NORTHCOM? Calm Down.

"In a barely noticed development last week, the Army stationed an active unit inside the United States. The Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Team is back from Iraq, now training for domestic operations under the control of US Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command. The unit will serve as an on-call federal response for large-scale emergencies and disasters. It’s being called the Consequence Management Response Force, CCMRF, or “sea-smurf” for short.

It’s the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to USNORTHCOM, which was itself formed in October 2002 to “provide command and control of Department of Defense homeland defense efforts.”"   Amy Goodman

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

Hyper-ventilation is not a good thing.  Take a deep breath, everyone who is concerned about "sea-smurf."

In the obscure world of Army and armed forces function things are not always what they might seem to the outside observer.  I lived inside that system for many years. 

My analysis of how "sea smurf" came to be:

- First there was 9/11.  The national concern (hysteria?) about homeland security led to many precipitous actions, i.e., the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, Guantanamo, etc.

- The Defense Department looked around in the context of those times and decided that there was no headquarters that existed that had the mission to plan for US domestic emergencies and to coordinate resources across the Department of Defense for employment in support of civil authority in the event of such crises.  The individual services, the  Army for example, had headquarters that could do that but there was not an interservice headquarters.  Many people in the civilian world may have some difficulty understanding why the military is so focused on unified commands and joint planning.  It is a feature of military culture that has evolved from hard experience of failure in the absence of such a focus.

- Having established US Northcom as a "unified command" headquarters for this planning and coordination, the next thing the military would automatically do is write plans to establish what it is that the headquarters would do in emergencies of various kinds.  These plans would be approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense.

- The individual armed services would then receive the plans and the contingency tasking contained therein.  In response the armed services would establish service component commands; Army, USAF, etc. to carry the planning process down to the service level.

- Having done that, the services would assign forces against the plans.  In some cases the same forces would be assigned against a number of different plans in the belief that the different contingencies would not be simultaneous. 

- If the forces so assigned require preparation, then the service components would give the forces the task of preparing to execute the contingency plan(s) on order.  In the case of the brigade combat team (BCT) under discussion, this unit is in the US between overseas assignments.  There are only so many BCTs in the Army  Some unit would have to be so designated.

- There is nothing unusual or illegal about a US Army unit being stationed in the United States.  Are people really so ignorant as to think there is?

There is nothing illegal about a US Army unit being available to assist civil authority in an emergency.  Remember the 82nd Airborne Divison in New Orleans after Katrina.

The Posse Comitatus Act was enacted after the end of the Reconstruction period to prevent the use of federal armed forces in law enforcement.  White Southerners, having recovered their representation in Congress managed to have a law enacted to prevent a recurrence of military law enforcement of the kind that they had experienced during the military occupation of the South after the Civil War.  This is not the same thing.

"Martial Law" is also a different thing.  That occurs when a military commander, who has decided that civil administration has broken down in an area, uses his forces and authority to administer the area until civil authority is re-established.  This has rarely happened in American history.  The most famous occasion and the one taught in US Army schools, is that of Andrew Jackson at New Orleans in 1814.  A commander who decides to do this is normally called to account for the action in the civil courts after the end of the emergency.  Jackson was actually sued. 

- In summary, this whole Northcom, USARMYNORTH, BCT training thing is very normal activity.  Calm down.  pl

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/7/us_army_denies_unit_will_be

http://www.northcom.mil/

Comments

[DCA]

Another case of quasi-martial law was in San Francisco after the 1906 earthquake--in that case jointly decided by the mayor and General Funston. They actually never made an official declaration, Funston just acted without the mayor disagreeing.

Thanks for the explanation. I hope you can see why this Administration has so many people a bit spooked.

[charlottemom]

This barely announced plan has certainly ramped up fear of late at a time when there's lots of fear and panic coming from our leaders no less.

I've read this story on the internet (armytimes) and have been puzzled and concerned by it. A suggestion that authorities fear some sort of unrest or disaster? Another pysche attempt to sway Americans one way or another through manipulation of fear? Or as you put forth - neither of the two.
I suppose I'd ask why now? By an administration on its way out? Training soldiers just returned from Iraq? What additional or supplemental training do they need? Is this a Military or Homeland security initiative? both? National Guard not good enough?
I need more reassurance that is just business-as-usual. I really want to believe that all this is no big deal.

[Dave of Maryland]

I was under the impression the military was to protect us from external threats. Are our borders with Canada & Mexico in danger? Is there a seaborne invasion in our future?

If the US military is available for loan to civilian authorities, under civilian command, in times of local emergencies, that's fine by me. Do the local commanders plan to report to governors, to mayors, or to city managers? To be under their direct control? As the military is, overall, to the civilian president?

What specific military units can governors, mayors & city managers call upon, and under what circumstances?

You will excuse my skepticism, but I haven't heard of governors, mayors or city managers asking for military help.

I have heard various governors complain their National Guard troops had been taken from them & were not available to assist during genuine disasters.

Is it not true the military came to the aid of New Orleans only because the Louisiana National Guard had been press-ganged into the military's proper job & so was not available to take the governor's call?

I'd like to see the military reduced to the role of military again. Rather than a universal panacea.

[Patrick Lang]

Dave

Your paranoia is showing.

Charlotte Mom

The military does institutional things very slowly. Five or six years is about how long it would normally take the military to get to the point of development of Northcom thatr you now see. You are afraid of American soldiers? pl

[Ormolov]

Colonel,

Thanks for your insight regarding this issue. It's a relief to hear the voice of experience and moderation talking, especially when it concerns the possible further erosion of our country's democratic institutions.

I'm perfectly willing to accept the reasons you give as to the why and when and how of Northcom's actions, but I think it does offer us an opportunity to explore the direction the DoD and the Pentagon are heading.

It's always been my belief that this Administration wouldn't give up power willingly, and that they believe they had 'solved' the problem of representative democracy. I don't believe it's paranoid to cite Florida and Ohio election irregularities, the rise of the surveillance police state, and the politicization of the DoJ. Back in 2004, when European friends asked if Bush would beat Kerry, I told them it would take far more powerful adversaries than the voters to unseat them. I cited Wall Street, the CIA, and the Pentagon as the players who would be able to convince Cheney and his buddies to stand down.

Now I don't believe their October Surprise contains military action in the streets, but I do wonder:

If that order did come down, could you tell us where the Pentagon stands, in terms of keeping this Administration afloat? We hear rumors, here, outside the Beltway, about principled soldiers standing up to the creeping takeover of their institutions, but could you as an insider please speak to where the Pentagon and DoD stand?

I'm sure the armed services are filled with many many many wonderful patriotic Americans who put their country above their President, but could you tell us if those people are still in positions of leadership? Is this American Military 2008 as politicized and compromised as, say, the Departments of Justice, or State, or the EPA? And if not, who is it who keeps the Administration from that level of control?

Sorry for the ellipses. I just want to discuss the political culture of the Armed Forces without putting my tin foil hat on.

[Patrick Lang]

Ormolov

IMO the chain of command, beginning with the Secretary of Defense would not accept orders that would violate the letter or the spirit of the constitution.

In addition to the inclinations of the officer corps, the troops' views would be a factor in such a situation.

It is the will of the collective that would matter. pl

[Susan]

I appreciate your explanation Mr. Lang. I read here often for just this sort of expertise.

Before this administration, I was not given to paranoia, but they have shown such disregard for all our institutions that I believe the public should regard them with distrust. And many of us do.

Your question--You are afraid of American soldiers?--begs another one. How far would American soldiers go in responding to orders from the civilian command structure that they enforce martial law to prevent, for example, an election from occurring? It is not soldiers I fear, but our President, Vice-President, and their cronies, who may be about to lose the power that they have enjoyed for two terms.

I hope you are right, as you often are.

[Paul]

I'm not in the least bit paranoid and I don't, for a minute, doubt that the bulk of the officer corps would not violate the Constitution, but we have Special Operations forces shooting up landscapes all over the world in pursuit of "terrorists". When hot pursuit becomes a course of conduct, I start to worry. Are the cross border attacks in Pakistan consistent with our Constitution? What would happen if a not-so-friendly nation overflew CONUS or Alaska or Hawaii? There is a double standard at work.

NORTHCOM is doing the work that is really the mission of the National Guard. The NG should be beefed up if they don't have the skills for NORTHCOM's mission. Does the NORTHCOM mission have civilian (states, especially) oversight?

Rumsfeld had the military spying of civilians and few took exception. Who is to say that the next Administraton might inot invent some new scheme for NORTHCOM?

Defending the need for Northcom sounds exactly like the words of the British way back when.

I just don't like the idea of it. Congress should excise all the "war on terror" crap so we can all go back to being plain vanilla Americans. That's why we have guns, or are those inner city guys hunting game?

[William R. Cumming]

One of the most interesting things about NORTHCOM, created by statute, is that since its creation in the fall of 2002 formal delegations from the SECDEF have not been published as to its mission and various descriptions of its MISSION have never been made fully public and accepted as official by publication in the Federal Register as required by both the Federal Register Act of 1934, as amended, and the Adminstrative Procedures Act of 1947, as amended. Perhaps compliance with statutory mandates would be a start to alleviating concerns over NORTHCOM. Also interesting that to my knowledge has yet to be headed by a flag rank Army officer and in my opinion would make sense to have this be the ranking NG flag rank since the NG is most knowledgable about civil military relationships in crisis management and disaster response. Based on a determination by SCOTUS in 1983 allowing NG training outside the continental US, all NG enlisted and officer cadre take a dual oath, to the Governor of their state and to the US. Title 32 of USC governs NG activity until they are federalized and then Title 10 of the USC. One of the flags promoting concern was the recent public posting of info on a NORTHCOM exercise describing an exercise scenario where civil disorders were occurring based on food and energy shortages. FEMA in the 1980's requested that all DOD civil support operational documents (such as GARDEN PLOT) be reviewed by the Department of Justice. Even earlier a very fine lawyer (now decesased) Mary Lawton wrote the DOJ handbook on Military Support in Civil Disorders correcting a number of erroneous DOD positions on implementation of martial law (this can only be done by the President in a geographically restricted area where the civil court system is not functioning and with the advice of the AG of the US). Mary Lawton was the head of the predecessor organization that led to the FISA court.

[Mike Martin, Yorktown, VA]

Pat, it would be useful to know what planning tasks & missions - specifically - have been assigned. It would also be interesting to know what this "CCMRF" offers that wasn't available through JFCOM's JTF-CS. And why a BCT? Why not a TF composed of engineers, civil affairs, comms and MPs as the Army component?

Is it time to go rent "Seven Days in May" as a refresher? I take your point about the inclinations of the officer corps, however I know too many that apparently have more regard for the Republican party than the Constitution.

[Patrick Lang]

mike martin, WRC et al

I, too, would like to know the particulars that you call for.

I see no reason why an ARNG officer should not be the COCOM of NORTHCOM.

JFCOM? My impression has been that the R&D and test bed function is their primary focus.

If the airspace of the US were intruded on, there is no doubt that the intruder would be engaged if they could manage it. Would NORTHCOM be the command? pl

[bstr]

Dear Sir, I have a question, which I hope you take seriously. In speaking of the chain of command there always seems to be an implicit condition that everyone is on the same page when it comes to results. Do you believe that Sen. McCain speaking of honor and victory in Iraq shares the same understanding of those outcomes as Gen. Petraeus? I do not feel this question is off subject because of the earlier remarks about Northcom.

[R Whitman]

Having just gone thru hurricane Ike, I can tell you that a brigade of the regular US Army would have been welcome just to give some of the local law enforcement people,volunteers and National Guard a break. Most of them worked round the clock for several weeks before the got to take care of damages to their own homes.

A self contained Army Brigade with its own logistics and supply can do a lot of good during FEMA emergencies.

[Dimbulb]

One hypothesis: NORTHCOM might have been created to allow the use of the regular military against the Mexican and Columbian drug cartels.

When you consider the situation on the southern border, along with the endemic corruption and involvement in the drug trade of the military and police forces of Mexico,
along with the increasing use of submersibles by smuggling operations, it's not that far-fetched.

That said, I, like many on this comment thread, do not trust the administration much. I agree with Col. Lang though that SecDef Gates would not allow a "Seven Days" situation to occur - even though these are some VERY CRAZY times we are seeing.

(Incidentally, I have not seen any commentary on the role of money laundering in the current econ fiasco - although when reading the Yakuza chapter in McMafia, I was struck by the many similarities of then and now - any comments?)

[charlottemom]

You are afraid of American soldiers? pl

No...more afraid of motivations of those that lead them.

When there seem to be more questions than answers, I think concern is validated.

[ked]

Calm down? Absolutely...
But there is always mission creep, the new hammer seeking some old nail (however did we manage without the Patriot Act or DHS?), and the spectre of a Cheney-like SecDef - but without the even-tempered, centrist pragmatism.

When something new is devised in our American Experiment, the suprise is rarely of the moment, but in the oft-twisted future.

[Patrick Lang]

arthurdecco

You fail to tell us that you are not an American. My question was directed at an AMERICAN lady.

You remind me of the remark attributed to Porfirio Diaz, "Pobre Mexico, tan lejos de Dios y tan cerca a los Estados Unidos."

Want it in French? pl

[Patrick Lang]

bstr

I don't support McCain for president but I think it is most unfair to think that either he or hos favorite general would use federal troops against the American people.

Now Canadians might be another matter. pl

[J]

Colonel,

Regarding your airspace question. That would be NORAD/NORTHCOM who would be called upon to interdict an incoming airborne adversary. Gen. Renuart is the Commander of NORAD and USNORTHCOM.

[Walrus]

Stanley Milgram proved that around 60% of Americans can be made to do whatever authoritiy figures tell them to do. That includes torturing, shooting black, brown or white people. If anything I would expect the military to have an even higher percentage who would do exactly what they were told to do without question.

You would also be familiar with Vietnamese experience that the dead were always "communists" and I'm sure on the part of the NVA the dead were always "running dog Capitalists".

To put it another way, unless I am mistaken, if soldiers can be told a halfway convincing story about who they are supposed to be shooting; as in: "These guys rioting and looting are the same Islamic gay warriors who killed Capt. XXX and have sworn to destroy the rest of us", the troops will shoot.

[Cieran]

When I read the article about CCMRF in Army Times, I figured that they were being deployed to protect Bush and Cheney post-election-regime-change.

Guess I'm just not paranoid enough...

But consider that Rove can't even go speak at a nearby university without getting his car pummeled and his sorry ass chased down the street by a small mob of citizens. And Rumsfeld had to abandon his visit to France to avoid getting arrested for war crimes.

It's a harsh and cold world out there for neocons these days.

So what's the likelihood that Bush and Cheney will be needing CCMRF to get them past the folks with pitchforks and torches come January 20th?

[Mad Dog]

"Now Canadians might be another matter. pl"

Oh boy! Can we Minnesotans have Ontario and Manitoba, puleeeze? We could be bigger than Texas!

[Fred]

Pat,

Seems like Amy’s being unjustly arrested in St. Paul at the RNC convention might have further biased her viewpoint. I can’t believe her implications with the comment about PTSD. As I recall the 101st was used not that long ago in Little Rock. Of course they were defending seven children from their fellow American’s.

[Watcher]

This is nothing new. When I was at FT Lewis from 2001 to 2006, minus when we were deployed, we had a standing mission to provide a Quick Reaction Force, to SUPPORT civilian authorities anywhere on the west coast in the event of a disaster. It was to provide support not run the show. It was a duty that rotated between the brigades at Lewis and the Marines down in California. There was always a clear chain of command between the lead civilian agency (FEMA or FBI) and us.

So what is the big difference between what I was doing in 2001 and what this BCT is doing? They are the FORSCOM (Army Command responsible for overall training and readiness of Army units, would be the Army force provide) main effort to support NORTHCOM and like COL Lang said would have a dedicated mission (instead of rotating) and can commit themselves to training specifically for this mission full time until relieved by FORSCOM of this tasking. Unlike us, in which this was just another task amongst all the others.

As for why not the engineers and MPs and stuff like that? We've organized those the majority of those units into Manuever Enhancement Brigades and we only have a handful that are in high demand so like everyone else in the Army, if they aren't downrange they are either just getting back or getting ready to go, so a BCT gets the mission since they can recieve and intergrate those assetts like engineers or MPs not normally part of an MEB but are available for homeland defense. We also have more BCTs so they are the right choice for this.

As for this seven days "stuff" I and my fellow officers know what our oath of office says, we know our loyalty lies with the constitution not a political party. We also know an illegal order when we see it and my velcro name tape says US Army, not Panamanian Army circa 1989. If you haven't read about how the oath of office for the military has evolved, you should, it's pretty fascinating.

As for timing, we're getting surge brigades back and reset from Iraq so the units are on hand to do this, not because the Prez might decide to stay on past 19 Jan.

Bottom is this folks, the Military has some amazing capabilities that no one else has that will be in high demand during a national disaster. This is the best way to legally make sure it is ready to deliver when it's needed. Also nation building in Iraq is completely different beast from Homeland Security here in America.

So from someone who's been there and done that I hope I've put the "black helicopter" fears to rest. To paraphrase Freud; Sometimes a US Army BCT with a Homeland Defense Mission is just an Army BCT with a Homeland Defense Mission folks.

W.

[Curious]

You are afraid of American soldiers? pl
Posted by: Patrick Lang | 08 October 2008 at 01:33 PM

standard CIA manual Colonel. notice what is at stake, the very soul of the armed force. (The people, the armed force, the nation.)

Suppose there is a riot or large urban commotion. Everybody knows it will be tense, but nobody expect clash. But somewhere somebody, with a gun trigger a clash.

(eg. this is basic CIA operation in toppling government around the world. Pitting the armed force vs. the people)

When there is solid legal boundary, that will not happen ever. Armed force doesn't need to be in situation where it has to clash with citizens. EVER.

-------

I for one think there should be separate structure that can quickly be filled with armed force expertise in the event of domestic national emergency.

But the armed force itself should never operate using same uniform for domestic purposes.

This is also the basic idea why UN peace keeping force has those white/sky blue color.

In time of emergency, usually legal and political situation is all a blur. The credibility and public trust of armed force should never be put in line. Things can go very wrong quickly. Who knows what the idiot in charge will ask military to do.