CHANGE MY LOCATION
Politics
Examiners
Right Side Politics Examiner
Most Recent Post
Battleground, Gallup and Rasmussen tracking poll update - 10/07
California News
Multimedia News
Military reviews placing special ops on U.S. soil
SEE HOW THIS STORY DEVELOPED
Related Topics: WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON (Map, News) - The U.S. military command in charge of protecting the homeland asked the Pentagon earlier this year for a contingent of special operations officers to help with domestic anti-terrorism missions.
Military sources told The Examiner that U.S. Northern Command, established at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado in 2002, requested its own special operations command similar to ones assigned to overseas war-fighting commands, such as U.S. Central Command.
A spokeswoman for NorthCom this week issued a statement to The Examiner saying, "This capability resides in every other geographical combatant command and would allow the commander of U.S. Northern Command to deploy these unique capabilities for homeland defense and civil support operations."
The request was approved six months ago by the then-commander of NorthCom, Adm. Timothy Keating, who has since moved to U.S. Pacific Command.
But now, the new NorthCom commander, Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, is reviewing Keating's decision.
On Wednesday, Lt. Col. John Cornelio, a NorthCom spokesman, told The Examiner:
"U.S. Northern Command is currently reassessing our requirement for special operations forces to accomplish our homeland defense and civil support missions. While the initial request for a small element of SOF staff for planning and command and control purposes was requested under the previous commander, the new commander ... has not made a decision on this issue."
Keating's request to the Pentagon raised some eyebrows because of the sensitivity of deploying commandos domestically. Under U.S. Special Operations Command, covert warriors are playing a key role in fighting terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere overseas.
"The possibility for military operations in the U.S. is something that we have to plan for in the age of international terrorism," said Daniel Gallington, a former policy adviser to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
The Bush administration created NorthCom, one of the military's nine war-fighting commands, after the Sept. 11 attacks revealed deep flaws in the military's procedures for repelling an attack on American soil.
The idea of giving NorthCom a commando unit shows how the military increasingly looks at the U.S. homeland as a target for more terrorist attacks and how it may need elite counter-terrorism forces to deal with the threat.
Comments from Examiner Readers
4:31 PM MST on Fri., Sep. 26, 2008 re: "Military reviews placing special ops on U.S. soil"
Report as inappropriate
12:52 AM MST on Fri., Jan. 11, 2008
re: "Military reviews placing special ops on U.S. soil"
Report as inappropriate
12:27 PM MST on Tue., Jul. 31, 2007
re: "Military reviews placing special ops on U.S. soil"
Report as inappropriate
8:28 AM MST on Fri., Jul. 6, 2007
re: "Military reviews placing special ops on U.S. soil"
Report as inappropriate
2:33 PM MST on Sat., Jun. 23, 2007
re: "Military reviews placing special ops on U.S. soil"
Report as inappropriate
2:14 PM MST on Sat., Jun. 23, 2007
re: "Military reviews placing special ops on U.S. soil"
Report as inappropriate
1:26 PM MST on Thu., Jun. 21, 2007
re: "Military reviews placing special ops on U.S. soil"
Report as inappropriate
1:01 PM MST on Thu., Jun. 21, 2007
re: "Military reviews placing special ops on U.S. soil"
Report as inappropriate
11:12 AM MST on Thu., Jun. 21, 2007
re: "Military reviews placing special ops on U.S. soil"
Report as inappropriate
8:59 AM MST on Thu., Jun. 21, 2007
re: "Military reviews placing special ops on U.S. soil"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
the special forces know how terrorists think because they are trained in the same tactics, which our government uses as tools to create unrest around the globe. Just a couple of months ago it's leaked that the vice president and his advisers were discussing different falseflag possibilities that could be used as a pretext to invade Iran. One involved using members of the special forces, in fabricated iranian pt boats and uniforms, to attack U.S.Naval ships; a scenario chillingly similar to the Gulf of Tonkin incident that was used as a pretext for the vietnam war. The facts show that the only real domestic threat to our country is the current administration and it's trotskyists/pnac cronies, which are responsible for our current financial situation and our crumbling social programs. Our founding father were not swayed by threats, ruled by fear, or cowardly in the face of adversity; so why are we now far from these same values. domestic use of the military is a serious threat to us all
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
hello are there any books out there that i can on specail ops in sercureing us in the 21st century thanks my email is sam_92501@yahoo.com
31 agree | 34 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
As a Disabled Veteran and bing in and around the Military I feel it would be to our advantage to have Special Men and Women from the Armed Forces out there with their eyes and ears on the ground. The FBI is doing one of the best jobs in the world at stopping things before they could develope and happen. Without these brave men and women our Nation would have been hit many times if the truth was known. However they cannot handle it all and sometimes even the best needs a helping hand. Our Special Forces have been there done that and know how the terrorist minds work. They can go to ground and disappear and find folks and information that local and Federal law enforcement could not even begin to touch. We are now living in a world where all of the rules have been thrown out the window and it's fight dirty to win if that is what it takes. The terrorist struck first, now let them feel the might of our great men and women of the Armed Services. Bay back is a Bi--h! Plus GOD is with us all!
159 agree | 86 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
We already saw what military support to federal agencies (FBI, BATFE) does. They have burned men, women and their children en-masse. Waco, Texas.
170 agree | 129 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
We who have only been attacked twice on our shores with two incidents-Pearl Harbor and 9/11 forget that England survived multiple bomb attacks for so long that they shipped their children off to stay with unknown families just to get them out of the cities! The used trained volunteers, local police, their "FBI" type bureau and their Home Guard........they didn't need marshal law either, although they did have curfews. Are Americans so puny that we need absolute military control under a unitary president to survive bombs here? Even with a nuclear blast, there is only so much the military could do anyway. The British and many European countries must think us daft to give up so much of our freedom to feel 'safe', after what they have experienced which we never have~will our fear will lead us into a governance of such federal control that we may never be rid of it. Once a freedom is forfeited, is extremely difficult to get it back. A study of history is absolute proof of that fa
209 agree | 140 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
If the command of NORAD had been left in the hands of the military rather than Donald Rumsfield, there were have been immediate response to the hijacked airliners, as NORAD was set up to do. Having had an uncle in high command with NORAD during the 60's and 70's, I can tell you that planes would have been immediately in the air from more than a dozen bases then had an airliner been hijacked. This administration just wants military muscle to back it up because people are so disgusted with it they are in the mood to see it impeached- it has nothing to do with protecting this country from any terrorist threat. Believe it.
206 agree | 148 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Re the 1st comment: Posse Comitatus was gutted by the John Warner Defense Authorization Bill last year. Remember that?
212 agree | 184 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Horsepuckey. First of all, "SOCNORTH" would not be used for intelligence collection or anything else violating Posse Comitatus. The purpose would be to assist domestic law enforcement when they have situations that they never have been able to handle. Terrorists and nuclear weapons, for example. Oh, PS ? Special Ops has been providing this exact kind of support to domestic agencies for the past 30 years. Nothing new except for, potentially, a new bureaucracy and another General Officer slot. :(
200 agree | 160 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The military needs SOF to be prepared for attacks on US soil. That is the purpose of the SOF a rapid reponse team.
197 agree | 115 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
"The possibility for military operations in the U.S. is something that we have to plan for in the age of international terrorism," said Daniel Gallington, a former policy adviser to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. This really says it all. Note that Mr. Gallington was a deputy to Rumsfeld. We know that Rumsfeld is increasing SOF and its intelligences capabilities as part of the Office of Special Operations to augment domestic spying and other questionable legal activities. The US does not need the military to be conducting intelligence operations on home soil. This is the responsibility of the FBI. Using SOF, who answer to the military chain of command, is not sufficiently protected by checks and balances, i.e. the US court system. Potential for abuse is very high. Gen. Gene Renuart should be complemented on his skepticism of his predecessor’s request.
241 agree | 164 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree