Army Times: Troops begin combat operations in NO against "insurgents"

[paygun]

Link:
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1077495.php (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1077495.php)

This article refers to American citizens in New Orleans as "the insurgency". Pretty scary.

[lynn271]

This article refers to American citizens in New Orleans as "the insurgency". Pretty scary.

And "combat operations" in New Orleans. Dear gods.

Why oh why weren't they sent in right away?? They should have been on standby before the storm even hit, ready to go in immediately if they were needed. They wouldn't be having to do this, it would never have gone this far!!

This is security? What a crock. Heads should roll.

[Darkdale]

Link:
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1077495.php (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1077495.php)

This article refers to American citizens in New Orleans as "the insurgency". Pretty scary.

There are insurgents in New Orleans and they need to be taken out if possible. They are rapists and murderers and they slowed down the rescue.

[AmericanMe]

Don't take the Army Times too seriously. They are not the official voice of the Army and some in the service question their credibility.

As far as "combat operations", clearing the city out will pretty much be conducted like one as far as strategy and deployment of troops. There will likely be a restrictive ROE, in which in my estimation they probably won't be allowed to fire unless fired at.

Understand, our troops have to go into EVERY building in the city, street by street, to look for bodies and suvivors.

[StellaLuna]

There are insurgents in New Orleans and they need to be taken out if possible. They are rapists and murderers and they slowed down the rescue.

You can't blame abhorrent actions of a few on the grand scale delay of FEMA.

[Trithemius]

With the way some people have been acting, insurgents is the right word. And they do need to be taken out. The behavior they have chosen to engage in is hindering relief efforts.

[Darkdale]

You can't blame abhorrent actions of a few on the grand scale delay of FEMA.

1. There is no grand scale delay of FEMA &

2. I can blame the abhorrent actions of the few for the consequences of their actions.

I am amazed that there are those who would rather be outraged at the government which is doing everything it can to help, then the rapists, looters and murderers that prevent that help from haste.

[AutumnWitchie]

Troops from the 82nd Airborne had been on standby to help with the aftermath of Katrina but were not called up until yesterday. What took so long? These troops could have been in place within a few hours after Katrina if they had gotten the call.

[AmericanMe]

Troops from the 82nd Airborne had been on standby to help with the aftermath of Katrina but were not called up until yesterday. What took so long? These troops could have been in place within a few hours after Katrina if they had gotten the call.




Because of the logistics. Troops need support.

Read Countercolumn (http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/) for a analysis of the problems in NOLA that is actually based in reality. Just put on your thick skin.

Consider this:

Point:

The closest available fuel on the Eastern approaches to New Orleans is Tuscaloosa, AL. The road distance from Tuscaloosa to New Orleans is 291 miles.

My 2 1/2 ton trucks could not make it to New Orleans, carrying a full load. Without external fueler support, they'd run out of fuel on the way in. My Humvees could probably make it in, but they wouldn't be able to operate once they got there. We could maybe pull a mounted zone reconnaisance, and then that's it. Black on CL III.

So that's another layer of logistical hurdles to overcome. You'd need to set up a series of FLEs (forward logistical elements) just to allow your mass formations to get in.

But your FLEs are traveling from hours away, too. Which means everytime you empty out a fueler on the outskirts of New Orleans, you have to drive 291 miles to fill up and return again. Until Tuscaloosa runs out of fuel. Hopefully, you're trucking it in to Tuscaloosa from somewhere else. And Tuscaloosa needs its own fuel, too.

Think the shortage of available fuel for 300 miles might put a crimp on any Federal response?

Splash, out

Edit: "BLack on CL.III [class 3]" is military speak for 'out of fuel'.

Here is more on the logistics:
The logistics of disaster relief operations (http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2005/09/logistics-of-disaster-relief.html)
You cannot just snap your fingers and make the military suddenly appear somewhere.

Nor can you legally send federal troops willy-nilly to shoot looters, courtesy of the Posse Comitatus act. You should know this, Ann. You're a lawyer by profession. You shouldn't need a dumb grunt to explain it to you.

But watch for much of our news commentary and public debate to predicate itself around a vast ignorance of logistical capacity and principals.

For instance: Suppose you got a brigade worth of troops (5,000 or so) available,. How are you going to support them? How will you transport them? Think organic trans is sufficient? Think again. Even at 100% operational readiness, a typical infantry battalion can only self transport perhaps a company at a time. And if every soldier is bringing a rucksack and a dufflebag, you're really talking about maybe two platoons. And unless you expect the unit to become a drain on local resources, every company is going to take a half truck or more of MREs and a half truck or more of bottled water, along with its own water trailers. I've seen it happen. I've done it. I've been a battalion S4 in combat, an HHC XO for dozens of major moves of a hundred miles or more, and an HHC company commander for six hurricane mobilizations.

Now, you can use busses. But only if you take busses away from the immediate mission of transporting people out of the most severely affected areas of New Orleans. Well, suppose a 44 passenger bus has a round trip of a half day between a National Guard armory in Texas. That bus can not even transport a platoon of soldiers in a single day (and will have to refuel somewhere.) But that same bus, if you keep it in New Orleans, can make as many as 8 or 10 trips back and forth, and evacuate maybe 600 to 800 people, assuming an hour round trip between an affected area and a safe area.

So which do you choose? My money's on the evac.

But suppose you stripped the evac effort dry and got enough busses to support a 5,000 man move. Well, a few hundred of them would show up driving the brigade's vehicles (armed with fuel cards to use at pumps that don't work, so the army would also have to transport in its own bulk fuel).

Well, in order to move 4,400 soldiers by bus in 48 hours, with a 1-day turnaround time, you would need 100 busses. Which is most of the FEMA effort right there. The available truck transportation would be hauling food, water, tents, portable kitchens, and other gear -- not troops.

Well, I think FEMA came up with 140 busses. You want to strip 70 percent of the FEMA effort to bring in National Guard? I didn't think so.

And then when the Brigade got there, it would take them nearly a day to set up. Where are you going to put them? You'd need an entire park or fairground, and you'd need to clear vagrants out of there. That's doable, but it takes time. And meanwhile, you've got 5,000 soldiers on the ground. Where are they going to crap, Ann? Did you consider that question?

No.

So you'd have to contract with portalet providers -- competing for the vendors with bidders from the city, county, churches, and neighboring cities and counties. Portable shower and latrine facilities can be trucked in from all over the country. But that takes time as well. Oh, and you might have to contract with Brown and Root. I can imagine the screeching and howling already.

Trust me. Brown and Root is good at this. If we're not contracting with Brown and Root, we're fools. They're even better if they can hire all Palestinians, Bosnians, and Philippinas.

Well, suppose you've overcome all these hurdles. Congratulations. You've only made it into the BSA.

How are you going to get troops into the flooded areas? Well, most of your truck assets still are loaded with gear for the first two days. That's assuming you don't have to make return trips to go back and get things A pretty tall assumption. Well, last I checked, light infantry doesn't have any boats or rafts in the inventory. In fact, nobody does, except for a few selected engineer units, such as MRBCs. I know of one such company that served in Iraq with us. Great group of soldiers. Except they're in Wisconsin. These boats would have to be trucked in, and would take days to get there at best. (Their prime movers couldn't go much over 50 mph, and even then that's pushing it with a heavy load.)

Would it have been a good idea to keep a mobile bridge company in the Delta area? Sure, in hindsight. But it ain't there now, Ann. And even then, the number of pontoon boats that would be available is pitiful compared to the need.

Hell, Ann, just how long do you think it takes for a unit to work its way through the phone roster and get the word out to report at a certain time? Think everyone sits by the phone just waiting for the call? It isn't like ordering a pizza. These guardsmen have families, family vacations in the summer, and jobs that frequently take them hours away from their Just how long it takes I'm keeping to myself, but it doesn't happen in the blink of an eye, obviously.

Watch for reporters framing their story mired in this kind of well-meaning muddleheadedness about logistics.

The help is on the way, and will be a sustained effort. We aren't going to show up with TOO many people at once, overwhelm the available space and vital logistics, and be unable to stay in force and sustain the effort. Louisiana guardsmen, we've got your back.

[CosmicWhispers]

:thumbsup: Based on that info it is probable that they were working on the longistics
before the disaster hit to get there as soon as they did. You think?

[paygun]

Don't take the Army Times too seriously. They are not the official voice of the Army and some in the service question their credibility.

As far as "combat operations", clearing the city out will pretty much be conducted like one as far as strategy and deployment of troops. There will likely be a restrictive ROE, in which in my estimation they probably won't be allowed to fire unless fired at.

Understand, our troops have to go into EVERY building in the city, street by street, to look for bodies and suvivors.

I understand that's not official policy, and I don't think the government has declared war on New Orleans. The idea that citizens would be treated as insurgents is troubling to anyone who believes we have a government by the people for the people and are not being ruled, though.

On another board I just read about a Marine that went down there to help out. He didn't have orders or anything, he had some leave over the long weekend and went down to do whatever he could. (Which he should be commended for) He took a full combat load, his personal M14 and a 1911 and of course ammo to go with. He had no ROE except for whatever he felt was appropriate and could move about freely. I certainly trust a Marine, that's not the point.

My point is that the operations there are right up to the line of treating citizens as the enemy and that's not good for America. It sets a dangerous precedent that with the wave of a bureaucrat's hand you or I could become non-citizens someday in the middle of a tragedy when we're just trying to protect ourselves and our families. We continue to give the federal government more power for the sake of safety (and a lot of times just because of complacency) and it's going to get us all in a lot of trouble if we continue doing it.

[AmericanMe]

I understand that's not official policy, and I don't think the government has declared war on New Orleans. The idea that citizens would be treated as insurgents is troubling to anyone who believes we have a government by the people for the people and are not being ruled, though.

From what I read in the story, it was the Army Times that referred to the thugs in NOLA as an insurgency, not the military commanders. Thus is why we in the military sometimes question the AT credibility, or at least their bias.

On another board I just read about a Marine that went down there to help out. He didn't have orders or anything, he had some leave over the long weekend and went down to do whatever he could. (Which he should be commended for) He took a full combat load, his personal M14 and a 1911 and of course ammo to go with. He had no ROE except for whatever he felt was appropriate and could move about freely. I certainly trust a Marine, that's not the point.

If he didn't have orders, then he did it on his own.

My point is that the operations there are right up to the line of treating citizens as the enemy and that's not good for America. It sets a dangerous precedent that with the wave of a bureaucrat's hand you or I could become non-citizens someday in the middle of a tragedy when we're just trying to protect ourselves and our families. We continue to give the federal government more power for the sake of safety (and a lot of times just because of complacency) and it's going to get us all in a lot of trouble if we continue doing it.

Whoa. Federal troops cannot and are not going to be used for 'peacekeeping' in NOLA due to the Posse Comitatus Act. Active duty military are only there to recover residents and distribute aid, it is the National Guard (state-operated troops) and the local police department that must enforce the law.

BTW shooting at helicopters conducting said recovery operations is not protecting oneself or one's family. These are thugs, whose actions have caused the lives of those who are actually protecting their families.

[pawnman]

I understand that's not official policy, and I don't think the government has declared war on New Orleans. The idea that citizens would be treated as insurgents is troubling to anyone who believes we have a government by the people for the people and are not being ruled, though.

On another board I just read about a Marine that went down there to help out. He didn't have orders or anything, he had some leave over the long weekend and went down to do whatever he could. (Which he should be commended for) He took a full combat load, his personal M14 and a 1911 and of course ammo to go with. He had no ROE except for whatever he felt was appropriate and could move about freely. I certainly trust a Marine, that's not the point.

My point is that the operations there are right up to the line of treating citizens as the enemy and that's not good for America. It sets a dangerous precedent that with the wave of a bureaucrat's hand you or I could become non-citizens someday in the middle of a tragedy when we're just trying to protect ourselves and our families. We continue to give the federal government more power for the sake of safety (and a lot of times just because of complacency) and it's going to get us all in a lot of trouble if we continue doing it.

Interesting that he was able to get down there. Here at Pensacola, the base commander specifically prohibited us from going the Louisiana or Mississippi.

[paygun]

Whoa. Federal troops cannot and are not going to be used for 'peacekeeping' in NOLA due to the Posse Comitatus Act. Active duty military are only there to recover residents and distribute aid, it is the National Guard (state-operated troops) and the local police department that must enforce the law.

BTW shooting at helicopters conducting said recovery operations is not protecting oneself or one's family. These are thugs, whose actions have caused the lives of those who are actually protecting their families.

We both know that's illegal, that's what I'm talking about. We both know that Bush wouldn't go against Posse Comitatus officially because it has too many political implications. But that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Kathleen Blanco called the troops a "show of force". A show of force against what, the bottled water and MREs? Michael Brown has called New Orleans "a war zone". Major General Joseph Inge has said that these active duty troops are going to reinforce the NG. Right after that he stated they wouldn't be doing any law enforcement. I'm not saying that the official position of the administration is that war has been declared on these criminals in NO, I'm saying that the military is being sent in and I know what they'll be required to do.

Why do you think the troops are there?

[pawnman]

We both know that's illegal, that's what I'm talking about. We both know that Bush wouldn't go against Posse Comitatus officially because it has too many political implications. But that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Kathleen Blanco called the troops a "show of force". A show of force against what, the bottled water and MREs? Michael Brown has called New Orleans "a war zone". Major General Joseph Inge has said that these active duty troops are going to reinforce the NG. Right after that he stated they wouldn't be doing any law enforcement. I'm not saying that the official position of the administration is that war has been declared on these criminals in NO, I'm saying that the military is being sent in and I know what they'll be required to do.

Why do you think the troops are there?

1. Because few people have the experience and expertise to move that many people at once, and fewer have the resources to do it.

2. Reinforcing could mean taking over the search and rescue operations so that the National Guard are free to enforce the law.

[paygun]

I was just looked at the DHS website and there's a press release that says Posse Comitatus doesn't apply anymore, this is the assistant secretary of DHS:

"And under truly extraordinary circumstances, occurring once in a generation typically, when there's a civil disturbance, the President does have the legal authority to make certain declarations and use the active duty military to restore civil order. And so there are things that we in the Department of Defense can do to contribute to that climate of safety and security."

So, I still think it's scary, in fact moreso now. But I guess there's nothing to talk about anymore because the rights we used to have are already gone.

Here's the link: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4779 (http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4779)

[AmericanMe]

I was just looked at the DHS website and there's a press release that says Posse Comitatus doesn't apply anymore, this is the assistant secretary of DHS:

"And under truly extraordinary circumstances, occurring once in a generation typically, when there's a civil disturbance, the President does have the legal authority to make certain declarations and use the active duty military to restore civil order. And so there are things that we in the Department of Defense can do to contribute to that climate of safety and security."

So, I still think it's scary, in fact moreso now. But I guess there's nothing to talk about anymore because the rights we used to have are already gone.

Here's the link: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4779 (http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4779)

Your taking it out of context. Read the whole statement;

For the past 125 years, approximately, it has been the public policy of our nation, reflected in numerous statutes, but most particularly the posse comitatus statute, that our active duty military forces ordinarily do not engage in law enforcement activity. We've decided, as a matter of public policy, that our police officers will normally protect us. Our law enforcement officials will provide the security that we reasonably expect. And so, in this circumstance, and all circumstances, we turn, first and foremost, to civilian law enforcement to protect the American people.

The Department of Defense does have statutory authority to provide assistance, military support to civilian law enforcement authorities, and that often involves training and equipment and other forms of assistance that enable police officers to better do their jobs.

And under truly extraordinary circumstances, occurring once in a generation typically, when there's a civil disturbance, the President does have the legal authority to make certain declarations and use the active duty military to restore civil order. And so there are things that we in the Department of Defense can do to contribute to that climate of safety and security.

But more often than not, when military support is needed to ensure the effective execution of a law enforcement function, it is the National Guard, rather than the active duty military, that is more useful. Frankly, our National Guard, in many cases, is better trained. The National Guard is forward deployed throughout the nation. Our Guardsmen, men and women, are of the communities that they serve. Often they have ties to local law enforcement; certainly they have ties to local families and businesses in the community to be protected. Moreover, the National Guard is exempt from posse comitatus, and the National Guard can work side by side, therefore, with law enforcement officials in ways in which active duty military forces cannot.

For this reason, we have been planning very closely with the adjutants general, the governors, the Guard Bureau and others for the possibility of a coordinated effort that would involve the use of National Guard forces to augment and re-enforce civilian law enforcement.

I want to highlight at this moment a statistic that was given to you, I think a rather remarkable and historically unprecedented statistic that was voiced by Secretary Chertoff just a moment ago, and that is, over the next three days the National Guard, through the cooperation of the governors, and ultimately under the command and control of the Governor of Louisiana, will be deploying into the New Orleans area a force the size of the New Orleans Police Department each day, every day, for the next three days. That is a remarkable movement of law enforcement capabilities into an area that clearly needs augmentation and reenforcement of the ordinary civilian law enforcement capability.

What I'd like to do is call to the microphone now General Blum, Steve Blum, who is the chief of the Guard Bureau, who will talk about the military policemen who will be deployed into the New Orleans area to ensure that, in a close partnership of civilian law enforcement, we successfully protect our fellow citizens.

To sum it up, Posse Comitatus will be respected (however federal troops still have the right to defend themselves by force if necessary). BTW, it isn't like this is the first time the NG has been called up to restore order.

I'm ignoring alot of Kathleen Blanco has to say, she's a politician who many blame for the slow response, so be prepared for spin and CYA from her.

[paygun]

"the President does have the legal authority to make certain declarations and use the active duty military to restore civil order"

What else could that mean?

[paygun]

I do see the context, it's not that. They say that the first line of defense is police, then National Guard, and in special circumstances active duty military. The president gives the order and then active duty military is used to restore civil order. That's what I'm talking about, and I think you know it's what I'm talking about.

Think about this for a second. Consider your worst case scenario president. The one that would make you vote for anyone else just to insure they wouldn't be elected.

Do you want that person having this kind of power?

[pawnman]

I do see the context, it's not that. They say that the first line of defense is police, then National Guard, and in special circumstances active duty military. The president gives the order and then active duty military is used to restore civil order. That's what I'm talking about, and I think you know it's what I'm talking about.

Think about this for a second. Consider your worst case scenario president. The one that would make you vote for anyone else just to insure they wouldn't be elected.

Do you want that person having this kind of power?

No, I would not want Hillary Clinton to have that kind of power. But it is the power that is invested in each and every president.

By the way, just because some article says the president has the authority to use the active duty military to begin law enforcement activities in NOLA, it doesn't mean he will. He has the authority to launch our nuclear arsenal at China if he wants, but just because he has the authority doesn't automatically mean he will use ot, or even that he wants to use it.

All of this aside, why would it be so terrible for the military to start ferreting out the evil people taking advantage of this situation to commit all manner of nasty crimes?

[paygun]

No, I would not want Hillary Clinton to have that kind of power. But it is the power that is invested in each and every president.

By the way, just because some article says the president has the authority to use the active duty military to begin law enforcement activities in NOLA, it doesn't mean he will. He has the authority to launch our nuclear arsenal at China if he wants, but just because he has the authority doesn't automatically mean he will use ot, or even that he wants to use it.

All of this aside, why would it be so terrible for the military to start ferreting out the evil people taking advantage of this situation to commit all manner of nasty crimes?

No, of course it wouldn't, and I'm sure that's what's going on down there right now. I have no worries about how this could be abused if it was somehow assured that it never would be. But I'm not talking about what happens when everything goes right.

I understand there's no mandate to use the military for law enforcement, and so do you. I'm not talking about a requirement to use it, I'm talking about the authority to use it and have little or no oversight until it's all over. They even get to decide when "over" happens. Do you think the founding fathers wanted the president to have that kind of power?

I agree about Hillary, that's one of my picks for the nightmare scenario. But it's not the power that's invested in each and every president, not until now. Not until the Patriot Act and the suspension of basic civil liberties if the right bureaucrats stamp the right forms and sign the right papers. These powers aren't being granted to George Bush. They're being given to every president from here on out regardless of how terrible they are. That's what scares me and I think it should scare anyone who cares more about America than they do about party politics.


ps - Do you think Hillary Clinton would use the military to enforce a ban on individual firearms ownership? I do. If there was a media circus beforehand that swayed public opinion enough to let her get away with it, she'd do it in a heartbeat. These powers can be abused and they will be, sooner or later.

[paygun]

Like a good American on almost Labor Day, I'm going to a barbecue. I'll be back later to respond.

I really enjoy discussing politics rather than having a flamefest full of talking points. Hopefully there will be more of that around here in the future. Thanks.