It’s sobering to think that the U.S. military, long focused on external threats, for the first time has drafted plans to meet internal ones.
Northern Command, created in 2002 to handle homeland defense and housed at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, has developed 15 secret crisis scenarios for responding to terrorist attacks within the U.S., according to The Washington Post.
On one level, it’s reassuring that the Pentagon wants to be ready. On another, we, like many Americans, are uneasy about the prospect of the military as corner cop.
Northcom was created to provide “defense support of civil authorities including consequence management operations” (a euphemism for action after an attack).
The classified plans envision various roles for quick-reaction units of about 3,000 ground troops to respond to each attack. National Guard troops, with experience in natural disasters and other civilian emergencies under state control, would play a key role.
The military has assets that could lessen the chaos after an attack: troops trained to function under extreme stress; field hospitals to handle casualties; and the ability to feed, shelter and transport large numbers of people, set up communications, repair bridges, water systems and roads, and stand guard.
Northcom says its role is to be “always in support of a federal agency, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency,” when directed by the president or secretary of defense. The judgment that local law enforcement has been overwhelmed by an attack would be made jointly by the attorney general and secretary of defense.
Senior officers told The Washington Post it’s likely the military might take charge in some extreme cases.
“The military in charge – that’s the scariest part,” said Cathryn Hazouri, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado. “There is a law against using the military for law enforcement (the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878), and the reason for that is fairly clear … it would place the military in the awkward situation of having to control citizens.”
Despite the military’s “unrivaled” expertise and assets, Marcus Corbin of the Center for Defense Information, a Washington think tank, also opposes the concept.
“The active-duty military is … trained for combat – shoot first and ask questions later,” Corbin said. “Since Iraq, they’ve been doing a whole lot of training of the other kind, situations where they don’t want to shoot first. But they still have a long way to go.” The military reserves or the National Guard are better suited to the task, he said.
“The military suggesting there should be a time when they’re the ones in charge … just doesn’t sit well,” Corbin added. “You’ve got all kinds of civilian authorities who are used to these situations and know how to deal with them better than the military … we don’t need generals telling state or city authorities what to do.”
We agree. Whenever possible, trained cadres of civilian administrators should be the preferred option for coping withe the aftermath of a disastrous attack. But, in extreme situations, military help may be vital.
If a calamitous attack were to happen, soldiers on patrol could be a calming influence for traumatized citizens.
