Buy Viagra Without Prescription - Trusted Online Pharmacy

News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security

July 8, 2010

Sildenafil Citrate From Canada

Sildenafil citrate from canada, In the opening days of his administration, President Obama wrote, "I believe that Homeland Security is indistinguishable from National Security -- conceptually and functionally, they should be thought of together rather than separately.  Instead of separating these issues, we must create an integrated, effective, and efficient approach to enhance the national security of the United States." (See: Presidential Study Directive 1)

I testified against this proposition before the House Homeland Security Committee.  I continue to have conceptual and functional reservations.  But today I will embrace the President's belief and offer a prescription for improving integration, effectiveness, and efficiency. Online tadalafil gel to buy, For this purpose, greater energy and attention  should be given to a specific recommendation of the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review.  From page 71 of the QHSR:

Build a homeland security professional discipline: Develop the homeland security community of interest at all levels of government as part of a cadre of national security professionals, drug cialis. Herbal tadalafil, A well-documented need within the national security community is a professional development program that fosters a stable and diverse community of professionals with the proper balance of relevant skills, attributes, buy herbal viagra, Cream female sildenafil citrate vigorelle, experiences, and comprehensive knowledge, pfizer sildenafil citrate cheap. Buy inurl sildenafil citrate sildenafil citrate, Executive Order 13434, "National Security Professional Development, buy real cialis without prescription, Sildenafil citrate jokes, " initiated a program for developing interagency national security professionals through access to an integrated framework of training, education, vigor 2000, Female viagra cream, and professional experience opportunities. We must work together with our national security partners in bringing that important idea to fruition, viagra capsules. As part of that effort, we must take steps to create a homeland security community of interest across the enterprise, sildenafil citrate from canada. Sildenafil citrate patent, Three elements of professional development are education, training, sildenafil citrate available in india, Oral viagra, and experience via developmental assignments. State, pharmacie cialis bon marché, Tadalafil next day delivery, local, tribal, selling tadalafil, Cheap less cialis, and territorial governments, DHS and other Federal agencies, sildenafil citrate recipe, Cialis how it works, and academic institutions have taken important steps to build programs to support these key areas and will continue to emphasize enterprise-wide approaches to enhancing homeland security professional development.

The National Security Professional Development (NSPD) program established under Executive Order 13434 (May 17, 2007) has, cialis original pfizer order, Viagra patent, to date, been implemented with a bureaucratic minimalism that  has done nothing to enhance capability or capacity in either National Security or Homeland Security, viagra without a prescription, Cheap link suggest viagra, much less for the Platonic form in which these security shadows become an indistinguishable whole.

Today (and for most of the last seventy years) there are various orders of a national security priesthood.  The combination of rigorous education, apprenticeship, mentoring, and field experience required for ordination is reminiscent of the Jesuits at high tide.   There is also competition -- sometimes friendly, sometimes not -- between the national security analogs of Jesuits, Benedictines, and Franciscans spanning the military, diplomacy, intelligence, and related.

Into this mix the so-called homeland security professions -- law enforcement, fire, emergency management, public health, and more -- arrive like so many fancy-dressed laity. We are Knights of Columbus who the priestly orders tolerate, encourage, or dismiss depending on personal taste or particular need.

EO 13434 and PSD-1 and the QHSR seem to say that priests and laity should learn together and collaborate toward the same purpose.   If the NSPD  program was undertaken earnestly and mindfully over the next thirty years then, perhaps, the President's vision could be achieved.   Such is not the case today, to our detriment.

Similar posts: Cheap viagra online cheap. Buy cheap sildenafil citrate. Ordering viagra without prescription. Buy cialis c.o.d.. Viagra cheap. Buy viagra online legally.
Trackbacks from: Sildenafil citrate from canada. Sildenafil citrate from canada. Sildenafil citrate from canada. Sildenafil citrate from canada. Sildenafil citrate from canada. Sildenafil citrate from canada.

July 3, 2010

Order Sildenafil Citrate

Filed under: Homeland Defense,Legal Issues,Organizational Issues — by Philip J. Palin on July 3, 2010

Order sildenafil citrate, On the eve of Independence Day -- on one of the most beautiful afternoons of the year so far -- long-time contributor William R. Cumming has raised an intriguing issue regarding an instruction released by President Obama. 


The issue was a particular concern of the Founders and deserves our continued vigilence.  I happen to disagree with Bill's interpretation, but I cannot claim the President's language or intent is altogether clear.  So we begin with the President's words and then continue to Bill's and my own. 

The White House


 June 30, 2010


Memorandum from the President on the Long-Term Gulf Coast Restoration Support Plan


SUBJECT: Long-Term Gulf Coast Restoration Support Plan

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced. The oil spill represents just the latest blow to an area that has already suffered significant hardship, spain female cialis. In addition to fighting the spill, conducting environmental cleanup, and ensuring such a crisis does not happen again, Tadalafil seizures, we must help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy. A long-term plan to restore the unique beauty and bounty of this region is therefore necessary.

As I announced on June 15, 2010, and pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I assign to the Secretary of the Navy (Secretary) the responsibility to lead the effort to create a plan of Federal support for the long-term economic and environmental restoration of the Gulf Coast region, zocor alternative sildenafil citrate, in coordination with States, local communities, tribes, Cialis available in india, people whose livelihoods depend on the Gulf, businesses, conservationists, scientists, and other entities and persons as he deems necessary, viagra online pharmacy. In addition to working with these stakeholders, the Secretary shall coordinate, as appropriate, with the heads of executive departments and agencies, as well as offices within the Executive Office of the President (collectively, executive branch components), order sildenafil citrate.

Specifically, I direct the following:

Section 1. As soon as possible, Original use of viagra, the Secretary shall develop a Gulf Coast Restoration Support Plan (Plan), based on the following principles:

(a) The Plan shall provide a comprehensive assessment of post-spill needs, as well as a proposal for Federal assistance in the overall recovery of the region.

(b) The purpose of the Plan shall be to develop an approach that will ensure economic recovery, community planning, cheapest prices on tadalafil, science-based restoration of the ecosystem and environment, public health and safety efforts, and support of individuals and businesses who suffered losses due to the spill. Herbal tadalafil,

(c) The Plan shall take into account resources already available to respond to the oil spill, and complement the on-going oil spill response efforts. Order sildenafil citrate, The Secretary will also coordinate, as needed, with the State, Federal, and tribal trustees who have responsibility for directing the natural resource damage planning process under the Oil Pollution Act and other applicable law.

(d) The Plan shall identify long- and short-term objectives and, where applicable, how the achievement of these objectives will be measured, tadalafil how it works.

Sec. 2. (a) This assignment is prescribed as an additional responsibility of the Secretary in accordance with section 5013 of title 10, Generic viagra pay pal, United States Code. This additional responsibility may not be delegated under section 5013(f) of title 10, United States Code, order sildenafil citrate. (b) To assist in accomplishing the directive in section 1 of this memorandum, executive branch components shall make available information and other resources, including personnel, deemed by the Secretary to be necessary for development of the Plan, women does tadalafil work.

Sec. 3. (a) Executive branch components shall carry out the provisions of this memorandum to the extent permitted by law, Recreational tadalafil, subject to the availability of appropriations, and consistent with their statutory and regulatory authorities and their enforcement mechanisms.

 (b) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, cheap generic overnight tadalafil, or legislative proposals.

Order sildenafil citrate, (c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. Nothing in this memorandum shall relieve or otherwise affect the obligations of any responsible party under the Oil Pollution Act or other applicable law.

Sec. Buy generic viagra india rx, 4. The Secretary is hereby authorized to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

Signed/ BARACK OBAMA

--+--


Commenting on a prior post Mr. Cumming wrote:

Yes and the oldest and richest democracy (Republic) has now celebrated July 4th by putting the US Navy in charge of long term recovery in the Gulf of Mexico, order sildenafil citrate. The militarization of US domestic policy continues apace just as in foreign policy and relations. Salute that flag.

To which I replied:

Bill, online order url tadalafil, Where did you see the US Navy assignment. I know about Secretary Mabus’ assignment. Order sildenafil citrate, But I have perceived that as separate from his SecNav role — and much more connected to his background as a former Governor of Mississippi. If that’s wrong, Tadalafil free trial, want to know more.

Mr. Cumming responded:

Presidential proclamation published in Tuesday’s Federal Register. Sent it to you and will send again. John Paul Jones to the rescue, order sildenafil citrate.

To which I responded:

Bill, cheap viagra, thanks for resending the reference. For the benefit of other readers a web version is available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/memorandum-president-long-term-gulf-coast-restoration-support-plan

As you know, I share your concern regarding militarization of government operations. Koop korting cialis, As such, it is certainly appropriate to raise the concern in this case.

I would offer, however, that based on the (little) I know and my own reading of the President’s memorandum, generic tadalafil canada, I understand that Secretary Mabus is, essentially, being seconded from his current role as SecNav to a leadership position for both the National Security Staff and Domestic Policy Staff.

This is my reading of the intent of the following:

Order sildenafil citrate, In addition to working with these stakeholders, the Secretary shall coordinate, as appropriate, with the heads of executive departments and agencies, as well as offices within the Executive Office of the President(collectively,executive branch components).

The reference to Executive Office of the President includes both NSS and DPS, especially a well-established recovery working group spanning the two EOP functions. Where can i buy real sildenafil citrate, I agree the situation is ambiguous. I bet there will be some SecNav staff involved. And this is another example of an increasing tendency for us to turn to military resources (active or retired) for commmand and operational competence. It is a worrisome trend.

Mr, order sildenafil citrate. Cumming respectfully disagreed:

Having read thousands of these memos it looks like a formal delegation of authority to me, veega. See 3 USC Section 301. By passes SECDEF and others. But hey Phil you could be right and only a designation. Order sildenafil citrate, As always I could be wrong but a designation names a person while a delegation names a postion. Buy tadalafil tadalafil, Basic black letter ADMINISTRATIVE LAW.

I guess this WH knows the difference and did what they wanted to do (accomplish). Even though Roy Mabus is former governor in a Gulf Coast state I could name perhaps a 100 others better qualified to save the states of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, tadalafil in canada pfizer, Louisiana and TEXAS. In fact why not George W. Bush, tan, rested and ready, order sildenafil citrate. Give him a chance to redeem his Katrina castrophic efforts. Alternative search cialis, This is not a joke. At least he is not eligible for re-election [but of course Jeb is also tan, rested and waiting his turn). Hey this is a bipartisan or non-partisan response effort correct.

To which I offered a sort of rebuttal: Order sildenafil citrate, I will further note that Title 10 USC, section 5013 (f) as referenced in the President’s memorandum reads:

The Secretary of the Navy may assign such of his functions, powers, and duties as he considers appropriate to the Under Secretary of the Navy and to the Assistant Secretaries of the Navy. Officers of the Navy and the Marine Corps shall, tadalafil online, as directed by the Secretary, report on any matter to the Secretary, the Under Secretary, or any Assistant Secretary.

The President’s memorandum explicitly excludes delegation under paragraph 5013 (f), which — at least in my reading — is the White House effort to give the former Governor, who happens to be SecNav, an additional duty, but to avoid militarizing the additional duty.

I wonder if there might not have been a less ambiguous way of accomplishing the same thing, but there seems to me a pretty clear and appropriate effort to focus this additional role outside the Department of the Navy.

--+--


Before retirement Bill Cumming was a long-time lawyer with the US government.  I am neither a lawyer nor an experienced government official. If you have further insights -- or suggestions -- please add your comments.

.

Similar posts: Order propecia. Order clomid no prescription. Soma over the counter. Viagra prices. Ordering viagra online legally. Buy viagra from canada.
Trackbacks from: Order sildenafil citrate. Order sildenafil citrate. Order sildenafil citrate. Order sildenafil citrate. Order sildenafil citrate. Order sildenafil citrate.

January 19, 2010

Viagra Sale

Filed under: General Homeland Security,Homeland Defense — by Christopher Bellavita on January 19, 2010

Viagra sale, On Friday (January 15), the Department of Defense released Protecting the Force: Lessons from Fort Hood

The people in and around Ft. Hood responded to the November 5, 2009 shooting about as perfectly as one could hope.

Four minutes and twenty seconds after the first 911 call, Viagra prescription, “the assailant was incapacitated.”  Two minutes and fifty seconds later “two ambulances and an incident command vehicle ... arrived on the scene....”

But still, 13 people were killed; 43 wounded or injured.

The Report is a painfully somber reminder that freedom’s price remains eternal vigilance.

For most of the past 20 years, the authors note, “our forces have been engaged in continuous combat operations.”

Eternal vigilance does not mean simply staying alert.  It also means as good as we get, it’s never going to be perfect.  There will always be surprise, viagra sale.

Freedom demands a vigilance that knows it will be surprised, Missouri MO Mo. .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some excerpts (with my headings) from the Report.  It is a well written and comprehensive -- within its charter - document.  But sadly for many people in homeland defense and homeland security, it is not the first time such a report has been written.

The Report’s uniqueness may be found mostly in lessons that possibly are new to the DoD, Order viagra, but that are disquietingly -- even banally -- familiar to civilians in the  homeland security realm.

ON WHERE THE THREAT COMES FROM
DoD force protection policies are not optimized for countering internal threats. These policies reflect insufficient knowledge and awareness of the factors required to help identify and address individuals likely to commit violence.  This is a key deficiency.

ON THE NEED TO IMPROVE INFORMATION SHARING
Viagra sale, The time has passed when bureaucratic concerns by specific entities over protecting “their” information can be allowed to prevent relevant threat information and indicators from reaching those who need it—the commanders. In this rapidly changing security environment throughout our government, the Department of Defense can exercise its role to set the bar higher to establish a new force protection culture, with new standards and procedures for sharing information, comprar viagra, to recognize and defeat evolving external and internal threats.

ON FIGURING OUT  THE BEST STRUCTURE FOR RESPONDING TO A MUMBAI STYLE ATTACK
While leaders at Fort Hood responded well under the stress of a rapidly evolving crisis, we are fortunate that we faced only one incident at one location. We cannot assume that this will remain the case in the future. Cheap viagra pills, Our command and control systems must have the right architecture, connectivity, portability, and flexibility to enable commanders to cope with near-simultaneous incidents at multiple locations. ..., Hawaii HI . Considering the requirements for dealing with multiple, near-simultaneous incidents similar to Fort Hood, a review of the Unified Command Plan may be in order.

ON LETTING OTHERS KNOW WHAT’S GOING ON
During the initial stages of the attack at Fort Hood, commanders and first responders, unsure of the nature of the threat, and in an effort to maximize their security posture, set and maintained Force Protection Condition Delta, viagra sale. There were apparently no indications that the rest of CONUS DoD force was immediately notified of the event; most installations and units first found out about the event through the news media. This was a single event, but had it been the first in a series of coordinated, Oklahoma OK Okla. , near simultaneous attacks, most other DoD installations and facilities would not have been properly postured for an attack. The timely sharing of incident information could have served to alert other forces within the Area of Responsibility to take the prepare-and-defend actions necessary to harden themselves before a near simultaneous attack comes to them.

[Compare this with complaints from some pilots in the air during the December 25th attack on NW 253 that the first time they heard of the incident was on the ground when they turned on CNN -- e.g.,  Pilot furious at U.S. for silence on bomb ]

ON HAVING A COMMON OPERATIONAL PICTURE
A Common Operational Picture is “a single identical display of relevant information shared by more than one command.”..., cheap viagra. Viagra sale, A Common Operational Picture provides a standardized, continuously updated, multiple-user capability to produce reports, mapping, imagery, and real time information sharing between multiple subscribers.  Information sharing and establishing a Common Operational Picture is vital to coordinating efforts of multiple emergency response agencies’ and facilitates’ collaborative planning at all echelons to achieve situational awareness.... Services have not widely deployed or integrated a Common Operational Picture capability into installation Emergency Operations Centers....

ON BEING NIMS COMPLIANT, "JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE" [sic]
In 2009, the Department directed the Services to be in compliance with the Federal framework for emergency response by 2014. Maine ME Me. , Compliance with this guidance will enhance the ability of the Department’s installation and facility emergency personnel to work with first responders from Federal, State, and local jurisdictions to save lives and protect property....  The Department of Defense guidance was promulgated in part to align the Department with national response policies and establish the Installation Emergency Management program.  The Installation Emergency Management program directs the Services to adopt the National Incident Management System, which Federal, State, Mississippi MS Miss. , and local agencies have already adopted. ....  Currently all 50 states have complied with the Federal requirements.

ON NOT HAVING ANY PLACE TO HIDE
This event shows us, too, Kentucky KY Ky. , that there are no safe havens—for Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, their co-workers and their families, köpa viagra online. The challenge for the Department of Defense is to prepare more effectively for a constantly changing security environment.

ON ONE TEAM, ONE FIGHT -- FOR REAL
Synchronize the Continental United States (CONUS)-based DoD emergency management program with the national emergency management framework. Our installations must have a common operating system that allows commanders to access real-time threat information, respond rapidly to changing force protection conditions, and begin response and recovery operations in near real time.  This is an aggressive goal, but it matches the goals and character of future enemies.

ON A NEW PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN DOD AND THE FBI
Act immediately with the Federal Bureau of Investigation to enhance the operation of the Joint Terrorism Task Forces, viagra sale. To protect the force, Buy cheap viagra, our leaders need immediate access to information pertaining to Service members indicating contacts, connections, or relationships with organizations promoting violence.  One additional step may be to increase Service representation on the Joint Terrorism Task Forces....  eGuardian is the only Suspicious Activity Reporting system that communicates directly with the FBI’s JTTFs, and if adopted by the Department of Defense would allow designated DoD law enforcement assets access to receive and input suspicious activity. This would also provide an additional method by which threat information would flow from the Department of Defense to the FBI, buy viagra without prescription, in situations where the Department of Justice has an investigative interest. Adoption of eGuardian is currently the recommended solution being proposed by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense for the Department of Defense.

ON MAYBE IT IS TIME TO FIX THIS MULTI-AGENCY SECURITY CLEARANCE MESS
In the Fort Hood incident, the alleged perpetrator held an active and current SECRET security clearance based on a February 2008 National Agency Check, Oregon OR Ore. , with Local Agency and Credit Check of background investigation. Although accomplished in accordance with current guidelines, this background investigation did not include a subject interview or interviews with co-workers, supervisors, or expanded character references.  We believe that if a more thorough investigation had been accomplished, buy viagra online legally, his security clearance may have been revoked and his continued service and pending deployment would have been subject to increased scrutiny.

ON GETTING AHEAD OF THE CYBER THREAT WHILE WE MAY STILL HAVE A CHANCE
The evolving security threat increasingly involves information exchanges using the Internet.   There are numerous DoD and interagency organizations and offices involved in defense cyber activities.  The Department of Defense does not have a comprehensive and coordinated policy for counterintelligence activities in cyberspace.

ON CHILDREN -- THE DOD IS ABOUT WHERE MOST OF THE CIVILIAN SECTOR IS
We especially note that as a result of the Force Protection Condition imposed by Fort Hood leadership during the crisis, a number of young school children remained closeted in their classrooms for a significant period.  Our recommendation is that those responsible for them at school (e. Viagra sale, g. , Order viagra online without prescription, teachers, administrative personnel) receive additional training to anticipate the special needs that could arise during a period of lengthy lockdown.

ON DISASTERS AND THE MINISTRY
Our examination underscored that the Chaplain Corps has a great deal to offer in a mass casualty situation. Responding to mass casualty events requires more than the traditional first responder disciplines such as police, fire, and medical professionals, köpa billiga viagra. Comprehensive religious support that anticipates mass casualty incidents should be incorporated into installation emergency management plans and exercises.

ON OUR OBLIGATIONS TO EACH OTHER
... reinforce the fabric of trust with one another by engaging, supervising, Rabatt kaufen viagra, mentoring, counseling, and simple everyday expressions of concern on a daily and continuous basis... We must be alert to the mental, emotional, and spiritual balance of Service members, colleagues, and civilian coworkers, and respond when they appear at risk.

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

One of the more interesting appendices in the Report was a literature review briefly summarizing the last 10 years of research on workplace violence -- which is one mundane way to look at the November 5 event:

Each year, more than one million people in the U.S, viagra sale. are harmed by workplace violence, and an estimated 17, ordering viagra no rx,000 take their own lives in their place of employment.  The portrait of the “disgruntled” employee who “goes postal” and kills a supervisor does not encompass the full array of workplace homicides: customers, clients, peers, Osta alennus viagra, and superiors are also responsible. The rates of workplace violence in the U.S. Postal Service are actually lower than in the general workforce, so that organization, despite the popular phrase, order viagra c.o.d., does not provide a “worst case” for study.

The Report includes something else I had not read before:

Although domestic terrorism is far more common than international terrorism,[ my emphasis] research on terrorism focuses on the latter.  Motivations for domestic terrorism are diverse, and include animal rights, Cheap viagra overnight delivery, environmentalism, nationalism, white supremacy, religious causes, and right-wing politics, generic viagra. Overall, acts of domestic terrorism tend to occur in large urban areas and target the police and military forces.

The Report recommends the DoD become more aware of civilian law enforcement’s active shooter tactics.  One footnote recommends a Department of  Homeland Security “booklet” on active shooter response (available here, thanks to the Missouri Office of Homeland Security). Buy viagra c.o.d., I don’t know how or why the Department of Homeland Security, the National Tactical Officers Association, the Fairfax County Police, the National Retail Federation, and the Retail Industry Leaders Association got together to produce what I thought was a very informative (for the uninformed like me) booklet.

But who cares.

Eternal vigilance means sometimes you have to get into someone else’s lane.

Similar posts: Viagra pills. Ordering viagra online cheap. Generic viagra. Order soma. Cheap viagra no prescription. Order diazepam without prescription.
Trackbacks from: Viagra sale. Viagra sale. Viagra sale. Viagra sale. Viagra sale. Viagra sale.

September 15, 2009

The Rubicon once seemed so far away

Filed under: Homeland Defense,State and Local HLS,Strategy — by Philip J. Palin on September 15, 2009
Six powerful Congressmen and Senators of both major parties request a GAO study of  NORTHCOM's "coordination when exercising in collaboration with the very State, local, and tribal governments that the Command was created to support."  Then the study's results are published on the eighth anniversary of the September 11 attacks. Might we discern an agenda? Following are three GAO findings.  Each is a quote, but I have pulled the quote out of a longer narrative.  I then add a personal comment in italics. (You can see the original report courtesy of the House Homeland Security website.) Thus sayeth GAO, "One of DOD’s challenges is adapting its exercise system and practices to accommodate the coordination and involvement of other federal, state, local, and tribal agencies that do not have the same kinds of practices or level of planning effort." Most other jurisdictions or agencies don't have money or trained staff to effectively hold their own with NORTHCOM's exercise development capacity.  The financial ratio is hundreds-to-one, the NORTHCOM staff advantage might be close to the same. Thus sayeth GAO, "NORTHCOM also faces the challenge of balancing its training objectives with those of state agencies and organizations, particularly given the limited resources and funding states have available to exercise. While state and local governments seek to exercise their first responder capabilities before having their resources overwhelmed and needing to seek federal assistance, NORTHCOM’s goal is to exercise its capability to provide support to civil authorities when local, state, and other federal resources are overwhelmed. As a result of this challenge, officials from 5 states told us that all of their needs were not fully met during the exercises, for example, due to large-scale, unrealistic scenarios that overwhelmed the states’ resources before they had the opportunity to exercise their training objectives." This reality, which the language above makes clear enough, has a troublesome follow-on implication. Law, doctrine, and DOD training emphasize defense support for civil authority.  But because DOD exercises simulate the essential collapse of state and local civil authority, it is more accurate to say exercises are aimed at restoring civil authority.  The more difficult and helpful exercise would be to simulate disasters where federal military assets are deployed at the request of the Governor(s) and where local and state authority remains partially -- even unpredictably -- intact.  This will exercise unity of effort in a manner that will challenge the military chain of command to more effectively adapt to the tactical, operational, political, and constitutional realities of domestic service. Thus sayeth GAO, "Inconsistencies with how NORTHCOM involves states in planning, conducting, and assessing exercises are occurring in part because NORTHCOM officials lack experience in dealing with the differing emergency management structures, capabilities, and needs of the states. Inconsistencies are also occurring because NORTHCOM has not established a process for including states in exercises, such as consistent procedures for requesting state involvement in exercises through DHS/FEMA or the National Guard Bureau. Without an informed and consistent process, NORTHCOM increases the risk that its exercises will not provide benefits for all participants, impacting the seamless exercise of all levels of government and potentially affecting NORTHCOM’s ability to provide support to civil authorities." Well, yes... but GAO's language is so careful, it is potentially misleading.  It is reasonable to wonder if AFRICOM might show greater restraint and do more to involve and upgrade local capacity than does NORTHCOM. There is a passive aggressive aspect to NORTHCOM that reflects unresolved issues -- urgently needing resolution -- of having a fully functioning Combatant Command "responsible" for the United States.  Better processes are certainly needed, but the issues go much deeper.  NORTHCOM was created quickly, spontaneously emerging from the forehead of Rumsfeld, so to speak.  There is a Combatant Command clubhouse in which careerists at Colorado Springs will naturally want to play.  No disrespect need be implied by insisting NORTHCOM should not be part of that clubhouse. Full disclosure: Until my semi-retirement in June 2008 I worked closely with a NORTHCOM function related to training and exercising.  Every person with whom I worked recognized the  problems outlined above -- though they may be uncomfortable with the language I use.  They actively invited more involvement of state, local, and tribal authorities.  They welcomed the initiative of such authorities.  They were ready to adjust exercise designs and training regimes to involve more locals and more non-military federal personnel. But it was like an NFL team welcoming the local high school team to play with them.  The prep team might initially be excited by the prospect.  But the match-up would usually be so uneven as to be dangerous... for all involved. Strategically and operationally -- but most especially constitutionally -- this is an issue that requires (among other measures) long-term, very significant upgrades to state, local, and tribal capacity in training, educating, and exercising.
(The headline references the Rubicon River.  Ancient Roman law forbade any Legion to cross the river, roughly 200 miles north of Rome, without specific permission of the Senate.   The law was designed to minimize the Republic's risk of internal military mischief.  The Rubicon was famously crossed by Julius Caesar and his Gallic Legions in 49 BC, leading to the demise of the Republic.)

August 22, 2009

Jim and Joe write Carl and John

Filed under: Homeland Defense — by Philip J. Palin on August 22, 2009
There is another letter circulating related to Assistant Secretary Stockton's proposal to put in place a legal basis for federal activation of reserves for disaster response.  See related prior posts here and here. Below the NGA gives further attention to activating the Council of Governors established by the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. See related coverage by Roxana Tiron in The Hill and Megan Scully at govexec.com. LETTER FROM THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION August 20, 2009
The Honorable Carl Levin Chairman Committee on Armed Services United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable John McCain Ranking Member Committee on Armed Services United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain: The nation's governors oppose efforts to provide the Secretary of Defense with expanded authorities to assist in the response to domestic disasters as part of this year's National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Governors remain concerned regarding proposed changes to the military’s authority to engage independently in domestic emergency response situations. We strongly believe the consideration of any such proposals should be preceded by a discussion regarding the tactical control of forces serving inside a state during a disaster response. It is our understanding that the Department of Defense (DoD) has asked Congress to grant the Secretary of Defense the authority to order Reserve forces to active duty to assist in disaster response as part of the NDAA conference agreement for Fiscal Year 2010. As you know, a similar provision was included in last year's House version of the NDAA, but was removed in conference because of governors’ concerns. In the Joint Explanatory Statement that accompanied the bill, Congress made clear that DoD should engage governors to address their concerns before moving the proposal forward: "The Department of Defense should engage with the community of governors to work out an understanding of unity of effort during domestic terrorist events and public emergencies. This key underlying issue must be addressed to allow this and other promising proposals to be enacted." Recent outreach by officials at DoD to correspond with governors regarding their proposal is not sufficient to engender governors' support or justify moving ahead with the proposal at this time. As set forth in the attached letter we sent recently to Paul Stockton, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs, governors welcome the opportunity to work with DoD to discuss unity of effort and tactical control during disasters and to identify legislative and operational opportunities to improve our response to such events. These discussions, however, should not be done hastily and should be designed to address concerns and forge understanding between governors and the department. Fortunately Congress created the appropriate forum for discussing this issue when it called for the creation of the Council of Governors as part of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008. We've encouraged DoD and the Administration to establish the Council of Governors to facilitate consultation and coordination between the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and governors on issues critical to homeland defense and emergency response. Your support in ensuring the Council of Governors is quickly established would help facilitate the dialog that must take place before any legislation regarding these issues moves forward. Sincerely,
Governor James H. Douglas Chair Governor Joe Manchin III Vice Chair
cc: The Honorable Ike Skelton, Chairman, House Armed Services Committee The Honorable Buck McKeon, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee

August 17, 2009

The Epistle of Paul to the Governors (updated)

Filed under: Homeland Defense — by Philip J. Palin on August 17, 2009
Last week's late Thursday post on the National Governors' Association response to a DOD proposal generated more readers than any post since I joined HLSWatch.    But it was a post about the NGA response to a proposal not seen, at least not seen here. The NGA response was -- predictably -- less-than-enthusiastic.  Here's the proposed legislative language being offered by DoD:

SEC. ___.  AUTHORITY TO ORDER ARMY RESERVE, NAVY RESERVE, MARINE CORPS RESERVE, AND AIR FORCE RESERVE TO ACTIVE DUTY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE IN RESPONSE TO A MAJOR DISASTER OR EMERGENCY. (a) AUTHORITY.- (1) IN GENERAL.-Chapter 1209 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 12304 the following new section: "§ 12304a. Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Air Force Reserve: order to active duty to provide assistance in response to a major disaster or emergency "(a) AUTHORITY.-Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to provide assistance in responding to a major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), the Secretary of Defense may, without the consent of the member affected, order any unit, and any member not assigned to a unit organized to serve as a unit, of the Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Air Force Reserve, under the jurisdiction of that Secretary to active duty for a continuous period of not more than 120 days. "(b) EXCLUSION FROM STRENGTH LIMITATIONS.-Members ordered to active duty under this section shall not be counted in computing authorized strength of members on active duty or members in grade under this title or any other law. "(c) TERMINATION OF DUTY.-Whenever any unit or member of the Reserves is ordered to active duty under this section, the service of all units or members so ordered to active duty may be terminated by order of the Secretary of Defense or law." (2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.-The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 12304 the following new item: "12304a. Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, Air Force Reserve: order to active duty to provide assistance in response to a major disaster or emergency.". (b) TREATMENT OF OPERATIONS AS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.-Section 101(a)(13)(B) of such title is amended by inserting "12304a," after "12304,". Further, at the close of this post  is the late July letter of Paul N. Stockton, Assistant Secretary of Defense (Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs) to the NGA chairman regarding the proposed legislative language.  Through a staff colleague, Dr. Stockton has also passed along this further response:

Philip J. Palin's August 13, 2009 article "Govs to DoD: Thanks, but no thanks" was a great overview of the debate on the Department of Defense legislative proposal that seeks the authority to order Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force Reserves to active duty to assist in responses  to major disasters and emergencies in the United States.  I would like to emphasize that our proposal does not seek to usurp the authorities of Governors but rather ensure the federal government is able to respond with ALL available and appropriate resources when requested by a state.   As AP reporter Lolita Baldor aptly wrote, "California officials grew irate when they saw helicopters sitting idle at Camp Pendleton as fires raged through the countryside."  While the Pentagon was able to direct active duty Marine helicopter units to respond to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's request for aid, (DoD) could not order the nearby Marine Corps Reserve units to do the same.  If passed, our legislative proposal will ensure that our Nation is able to access and utilize all of our capabilities during a disaster to include those in the military reserves, when requested by a Governor.

Tracking the surge of new readers on Friday and Saturday it is pretty clear that many readers of last week's post are concerned about an incremental acquisition of power by the central government producing a slippery slope to tyranny.   As Dr. Stockton's comments suggest, this concern is in tension with taking prudent steps to ensure a constitutional and effective federal response to a catastrophic disaster. 

Is there a reasonable accommodation of the tension?  Probably worth a real discussion that includes some careful listening by all sides. Following are two JPEG images of Paul Stockton's original letter.  I understand these are barely readable.  I will eventually pound out a text version of the letter, but given other commitments today, this is the best I can do and get this to you in a timely way. stockton_page-1

 

stock_page-2

August 13, 2009

Govs to DoD: Thanks, but no thanks

Filed under: Homeland Defense,State and Local HLS — by Philip J. Palin on August 13, 2009
On August 7 the National Governors Association replied to a letter evidently received from Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Stockton.  The content of this letter is extracted below. I have not yet seen a copy of the original letter from Dr. Stockton. According to Matthew Rothschild in The Progressive, the letter signals an intention to seek Congressional approval to post almost 400,000 military personnel in the U.S.  Rothschild continues, "This request has already occasioned a dispute with the nation’s governors. And it raises the prospect of U.S. military personnel patrolling the streets of the United States, in conflict with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878."  AP reporter Lolita Baldor offers a more expansive explanation for the governors' concern.  "At the heart of the disagreement is who will exercise the muscle to command reserve troops when they are sent to a particular state to deal with a hurricane, wildfire or other disaster. The governors see the Pentagon move as a strike at state sovereignty, while the military justifies it as a natural extension of its use of federal forces." Writing in The Hill, Reid Wilson, reports, "A bipartisan pair of governors is opposing a new Defense Department proposal to handle natural and terrorism-related disasters, contending that a murky chain of command could lead to more problems than solutions." A regular reader of HLSwatch suggests there is very helpful background in a  November 2008 CRS report, written by Jennifer Elsea and Chuck Mason, entitled: Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues.  The first paragraph is a great one, "Recognizing the risk that a standing army could pose to individual civil liberties and the sovereignty retained by the several states, but also cognizant of the need to provide for the defense of the nation against foreign and domestic threats, the framers of the Constitution incorporated a system of checks and balances to divide the control of the military between the President and Congress and to share the control of the militia with the states. This report summarizes the constitutional and statutory authorities and limitations relevant to the employment of the armed forces to provide disaster relief and law enforcement assistance." At this point, I don't have anything to add that you can't find in what these reporters and researchers have produced. Please access the original stories.  If anyone has a copy of Paul's letter, please let me know. TEXT OF NGA RESPONSE TO DOD LETTER The Honorable Paul Stockton Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs The Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20301 Dear Assistant Secretary Stockton: On behalf of the nation's governors, we would like to thank you for your letter regarding the legislative proposal to provide the Secretary of Defense with expanded authorities to assist in the response to domestic disasters. While we appreciate the outreach, governors remain cautious about changes to the military's authority to engage independently in domestic emergency response situations. The proposal you suggest may have merit, but its consideration must be preceded by a discussion regarding the tactical control of forces serving inside a state in response to a disaster or emergency. It is our position that to carry out our homeland defense and homeland security responsibilities, governors must retain command and control over the domestic use of their own National Guard forces (Title 32 or State Active Duty status), supporting National Guard forces from other states, and Title 10 forces operating within the supported governor's state or territory. Consequently, when a dual status command has not been established under 32 United States Code 325, governors, acting through their Adjutants General and Joint Force Headquarters-State, must have tactical control over all Title 10 active duty and reserve military forces engaged in domestic operations within the governor's state or territory. We are concerned that the legislative proposal you discuss in your letter would invite confusion on critical command and control issues, complicate interagency planning, establish stove-piped response efforts, and interfere with governors' constitutional responsibilities to ensure the safety and security of their citizens. One of the key lessons learned from the response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 was the need for clear chains of command to avoid duplication of effort and to ensure the most effective use of response resources. Without assigning a governor tactical control of Title 10 forces assisting in a response, and without the use of a dual-hatted National Guard commander to ensure coordination between Title 32 and Title 10 forces, strong potential exists for confusion in mission execution and the dilution of governors' control over situations with which they are more familiar and better capable of handling than a federal military commander. We look forward to discussing potential tactical control solutions. For example, current military doctrine explicitly allows members of the United States armed forces to serve under the operational direction of foreign commanders, with the President retaining ultimate command over U.S. forces. If the command relationship with the President can be maintained while American active duty personnel are operating under the control of foreign commanders, we see no convincing reason why it cannot be maintained while active duty personnel are under the control of a state governor acting through the Adjutant General. The Commission on the National Guard and Reserves' Second Report to Congress dated March 1, 2007, specifically recommends governor direction of state and federal military assets to synchronize the military response to disasters: "Recommendation 8. As part of Department of Defense efforts to develop plans for consequence management and support to civil authorities that account for state-level activities and incorporate the use of National Guard and Reserve forces as first military responders (see Recommendation 19), the Department of Defense should develop protocols that allow governors to direct the efforts of federal military assets responding to an emergency such as a natural disaster." We do not yet understand how the legislative proposal would increase the number of DoD personnel available to assist disaster victims. Under existing legislation, DoD has the authority to order members of the Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Air Force Reserve to active duty to assist in responses to major disasters and emergencies in the United States. Further, we are not yet convinced the proposed legislative changes would increase the responsiveness of DoD personnel. Under existing legislation, when emergency conditions dictate, local military commanders and responsible DoD component officials are authorized to respond to requests from local authorities and to initiate immediate response actions to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions. As you know, a similar proposal was contained in the House of Representatives' version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, but was removed during conference because of governors' concerns. In the Joint Explanatory Statement that accompanied the bill, Congress made clear that DoD should engage governors to address their concerns before moving the proposal forward: "The Department of Defense should engage with the community of governors to work out an understanding of unity of effort during domestic terrorist events and public emergencies. This key underlying issue must be addressed to allow this and other promising proposals to be enacted." Governors and their Adjutants General would welcome the opportunity to work with you and others at DoD and the National Guard Bureau to discuss tactical control during disasters and to identify legislative and operational opportunities to improve our response to such events. The best way to facilitate such consultation and communication is for DoD to quickly establish the Council of Governors as required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Doing so will provide an appropriate forum to address these issues and other aspects of defense support to civilian authorities. Sincerely, Governor James H. Douglas Governor Joe Manchin III cc: The Honorable Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense The Honorable William J. Lynn, III, Deputy Secretary of Defense Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff The Honorable Michèle Flournoy, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy General Victor E. Renuart, Commander, U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command General Craig R. McKinley, Chief, National Guard Bureau [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

July 31, 2009

A Council of Governors: Reclaiming balance in a mixed government

Filed under: General Homeland Security,Homeland Defense,State and Local HLS,Strategy — by Philip J. Palin on July 31, 2009
Lingering mostly unnoticed within  Title XVIII, Subtitle B, Section 1882 of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act is a single paragraph:

The President shall establish a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions.

The instruction comes early in a seeming hodgepodge of measures to achieve "additional reserve component enhancement."  As far as I can find, President Bush did not establish the Council and President Obama has not yet undertaken to do so. On Tuesday in prepared testimony for the House Armed Services Committee,  Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities,  Paul Stockton offered the following:

State and local expertise and perspectives are essential to success. It is also important to be mindful of the fact that, in our nation’s Federalist system, the Governors are sovereign, independently elected chief executives of their States. As the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs, I hope to contribute to a more inclusive effort, one that involves State and local partners as partners aforethought and not as an afterthought. (Note: emphasis in original testimony.) Congress, in section 1822 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), has provided a valuable vehicle through which to accomplish this goal: the “Council of Governors,” which would provide a forum for Governors, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security to exchange advice, views, and recommendations on the National Guard, DSCA, and other matters of mutual interest. I will make it a top priority to implement this congressional objective.

The legislation is silent on how the Council of Governors might be established.  It could have fifty -- or even more -- members (the legislation does not reference "states,"  evidently terroritories might also be included).  The Governors themselves might participate.  But it could also consist of powerless appointees gathered as yet another feeble federal advisory body. In his testimony Mr. Stockton gives primary attention to the practical benefits of involving Governors and acknowledging local capability in preventing, responding to, and recovering from catastrophic events.  The practicalities of risk-readiness innately push for State and local leadership.  As Secretary Napolitano said on Wednesday, "So how do we secure our homeland and stay true to our values?...It starts with the American people. From there, it extends to local law enforcement, and from there up to the federal government..." Acknowledging and affirming the authority of the States in disaster preparedness and counter-terrorism is also consistent with Constitutional  protections of  State  sovereignty that - along with separation of powers, bicameralism, and the Bill of Rights -- is another firewall to tyranny.  In Federalist Paper No. 9 James Madison wrote, "The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power." Today most Americans -- unlike our Founders -- do not give much thought to the threat of tyranny.  Our benign neglect is a privilege produced by an intricate, sometimes unwieldy, yet resilient constitutional architecture.  It is worth considerable concern when any aspect of the structure is weakened. For the last half-century the authority of the States in many domains -- and especially in regard to security --- has been more honored in the breach than in the observance.  If you wonder about the Founders' intent, take some time to read -- and perhaps to tremble at -- Madison's comparison of the federal and state governments in Federalist Paper No. 46.  Since the close of the Civil War such language has been largely limited to the political fringe. A Council of Governors -- especially one embraced with enthusiasm and discipline by the Governors -- could restore balance where the central government has grown far beyond its intended proportion. 

Q. Why would you have your government so mixed?

A. Because the experience of the ages has proved that mixed governments are best.

Q. Simplicity is amiable and convenient in most things, why not in government?

A. Human nature is such, that it renders simple government destructive, and makes it necessary to place one power over against another to balance its weight.

Pennsylvania Evening Post

March 16, 1776

(Editorial Note:  The above is related to the July 29 posting entitled CCMRF: Constitutional Consequence Management Response Force)

July 29, 2009

CCMRF: Constitutional Consequence Management Response Force

Filed under: Biosecurity,Chemical Security,Homeland Defense,Radiological & Nuclear Threats — by Philip J. Palin on July 29, 2009
Yesterday the House Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities heard testimony on chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high-yield explosives(CBRNE)  consequence management.  (See and hear the video.)  David Heyman, DHS Assistant Secretary for Policy, set out the CBRNE threat.  Reviewing a list of recent events, Heyman concluded, "We can no longer discuss risk abatement of chemical, biological, and nuclear/radiological attacks as if these types of attack are unthinkable or undoable. U.S. intelligence, and the most recent intelligence around the world, continue to report that terrorists are intent on acquiring CBRNE weapons for use against the United States." There is a brigade-size federal active duty element allocated to NORTHCOM as a "CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force"  a/k/a CCMRF. A second brigade is scheduled to be in place by October.  A third by October 2010.  While specializing in CBRNE threats, the same forces could be deployed in response to a variety of events. In his prepared testimony, General Victor Renuart, the USAF four-star who heads NORTHCOM, explained, "CCMRF is a task force (approximately 4,700 people) that operates under the authority of Title 10. CCMRFs are self-sustaining and may be tailored to any CBRNE event. A CCMRF is composed of Army, Marine, Navy and Air Force units with unique CBRNE training and equipment and general purpose units trained to operate in proximity to a hazardous or contaminated environment. CCMRF capabilities include event assessment, robust command and control, comprehensive decontamination of personnel and equipment, HAZMAT handling, air and land transportation, aerial evacuation, mortuary affairs, and general logistical support to sustain extended operations.” In October 2008 the American Civil Liberties Union initiated a FOIA request that raised several concerns regarding the CCMRF, including, "The deployment of CCMRF marks the first time an active military unit has been given a dedicated assignment to Northern Command, which was established in 2002 to assist federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate support of civil authorities. It raises important questions about longstanding separation between civilian and military government within the United States -- a separation that dates to the Nation's founding and that has been reiterated in landmark statutes, most importantly, the Posse Comitatus Act 18 U.S.C. Para. 1385."  The Posse Comitatus Act forbids federal troops to be deployed with police powers. Following Hurricane Katrina an effort to significantly weaken the Posse Comitatus Act  was initially successful, but the legal changes were subsequently overturned in 2008. The current language is the same originally adopted by Congress in 1878.  The potential life-saving and order-restoring capacity represented by the CCMRF is widely recognized.  The use of active duty federal troops for this purpose is seen by some as a creeping militarization of the home front. At yesterday's hearing the Congressmen -- of both political parties -- kept coming back to "who's in charge?"  About nineteen minutes into the hearing, Mr. Smith, the subcommittee chairman, interrupted an explanation of HSPD-5's intricacies, asking, "Does anyone of those groups have the lead?"  If there's a real catastrophe, what's the real chain-of-command? It is a good question.  The answers, of course, are variations on "Well, it depends."  As the hearing proceeded -- maybe because of the provisional answers offered -- the questions were increasingly directed to General Renuart.  The implicit assumption seemed to be: the man in uniform will be in charge.  Encouraging this impression is a principal reason why uniforms are worn.   If the General is in charge, then who's in charge of the General? The prepared testimony of each witness was constitutionally restrained: federal forces will be deployed at the request of Governors to support civil authorities. The  protocols of HSPD-5 and the National Response Framework will ensure effective collaboration across roles and responsibilities.  But what about when local civil authority has been overwhelmed by the catastrophe? About half way through the hearing Congressman Kline began his inquiry by stating, "I am still, sort of grappling -- and I think all of us are at one level or another -- with the fundamental question of who's in charge."  The Congressman then reviewed a variety of National Guard and DOD assets and asked, "When are these forces federal, when do they work for the state, when do they work for the Governor, when do they work for the General?" The General responded, appropriately and accurately, well... it depends. A bit later Congressman Miller, asked what happens, "if the Governor and the local officials don't get it; they absolutely have  become overwhelmed -- as they did with Katrina -- and don't make the call (to the President) quick  enough?" There was a pregnant pause before the General responded.  "Well, Mr. Miller, I think  the President ultimately has a responsiblity for the nation to make a determination of the speed at which some event is unfolding.  That is not a NORTHCOM decision.  My role is to ensure that, if I'm asked, to be sure that I have all the pieces in place to be supportive.  So I would defer to the national leadership to make a policy decision as to the ability of an individual state. That's really not mine to call." I expect the General's answer is accurate... even in its  opacity.  Is it an appropriate answer? In terms of civil-military authority, certainly yes.  In terms of constitutional balance of powers? Probably not. Funny how the Tenth Amendment can suddenly rise up as if from the dead:  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." General Renuart is a practical man.  He wants to do his duty.  In a time of crisis he will be prepared to render protection and care.  How can we allow him to do so with confidence while preserving the practical benefits of local capacity and the constitutional protections of state sovereignty? The hearing was rather chaste in exposing the Tenth Amendment issue, but the bare skin was there for all to see.  Whether titilating or horrifying probably depends on your taste. Buried in the prepared testimony -- never referenced in open session -- was an interesting suggestion for how we might restore some constitutional  modesty and, even perhaps, some honest dignity.  More on this in a Friday post. UPDATE: A July 30 New York Times editorial entitled: The military is not the police.

July 14, 2009

Mike McDaniel to DOD-Homeland Defense

Filed under: General Homeland Security,Homeland Defense — by Philip J. Palin on July 14, 2009
The Associated Press is reporting, "Brigadier General Michael McDaniel will begin work Aug. 3 as deputy assistant secretary of homeland defense... The 52-year-old East Lansing resident has been in the Michigan National Guard since 1985." When I heard the rumor last week I sent Mike a congratulatory note.  When he did not respond, I took that as tacit confirmation.  But now it is public. Mike has served as the Michigan Governor's Homeland Security Advisor since 2003.  A general, a lawyer, and someone who has given significant attention to critical infrastructure, Mike is -- at least -- a triple threat.   His long service at the state level combined with his military background will be of particular value in this new role. Being familiar with  both Paul Stockton, Assistant Secretary of Defense (Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs), and Mike McDaniel, this strikes me as a great team.  Mike has experiences, skills, and perspectives to complement Paul's.  And they have known each other sufficiently well that, I expect, they are each entirely aware of what they have in the other. The State and local emphasis that each man brings to this DOD office could be especially interesting to watch in action.  This also seems a sort of "tacit confirmation" for a rumor I have been hearing regarding what the White House office of personnel is looking for in HS appointments.  Please see Mike McDaniel's Michigan Department of Military and Veterans Affairs  official biography.

June 30, 2009

Border talks: Governors seek to exchange constitutional responsibility for cash

Filed under: Border Security,Homeland Defense — by Philip J. Palin on June 30, 2009
Late last night the Associated Press reported, "The Obama administration is developing plans to seek up to 1,500 National Guard volunteers to step up the military's counter-drug efforts along the Mexican border..." Chris Bellavita addressed this issue in a Saturday post.   Back in March I gave it some early attention. The AP report continues, "The plan is a stopgap measure being worked out between the Defense Department and the Homeland Security Department, and comes despite Pentagon concerns about committing more troops to the border — a move some officials worry will be seen as militarizing the region." The good news here is that the Pentagon is reluctant. "Senior administration officials said the Guard program will last no longer than a year and would build on an existing counter-drug operation," according to the AP report.  "They said the program, which would largely be federally funded, would draw on National Guard volunteers from the four border states." The key phrase here is, "which would largely be federally funded." The Governors can deploy their State militias on their own authority.  But when they do, it is also on their own dime.  While I haven't read the words, there is an implication that border state Governors want the National Guard federalized under Title 10, so they don't have to pay the costs. During most of American history -- the Civil War being the most dramatic exception -- the federal military enterprise on American soil has been exceedingly small.  Until World War II our most significant military forces consisted of either naval bases or state militias or federal troops being prepared for overseas operations. Since World War II the size of the federal military establishment has, of course, skyrocketed.  But throughout this period the focus of the military has been on far-flung foreign adversaries.  Unfortunately domestic tranquility and the common defense now encourage looking closer to home. The Associated Press reports, "Defense Secretary Robert Gates has expressed concern that tapping the military for border control posts is a slippery slope and must not be overused."  A slippery slope to where?  He does not say (or at least the AP does not say).  But history tells again and again of the danger to free institutions when military power is focused on issues of domestic security.    In the case of the United States this is certainly not a clear and present danger.   Our current slope is very slight and firmly rooted with a military ethos and a political culture that ensures civilian authority.   But boots-on-the-ground tend to erode any slope, no matter how gradual or well-rooted.  We have invested a great deal in the technical and intellectual competence of our professional military.  As an institution and as individuals, they are great problem-solvers. Out of respect for our ancestors sacrifice -- and our grand-children's hope --for freedom, we should be very cautious regarding which problems we ask the military to fix.

June 27, 2009

“…that kind of debate among two Cabinet officers … will inevitably lead to better policy.”

Filed under: Border Security,General Homeland Security,Homeland Defense,State and Local HLS — by Christopher Bellavita on June 27, 2009
When is a "food fight" better described as using the dialect to develop policy? Spencer Hsu's "Pentagon, DHS Divided On Military's Role at Border" outlines some legitimate policy differences between the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security over the military's role in domestic security.

The debate goes to the heart of the military's role, which has expanded since the 2001 terrorist attacks, with an increasing commitment of troops and resources to homeland defense, particularly to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear attack or other domestic catastrophe. The deployment of new troops to the [US - Mexican] border [to help counter narcotics efforts] would represent a mission the military has not traditionally embraced.

Bert B. Tussing, director of homeland defense and security issues at the U.S. Army War College's Center for Strategic Leadership is quoted briefly in the article:

"What we're seeing ... here is a move toward reframing where defense begins and ends.... Traditionally the military looks outward, but looking outward has begun a lot closer to home, and it may involve looking just across the border."

Last October, Bert wrote a substantive strategic analysis of this topic: "New Requirements for a New Challenge: The Military’s Role in Border Security."  The article is available here, and is worth reading if this is a homeland security-related issue you follow. From a process perspective, Hsu's article provides an example of the role metaleadership plays (at least implicitly) in the way the Obama administration treats wicked problems:

A senior White House national security official said the president is comfortable with the disagreement and "wants to see the kind of creative tension and full-out debate that major policy decisions engender."  The official added, "It's the president's view that . . . frankly, that kind of debate among two Cabinet officers like Secretary Gates and Secretary Napolitano, both of whom he holds in high regard, will inevitably lead to a better policy."

Tossed the right way, food fights can nourish.

May 14, 2009

Homeland defense: a Pandora’s box of unanswered policy questions

Filed under: Congress and HLS,Homeland Defense — by Philip J. Palin on May 14, 2009
Presidential nominees receive a set of questions from "their" Senate Committee in advance of testimony.  In all but a few nominations -- for example, supreme court justices -- both questions and answers are rather pro forma.  Pro forma does not mean unimportant.  The questions serve as markers for the Committee -- or individual members -- to signal their priorities.  For oversight committees the written Q&A is the beginning of a give and take that will continue while the nominee holds the position. Many of the questions recently asked of Paul Stockton,  the President's nominee for Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs, related to roles within DoD, between DoD and the Department of Homeland Security, relationships with the National Guard, with the States, and so on. This collection of questions and answers highlights the complicated matrix of players, authorities, and responsibilities that make up homeland security. Today, for example, Secretary Napolitano is in Colorado Springs meeting with General Gene Renuart the head of USNORTHCOM. The Committee questions I found most interesting are collected below.  In the original document these questions are scattered, but taken together may suggest a pattern of concern by the Committee.  In this case the questions -- and their ongoing implications -- may be more important than any current answer. The Secretary of Defense has issued guidance to establish 3 CBRNE Consequence Management Response Forces (CCMRFs) by October 1, 2010. Please provide your understanding of the roles and capabilities of the CCMRFs. Do you have any concerns about the ability of the Department to implement the Secretary’s direction to create the three CCMRFs on the prescribed schedule? If confirmed, what would be your role with regard to the oversight, training, and employment of the CCMRFs? Concerns have been raised about CCMRFs having a possible peacetime role that is inconsistent with other laws (such as Posse Comitatus). Do you agree that the purpose of CCMRFs is as a DOD support element for CBRNE incidents, and not for peacetime or civil disturbance missions? There is currently considerable debate about the role the National Guard should play in defending the Homeland and in providing civil support assistance in Homeland security missions. The Commission on the National Guard and the Reserves recommended that the National Guard and Reserves be given “the lead role in and form the backbone of DOD operations in the homeland. Furthermore, DOD should assign the National Guard and Reserves homeland defense and civil support as a core competency consistent with their warfighting tasks and capabilities.” What role do you believe that the National Guard and Reserve should have in Homeland defense, as compared to the Active Component? The Department of Defense has a mission to provide support to other federal agencies in the event of a domestic incident that requires a federal response, if directed by the President or the Secretary of Defense. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits military personnel in a federal status from engaging directly in domestic law enforcement “except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.” Use of National Guard personnel in a state status is not prohibited by this act, but the use of military personnel, including the National Guard in a Federal status, is prohibited. What is your understanding of the legal issues and authority associated with using National Guard and Reserve personnel in security roles within the United States? In your opinion, does the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385) or chapter 18 of title 10, U.S.C. (which regulates the use of the armed forces in support of civilian law enforcement and related activities) require amendment to deal with the present homeland security situation? Under what circumstances do you believe that it is appropriate for the Department of Defense to provide assistance to law enforcement authorities in response to a domestic terrorist event? What about a non-terrorist event? None of these are new issues.   Most of the issues are far from having a consensus answer.  Many of these questions are a kind of Pandora's box of policy problems for ongoing attention.  Raising the question is helpful to keeping the issue on top of the list for both the Committee and the nominee.  Trying to provide an entirely complete answer, especially in public session, would open the box and release an army of curses on  the Committee and -- especially -- the nominee.  This is usually understood by all involved. On Tuesday, though, Senator McCain found Mr. Stockton's answers to some of the Latin America related questions "lacking."  Here, perhaps, is an example: Question:

In the past few years, Bolivia has experienced extreme political unrest and, lately, President Morales has taken some positions that could complicate U.S. relations with Bolivia. How do you assess the situation in Bolivia and, if confirmed, how would you seek to accomplish the goals of combating drug trafficking and enhancing military engagement goals?

Answer:

The situation in Bolivia is of concern. I have not had the opportunity to review the existing DoD plans, approaches, and actions for Bolivia. If confirmed, one of my priorities will be to review such plans, approaches, and actions and make recommendations to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.

I understand a new set of answers to the questions of interest to Senator McCain will be provided. The lid on Pandora's box will, however, be kept closed and the nominee will be confirmed to the position for which he is highly qualified.  Along the way the ranking member and his staff has made a point regarding their role in oversight, the minority's continuing place in the process, and the ranking member's own place. The complete original set of advance policy questions and answers can be found at the Senate Armed Services Committee website (pdf).

May 12, 2009

Homeland defense hearing

Filed under: Homeland Defense — by Philip J. Palin on May 12, 2009
Today, Tuesday, May 12 at 10:00 (eastern) the Senate Armed Services Committee will meet to consider the nomination of Paul Stockton to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs. An archived copy of the hearing's webcast is available at: http://armed-services.senate.gov/Webcasts/2009/May/05-12-09Webcast.htm Several readers have previously critiqued the lack of substantive questioning of those being nominated.  The questions asked of these four nominees by the Armed Services Committee struck me as usually matching the serious issues the positions would engage.

April 2, 2009

Wormuth to Homeland Defense

Filed under: Homeland Defense — by Philip J. Palin on April 2, 2009
Earlier today Secretary of Defense Gates announced the appointment of Christine Wormuth as principal deputy assistant secretary of defense (homeland defense and America's security affairs), Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy), Washington, D.C.  Ms. Wormuth is currently a Senior Fellow with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.  According to the biography from the CSIS website: Christine Wormuth is a senior fellow in the International Security Program, where she works on defense and homeland security issues, including emergency response and preparedness challenges, homeland security policy development, defense strategy and resources, and the capabilities and readiness of the U.S. military. In 2007, she served as staff director for the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, also known as “The Jones Commission.” As staff director, she traveled with the commission to Iraq and focused in particular on the readiness of Iraqi police forces. Her other projects include developing recommendations for America on better managing responses to future catastrophes (expected in early 2008) and a study on the future of the National Guard and Reserves, an 18-month project completed in July 2006 under the umbrella of the CSIS Beyond Goldwater-Nichols project. The National Guard study made more than more than 40 recommendations on issues such as future roles and missions of reserve components, how to organize, train, and equip them, and how the social compact with citizen-soldiers should change for the future. In 2005, Wormuth was a contributing author of the CSIS Beyond Goldwater-Nichols Phase II study, writing the chapter on elevating and strengthening homeland security policy. Wormuth has held a variety of jobs in the defense world. She was a principal at DFI Government Services (now DeticaDFI), where she developed and managed projects for clients at the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. She has worked in the Policy Office of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, was a French desk officer during and after the September 11 attacks, and was special assistant to the under secretary for policy. She worked on the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review Process and focused on a range of European issues. Wormuth received her masters in public policy from the University of Maryland, her bachelor’s degree from Williams College, and is a member of Women in International Security. If the name seems especially familiar, I assigned one of Ms. Wormuth's more recent publications as "homework" for today's HSC hearing (below).

March 28, 2009

NORTHCOM to North Dakota

Filed under: Homeland Defense — by Philip J. Palin on March 28, 2009
According to a CNN report, it would seem that federal military assets are being deployed to assist with emergency operations in and around Fargo.  In a story filed late Friday, CNN reports, "Fifteen helicopters from the U.S. Northern Command along with active-duty military personnel are being sent to Fargo, North Dakota, to assist the state as it prepares for record flooding."  A related story in the Colorado Springs (NORTHCOM's hometown) Gazette references a military news release and reports,  "The command will stage at the Grand Forks Air Force Base to aid the Federal Emergency Management Agency. NorthCom will help distribute supplies and coordinate the relief effort. A defense coordinating officer dispatched by NorthCom will act as the liaison between FEMA and NorthCom, relaying capabilities available to FEMA and coordinating movement of active-duty personnel and equipment to assist should the need arise." UPDATE:  A Saturday afternoon public affairs story from Minot (N.D) Air Force Base indicates that, "Two helicopters from the 54th Helicopter Squadron have been relocated from the Bismarck flood area to Grand Forks... The helicopters are being moved to Grand Forks staging as part of a larger NORTHCOM task force."  The two hoist-equipped UH-1N  "hueys" are expected to be involved in search and rescue. SECOND UPDATE:  As of Sunday afternoon at least four media releases are available from the NORTHCOM website.  While the information provided does not deal explicitly with the issue of the State Governor requesting Title 10 forces, it would appear the current deployment may be largely limited to use of the Grand Forks Air Force Base by FEMA and arrival in the potential theater of operations by  pre-deployment assessment teams. 
Next Page »