National Guard basically each state’s armed forces? They aren’t the same as the Army, Navy, etc. Barring rare occasions, the NG is governed by each state, not DC.
I would have loved to see some Special Forces urban warfare types turned loose on the looters. Especially in a future disaster when they are wearing their advanced uniforms that will be essentially bulletproof, complete with computers to allow the soldiers to communicate instantly with each other all the way up to satellite intel…and with exoskeletons allowing them to carry hundreds of pounds without strain.
Kinda makes the glock held sideways pale in comparison.
I know what you mean, so please don’t be cross that I’m going to have to disagree with you. The DoD’s primary purpose is to defend the USA (and often her Allies, as required by our treaties.) The most effective way to do this is to take war, in all it’s brutality and desolation, to the enemy. Whether that enemy is Russia, China, or the Central African Republic doesn’t matter. The USAF, US Army, USN and USMC’s primary job is to kick in your teeth and make you choke on your swollen tounge. IF (!) we decide to stand on your land, build you back up, and (re)make you in our image, then we ought to practice it. Unfortunately, how do you practice occupation? How do you practice relief? While it sounds good, it’s not something that is easily done. You have to wait for a war to ‘practice’ occupying hostile territory. You have to wait for a disaster to ‘practice’ a heavy lift mobilization to haul hundreds of tons of food and medicine. With that as a consideration, are you suprised that the DoD instead practices to fight a war, which you can do pretty much anywhere?
I was.
And that brings another point (not on the OP, but on my fucking idiot neighbor, who happens to be from Germany.)
I do not care how they do it in other countries. So the Luftwaffe and RAF do SAR for people lost at sea and in the mountains. The USAF does too, but it’s usually a Guard outfit which does it if a civilian is lost. Just because you have NO OTHER GROUPS which do it, and it is a primary duty of your armed forces in peacetime, doesn’t mean it’s OUR primary duty in peace.
Yes, but that’s by choice. It’s not some inviolable natural law. A nation’s soldiers are the hired help; it’s their job to do whatever you hire and train them for. The fact that some members of the Armed Services DO, in fact, specialize in saving people, and in fact specialize in many, many things besides killing people and busting shit up, suggests that in fact it is possible for them to play multiple roles. At present the Serives are organized primarily to kill people and blow stuff up real good, but that’s not something you can’t change or add on to.
With all due respect to SSgt Mang, you’re wrong, and you missed Warner’s point. He’s not saying that the Armed Services’ role NOW is to do things other than break shit and shoot people. He’s saying it SHOULD be. One would presume this would logically entail different, or more, training, resources, and organizational changes.
And why not? Haven’t recent events suggested that Warner’s basic claim - that the Pentagon has the resources to respond to disasters like Katrina, more so that anyone use in the United States - is obviously true? Who else has the resources?
I dunno. Maybe we’d be better off with different (dedicated) equipment for rescue work and use the National Guard if necessary. After all, we don’t want our weapons and air vehicle designers to be told: *Make this the ultimate war machine. Oh, and by the way make it great for rescuing people in hurricanes, too.
When push comes to shove, the hurricane rescuing req’ts will get thrown out the window.
And do the folks on the left REALLY want to give the current president MORE flexibility in using the military on US soil? There’s got to be a better way.
Just for the record, the Nat’l Guard isn’t subject to the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act so long as they are under the command of the states and not the feds.
Yeah, but that doesn’t make any differnece. Our training regimen isn’t any different from the Active Duty. We still focus on “breaking shit”, as it was put so eloquently in the OP. My mission, being unique, does not have that focus but it is still trained to the exclusion of everything else.
The military has a very narrow focus. It serves us well when we are used for the purpose for which we were intended, but not so well when the fighting is done.
Saying this as a long time member of the United States Army I must disagree with the OP.
The United States Armed Forces serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States and the Congress of the United States (the President being the one who gives the orders and the Congress being the group who fleshes out exactly what we’re allowed to do and how much money we’re going to be given in order to do it.) It is completely at the will of Congress and the President to alter the mission of the United States Armed Forces at any point and for any reason they deem appropriate. Obviously there are a few issues where constitutionality would come in and then we’d have to get the USSC involved or a constitutional amendment done or etc.
True, but that does not mean that we would be good at it, or even merely adequate. With the myriad of agencies in this country that focus solely on aid, disaster relief, and law enforcement, the situation had better be pretty desperate before the military is called in. In cases like that we succeed due to sheer volumes of numbers, not because we have any specific type of training in that regard.
And that was EXACTLY the point Warner was making, was it not? That in exceptional circumstances, the Pentagon may be the agency that has the necessary resources, and so perhaps they should think about being prepared to do that sort of thing.
Training to support a natural disaster is hardly that huge a stretch for an armed force. It encompasses many of the functions a modern army must already excel at - large scale logistics, quick reaction and deployment of personnel and equipment, accessing and passing difficult terrain, and real time intelligence. Isn’t it an old saying at West Point that amateurs discuss tactics while professionals discuss logistics? Seems to be that in an exceptional circumstance - like Katrina - those logistics skills could be put to great use.
Dude, you just reread Starship Troopers, didn’t you?
Actually, I got the good Senator’s point. You are indeed correct, the Armed Forces have some of the best CSAR people in the world (USAF PJ’s come to mind) and that their ability to combine rapid deployment with almost limitless logistic support would indeed be a boon to the survivors of any major disaster. The only thing is, do you really want Marines doing police work? Or me, for that matter? On the other hand, the SAR guys who were getting shot at in NO wouldn’t want the NOPD protecting them (if they were Air Force or Navy SAR.) They’d want SP’s.
