This would be a non-issue if our National Guard were kept stationed here at home, for homeland security, where they should be, instead of over in Iraq on a non-homeland-security-related detail.
posted by Rothko at 7:54 AM on September 19, 2005

Numbers of troops have nothing to do with this. We have plenty of troops here at home. the ball was dropped when they weren't deployed to the Gulf fast enough...

Stop with the weak army thing already...
posted by DuffStone at 7:56 AM on September 19, 2005

At this stage of the game, I don't know that they need the military to be involved to any great degree (aside from a strickly supportive role). The people have been evacuated, they are pumping out the city and in other areas of the Gulf region, progress is being made. But I expect the congress to probably amend this anyway; they've given Bush everything he's asked for, why stop now?
posted by j.p. Hung at 7:58 AM on September 19, 2005

How long would it be before the Marines started raping and torturing evacuee/detainee's?

Why not just fund FEMA properly again or would that be too much like admitting that gutting FEMA was a bad idea? Can't have the administration looking bad, I know, let's start a whole new government agency and place a wholly unqualified Bush-pal in charge. That'll solve everything until the next disaster.
posted by fenriq at 8:03 AM on September 19, 2005

"How long would it be before the Marines started raping and torturing evacuee/detainee's?"

...and the idiots have arrived
posted by j.p. Hung at 8:04 AM on September 19, 2005

...and the idiots have arrived
posted by j.p. Hung at 8:04 AM PST on September 19

You're late; they arrived at 7:56.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:16 AM on September 19, 2005

You're late; they arrived at 7:56.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:16 PM GMT on September 19 [!]

Cripes, Optimus can see into the future.
posted by veedubya at 8:26 AM on September 19, 2005

Posse Comitatus

Keeps the military from being in charge. Not from participating. They just have to be under civilian authority.
posted by srboisvert at 8:28 AM on September 19, 2005

Incidentally, when funds are assigned to disaster relief, they are used to pay for the military involvement as well as supplies - in other words, if they have military helicopters flying in, those helicopters are being paid for out of the emergency relief money. So more military involvement = more relief money funnelling directly back to the government.
posted by Billegible at 8:33 AM on September 19, 2005

We handled 2004's Hurricane Charley superbly. The underlying system is still basically the same, but since then many key people in charge were installed based on cronyism, not merit and experience. Katrina would have been a clusterf*ck even if FEMA's funding wasn't gutted.

Our current disaster response system is fine as it is. Our real problem is that the wrong people are in charge, making wrong decisions. This proposal is just another feel-good measure that will do nothing substantially beneficial except for the careers of the politicians who support it.
posted by PsychoKick at 8:34 AM on September 19, 2005

Cripes, Optimus can see into the future.
posted by veedubya at 8:26 AM PST on September 19

Local time. >:(

With respect to the matter at hand, though - because mine was a pretty worthless post - what galls me about Duff's post is that no one is claiming our military is "weak," only that's it's stretched a bit thin. If it weren't, there'd be no reason to send National Guardsmen to Iraq.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:38 AM on September 19, 2005

instapundit discussed this a couple days ago, for those who may be interested
posted by matteo at 8:50 AM on September 19, 2005

PsychoKick: What are you, reasonable or something? Sheez. Get outta here; no place here for calm, rational though!

srboisvert: Yes, exactly. That's why they'll have to amend it. The President (In His Wisdom) can't see any way that this stuff can work unless men with (lots of) guns are in charge. Better still: Men with guns, who report directly to him.

I remember, distinctly, hearing the President deliver that 'greater role for the military' line, and thinking, 'Oh, shit, he's gonna go after Posse Comitatus...'
posted by lodurr at 8:55 AM on September 19, 2005

My concern is different skill sets. National Guard and Marines have very different skillsets. I don't think you want a batallion of Marines doing humanitarian peacekeeping. Just MO. Marines -- when it positively, absolutely, must be destroyed overnight. That kinda thing :)
posted by cavalier at 9:11 AM on September 19, 2005

j.p.hung, its idiotic to suggest that bringing military troops in would cause more disruption, harm and damage?

Because our troops have never behaved with anything less than perfect decorum, especially behind closed doors and where there are no cameras (except the ones the assholes torturing POW's used to capture the "fun"), yeah, it would be a great idea to inflict the Marines on a populance of distressed Americans.

Not to mention the fact that we have something called the NATIONAL GUARD that's supposed to be available to support relief efforts but they're all deployed in a foreign nation right now protecting oil wells and Halliburton trucks. So why not use Marines who are well trained for combat and to protect the US for National Guard duty and leave the Guardsmen in Iraq? That's perfectly sensible. Or wait, how about using the National Guard for what it was intended for, securing the country at home, and use the Marines for the foreign occupation? Oh would that be too sensible for you and Bush?

I was speaking facetiously about the rapes and murders but the underlying sentiment is the same, we can't control our troops during a foreign occupation, why would you think we could control them domestically? Because they'd be dealing with "fellow" Americans?

Why don't you read up a little on what students did to fellow students when an artificial power structure is imposed and some are made guards and some are made prisoners. Enlighten yourself.
posted by fenriq at 9:21 AM on September 19, 2005

Send the Marines to Iraq and send the National Guard home.

Let everyone do the job they were trained to do.
posted by bshort at 9:23 AM on September 19, 2005

bshort said what I wanted to say but a lot more concisely.

Though I'd also add that I'd like to bring the Marines home from Iraq too. Bring them all home (yes, I know that's an oversimplification and we can't cut and run because the vaccuum of our departure would suck in an awful lot of terrorists and Iraq would fall very quickly into the hands of terrorists but I would still like to see all of our troops come home).
posted by fenriq at 9:29 AM on September 19, 2005

on the skill set/weird power dynamics tip, shouldn't we be concerned that the Army referred, *in publication,* to NOLA as "Little Somalia," or to United States citizens in the city as "insurgents"?

check it out.
posted by dickumbrage at 9:29 AM on September 19, 2005

Enlighten yourself.

C'mon fenriq. Put your Full Metal Jacket fantasies back where they belong and observe that there have been National Guard and active duty soldiers - fresh back from Iraq - deployed in New Orleans for 2 weeks now. Have you heard any news of these soldiers comitting rape and murder? From where I'm standing it seems that these troops are getting things done: proving also that it was always possible to provide a fast, effective emergency response with military personnel.

The problem ain't the soldiers, it's monkey boy playing commander in chief.
posted by three blind mice at 9:42 AM on September 19, 2005

no one is claiming our military is "weak," only that's it's stretched a bit thin. If it weren't, there'd be no reason to send National Guardsmen to Iraq.

That's not quite true either. Guardsmen are in Iraq because we want to be able to fight yet another war if we need to (probably vs a more traditional fighting opponent, which is why we're reserving the traditional troops).

Feel free to attack the merits of this strategy, but I think saying we're stretched thin (in terms of numbers) is an oversimplification.
posted by b_thinky at 10:03 AM on September 19, 2005

"...it would be a great idea to inflict the Marines on a populance of distressed Americans."

Well, no bias going on there fenriq. The article was hardly enlightening: Untrained students placed in a completely foreign atmosphere, subjected to a situation they would never likely face in reality, and without reasonable supervision. I'm not enlightened but I am now convinced my earlier sentiment was spot-on.
posted by j.p. Hung at 10:04 AM on September 19, 2005

three blind mice, yep, I know and I'm not saying that Marines deployed within the US equals rape, torture and murder.

I'm in full agreement that the problems start in Oval Office and have trickled down from there. So much so that the idiot wants to use Marines domestically and use the National Guard as an occupation force overseas.

Is it lost on people that the Marines are not suited for domestic relief operations and that's pretty much exactly what the National Guard is for (among other things like helping to protect the country from invasion which would be really hard to do since most of the Guard is in Iraq).
posted by fenriq at 10:18 AM on September 19, 2005

This is just the sort of thing posited by that "American Military Coup of 2012" essay, most recently discussed here. Seven years to go...
posted by alumshubby at 10:21 AM on September 19, 2005

My apologies for mixing the terms "Weak" with "thin". Generally Not mutually exclusive, but when regarding our military in these particular forums I can see where they might convey drastically different meanings.

However, back to my point, Our national guard is neither "Weak" nor "Thin" at the moment. I've seen no proof of this supposed weakness caused by the War, and find no basis for your arguments. I have family in the Guard and they laugh when people question their readiness and availability. They think it's a joke.

That... is what I have a problem with. If you say our national guard is weak, or stretched thin, I implore you to show me an example that's based on hard numbers, and not based on media spin and bias. And I'm being seriously impartial right now. Show me the proof of this, or stop posting false derogatory information about out military.
posted by DuffStone at 10:32 AM on September 19, 2005

Here ya go, bunky.

Guard under-equipped.

More Alaska Guard deployed to Iraq.

Iraq deployment cost lives on Gulf Coast: National Guard chief

Iraq effect shakes National Guard.

Strain of Iraq War Means the Relief Burden Will Have to Be Shared

Demands of wars since 9/11 strain National Guard's efforts

Want more? Or can I go back to posting false derogatory information again now that I've satisfied your request for back up proof of my claims?
posted by fenriq at 10:45 AM on September 19, 2005

If you say our national guard is weak, or stretched thin, I implore you to show me an example that's based on hard numbers, and not based on media spin and bias. And I'm being seriously impartial right now. Show me the proof of this, or stop posting false derogatory information about out military.

I hope the RAND Corporation is impartial enough for you.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:48 AM on September 19, 2005

Do you feel smacked yet Duffstone?

Want some more?

Sock puppet account?

Defender Of All Things Dubya?

Ready to concede the point or you gonna re-enter the conversation under another account to defend Mary Rosh?
posted by nofundy at 11:24 AM on September 19, 2005

Let us not forget that Federal response to Katrina Fastest of all Hurricaines Ever.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 11:42 AM on September 19, 2005

nofundy: There's nothing more unbecoming than gloating.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:49 AM on September 19, 2005

Let us not forget how to do a hyperlink: here is a working link to the article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazett.

This quote the article StrasbourgSecaucus tried to link to, pretty much sums it up:
"Journalists who are long on opinions and short on knowledge"
posted by Rawhide at 11:52 AM on September 19, 2005

Oh yes, that's right. You might as well throw the scientists in there too, since the Republicans do, as others who are "long on opinions and short on knowledge" about such matters as global warming.

But then Michael Chertoff comes along and blurts out that he wasn't aware of thousands of people stranded at the Convention Center until he saw it on CNN.

The Bush administration: Long on knowledge, short on opinions.

Amen.
posted by digaman at 11:59 AM on September 19, 2005

Wow, what an unbiased and journalistically superior article you quoted there, StrasbourgSecaucus.

""We do not yet have teleporter or replicator technology like you saw on 'Star Trek' in college between hookah hits and waiting to pick up your worthless communications degree while the grown-ups actually engaged in the recovery effort were studying engineering."

For people (possibly involved) in the recovery effort to misrepresent the relative speed of the recovery is one thing, for them to do so with such incredible condescension is quite another.
posted by Invoke at 12:47 PM on September 19, 2005

I'm with bshort on this: "Let everyone do the job they were trained to do."

I would say though the Marines are used to doing composite squad search and rescue work. They have SAR helicopters, light short takeoff and landing transports, etc. etc. So you could have Marine pilots doing a lot of the work and freeing up others to do the humanitarian thing.

...of course, I'm uncomfortable with troops deployed inside the US, it won't be the first time, but I'm still against it.

That said, from the other POV. I'm equally not thrilled with Marine infantry doing LEA work. Obviously because they're not trained for it, but mostly because it erodes what they are trained to do: Kill.
You don't want a Marine who will hesitate on the trigger (all things being equal of course, rape and torture are not what they are trained to do).

It seemed like a tongue in cheek comment, but the exact "rape and torture" wording aside, it is a valid point. Marines are trained to be aggressive. To do this work, you either dampen their aggression or harden them to the population they're sworn to protect.
I don't like either option. It's a stupid idea beyond the obvious civil liberty concerns.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:52 PM on September 19, 2005

Whoosh!
posted by Kwantsar at 1:00 PM on September 19, 2005

nofundy: There's nothing more unbecoming than gloating.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:49 PM EST

Unless its someone incorrectly attributing gloating to my statements.
And I, for one, certainly would never want to be guilty of being "unbecoming" when calling one of that ilk on the carpet. My goodness, no! It wouldn't match my purse! :-)
posted by nofundy at 1:06 PM on September 19, 2005

Show me the proof of this, or stop posting false derogatory information about out military.
posted by DuffStone at 10:32 AM PST on September 19

Done with this thread now, huh? Thanks for wasting my time.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:09 PM on September 19, 2005

Unless its someone incorrectly attributing gloating to my statements.

My mistake, then. I'm just worried that people who are "unbecoming" will eventually fade into nonexistence :P
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:16 PM on September 19, 2005

shouldn't we be concerned that the Army referred, *in publication,* to NOLA as "Little Somalia," or to United States citizens in the city as "insurgents"?

Yes. Very much so. If I were of the conspiratorial bent, I would say that the administration let the hurricane-disaster relief fail in order to reverse posse comitatus. But then I think that the president can suspend the law whenever he wants, so I doubt that's it.

You have to think about whether it is worth risking your neck for someone who will turn around and shoot at you. We didn¡¯t come here to fight a war. We came here to help.

Iraq or New Orleans?
posted by mrgrimm at 2:31 PM on September 19, 2005

"shouldn't we be concerned that the Army referred, *in publication,* to NOLA as "Little Somalia," or to United States citizens in the city as "insurgents"? "

I'm not seeing where they called them insurgents....?

Seems to me you took the "little Somalia" thing out of context.

¡°I never thought that at a National Guardsman I would be shot at by other Americans,¡±
Interesting comment. No sense of history I guess. I suppose then he would have thought the reverse was possible *coughKENTSTATEcough*
posted by Smedleyman at 3:40 PM on September 19, 2005

How long would it be before the Marines started raping and torturing evacuee/detainee's?
posted by fenriq

I'm not saying that Marines deployed within the US equals rape, torture and murder.
posted by fenriq

Jesus, make up your mind. If you're going to make ridiculous statements, stand by them. I guess I'll have to call my brother, who is a marine, to find out when the raping and torturing starts. Maybe he has the inside scoop.

There is a difference between saying the marines "are not suited for domestic relief operations" and asking when the raping/torturing starts. I'm not sure what one has to do with the other.

I would think such abuse would have more to do with the individual and not what brand of the armed forces he joined.
posted by justgary at 4:31 PM on September 19, 2005

I just had a dreadful thought. What if this administration saw this coming and purposely let this thing play out the way it did just so they would have good reason to amend Posse Comitatus. That would certainly give our military more power here in the USA.

I find it hard to believe that they did not know exactly what would happen when the "big one" hit.
posted by sultan at 9:32 PM on September 19, 2005

I'm gonna register "We're all Fucked" as a trademark, and become filthy rich!!
posted by Balisong at 10:55 PM on September 19, 2005

Interesting bit on Katrina by the author of Isaac's Storm, about the Galveston hurricane of 1900.

I've been wondering though about the response speed to that storm; I've heard that it was actually faster than Katrina, in that the outside world had the rail links fixed and functioning within 48-72 hours and the Feds were in by that time (though the locals had mostly managed to keep order, it being such a smaller city and the full population having stayed because, well, nobody really saw it coming). Anyone have a link?

That said, there's no reason really to amend Posse Comitatus just because we don't like to keep our proper assets in the places where they're best suited to be.
posted by trigonometry at 1:14 AM on September 20, 2005