Using Federal Troops In A Domestic Role

This week's Homespun Blogger Symposium question said:

President Bush is kicking around the idea of increasing the
role of the US armed forces in reacting to major natural disasters here
at home. This seems to be pushing up against the Posse Comitatus Act of
1878 pretty hard. This law prevents the US military from acting in a
law enforcement role within our borders. Following the Civil War, it
made sense to provide a sense of sovereignty to the states that had law
behind it from enforcing an overbearing federal government from wrongly
using federal troops in a domestic role.

What are your thoughts about this mission creep for our military, especially
in a time when we're at war with a major portion of our forces engaged?

The thought of U. S. troops operating within our own borders is something that's bothersome to me, and, I suspect, bothersome to the troops.

When I was in the Army, the L. A. riots broke out. Word got around that troops would be used to quell the riots, and several soldiers spoke up about what they would do if called upon to fire upon U. S. citizens. Some said they'd refuse to. Others said they didn't know what they'd do. I said that, if given a lawful order, I'd follow it. Thinking about it now, I must have known that I wouldn't be shooting at a friend or a relative, since all my family was east coast, not west coast. Or at least all I knew of.

What about today? If I was still in uniform, would I take arms against citizens to enforce the law? There are still lots of issues with that.

• First, the question presented Posse Comitatus Act of
  1878 as a potential obstacle to that. However, if the President of the United States waives it because of war, insurrection, or national emergency, then legally troops can be deployed. So, yes, troops could legally perform such a duty.
   


• Next, there is the question of what would the troops do. Would they obey the orders to shoot? Yes, I think they would. But they would not like it. A soldier knows something that many do not: sometimes you have to do the hard thing, even if it hurts someone. And not just someone else. Even if that someone is the soldier himself.
  
  If your mission involves killing someone, you kill someone. If your mission involves your being killed, you are killed. Most missions aren't like that. But some are.
   


• Does the U. S. have the military manpower to perform such duties? That's actually the largest obstacle to this. Troops are stretched. They aren't getting the support from most on the left, but then again, most on the left never supported the troops to start with.
  
  Troops are still in Korea, over 50 years after hostilities ceased, and there's no end in sight. Troops are still in Kosovo a decade later, and there's no end in sight. Troops are in Iraq, still performing mop-up missions after winning that war in record time. (Some think when the war ends, troops come home. That's never been the case. Ask Germany and Japan, who were occupied for a period of time following World War II.)
  
  But the manpower just isn't there to support many more missions for a long period of time. But that's because U. S. troop strength was cut nearly in half in the 1990s. Remember when Clinton and Gore took credit for reducing the size of the federal government by nearly 500,000? Guess where that came from? Yep, the military. The Army alone went from 780,000 to 480,000 under that plan to reduce the government. The rest of the government? No change. And, it's gotten bigger since then.

But to me, the big problem isn't really any of these issues. The problem is that federal troops are even being considered.

The whole idea of the Posse Comitatus Act is the meaning of the term "posse comitatus" ("force of the country") in that people can take care of themselves.

Following the recent disasters in the Gulf states, some took the attitude that the federal government was supposed to handle things. But only some places took that attitude. Those areas that looked to the federal government are the areas that have had the most trouble. The areas that looked to themselves are the ones that have had the least trouble.

Compare Louisiana, whose leaders lean to the left with Mississippi, whose leaders lean to the right. Which of those states are having the most difficulty? That's right. Louisiana. The more left-leaning of the two.

Most on the left think and perpetuate the attitude of "it's someone else's responsibility." Those of us on the right generally think and perpetuate the attitude of "I take responsibility."

Now, I hate to throw this in, but I must. While researching this, I found many Web sites that blame Blacks for the problems in Louisiana. But the numbers don't bear this out: Mississippi has a higher percentage of Blacks than does Louisiana. So that racist drivel is ... well, racist drivel. (But then, again, maybe race does figure into this. More Blacks =
quicker recovery? That ought to throw the Aryan Nation into fits!)

It's not race that exacerbates problems, it's attitudes. And the "it's someone else's responsibility" attitude is a losing attitude. If you take the attitude "I take responsibility" then you'll come out ahead.

If more people in Iraq took control of their situation, U. S. troops could be home in months.

Then, if a national emergency actually happened, troops could respond a lot easier to the situation.

Eliminating Poverty

This week's Homespun Blogger Symposium (number XXXIII) asks the question:

How do "we" eliminate the "deep, persistent poverty having roots in
racial discrimination" such as we've seen in the Gulf Coast region over
the past three weeks?

Let me tell you what I think a large part of the problem is. People only seeing it over the last three weeks. I got news for you, Charlie: Poverty ain't nothing new. It's there every day. We just choose not to see it. Or, if we see it, we ignore it. So, if we don't see it or pay attention to it, then it doesn't exist. Until it's thrown at us on the 24-hour "news" channels.

But we do have poverty around us. It's nothing new. And it'll be around for a long time:

The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. Matthew 26:11 (New International Version)

That doesn't mean we shouldn't do something about it. But that piece of Scripture does teach us that we should prioritize what we do. Just throwing money at something doesn't solve every problem. But I think we should try to do what we can.

What I don't like about the question is the part about "poverty having roots in
racial discrimination." That's an awfully general statement, isn't it?

Now, I'm not saying there's no such thing as racial discrimination. So don't go get stupid and such. I'm saying that lots of people make such generalizations without knowing anything except what someone told them.

Several years ago, when I was stationed at Ft. Belvoir for training, I went to Washington with some other soldiers to sight-see and such. One of the places we went to was the National Museum of American History (commonly called the American History Museum). At the time, there was a display about Black life in the early 20th century, including those that moved up North from the conditions in the South.

The exhibit had items from everyday life in the typical Southern Black family from that time period. There were, of course, little cards that told about the items on display. But I told the other soldiers that were with me about such items as the number 3 wash tubs, the wash boards, the wood-burning stoves, and such.

At first, they thought I had studied the Black Experience. But I haven't.

Instead, as a child, I saw my mother wash my (and my sisters') clothes in a wash tub on a wash board. And I had eaten many meals cooked on a wood-burning stove.

So, based on the Smithsonian exihibit, I had apparently lived part of the Black Experience. Not bad for a White boy, huh?

My point is that being poor isn't something that's limited to Blacks in the South. There are poor Blacks and poor Whites. And whether Black or White, we must make the best of what we have at the time, striving always to improve our situation. Sometimes, we succeed. Sometimes we don't. But waiting on someone to do it for me just makes it worse.

My problem with this weeks question is the premise:

• Poverty is caused by racial discrimination. In fact, while it contributes, it doesn't cause.


• Only seeing it for the last three weeks. Where have you been for the last 300 years?


• "We" need to eliminate it. That usually means those not in poverty need to do something about it, relieving those in poverty from responsibility to do anything about it. And that's wrong. And won't work.

We can't eliminate poverty, whatever the cause. But we can help. And by "we" I'm referring to all of us: those in poverty and those who are better off.

We need to take responsibility for ourselves and our situation. And we need to help others in their situation as we are able and as they are willing to work on their situation.

Together, we can do anything.

HomeSpun Blogger Symposium XXXII

The HomeSpun Blogger Symposium is back. And, The question this week...

How do you feel about Hurricane Katrina?

Wow. That's all? Okay, let's give it a shot.

How do I feel about Hurricane Katrina? A little guilty.

Why? I didn't cause it. Neither did George Bush, for that matter. But I feel guilty anyway.

There have been hundreds of people killed by the hurricane. People have lost their homes, their cars, their property. To a hurricane. And the flooding afterwards.

Why would I feel guilty? Because I've been though hurricanes and I came through just fine.

Hurricane David hit Savannah in 1979. It was one of the first big stories I covered as News Director at the radio station in my hometown. It had gone ashore in Melbourne, Florida, then headed back out and hit Savannah head-on.

During the eye, I spoke with the owner of the radio station who lived on Skidaway Island, near Savannah. We broadcast that. And taped it to feed to ABC News, since the radio station was an ABC affiliate. My first brush with a national story.

Ten years later, I went through Hurricane Hugo. It wasn't quite as close. It tore the hell out of Charleston, South Carolina. We got some heavy rain and winds. And tornados. And it came ashore on a Thursday night, as I remember. You see, there was a football game that night. Georgia Southern was in the middle of the first ever college football 15-0 season. That was a heckuva season.

Anyway, GSC had a game that night. ESPN brought in lights because GSC didn't have lights back then. And they broadcast the game. And it rained. A lot. And I got on TV because there I was sitting in section B, no one around me, wearing my Eagles tie, getting soaked by Hugo.

The camera was only on me for a bit. They pulled away when I held up a sign that said "Hugo sucks!"

So, that's my experience with hurricanes. Some excitement with my new job responsiblities in 1979 and college football in the rain in 1989.

I didn't really take either storm all that serious because I was having so much fun with each. And I didn't pay much attention when reports of deaths and damage came rolling in. Oh, I knew about it and read about it, but I didn't think about it.

And now, with Katrina, I've done a lot of the same. Oh, no fun involved with this storm. But I've done some blocking out of the death and destruction. Just like with David and Hugo.

So, yeah, I feel guilty. For not taking hurricanes as serious as I should. Folks in the Gulf region who decided to "ride it out" weren't that much different than me. Only I'm still sleeping indoors.

Al-Qaida Nukes In The U.S.

This week's question supposes that reports that Al-Qaida nukes are already in U.S.

It might be more accurate to say, "What if it's true?" in regards to the reports. The  Homespun Blogger Symposium XXIX question is:

What do we do about this potential threat not only to the United States, but to the global economy and the history of mankind?

Well, this might be one of those questions that has no right answer. If the reports aren't true, is it necessary to even discuss it? Perhaps. But, again, the premise is that the reports are true. So, let's give it a shot.

HBS: The War On Terror

This week's question is rather straightforward:

This week saw terrorism raise it's ugly head in London killing more than 50 people, wounding over 700.

Based on this recent attack...do you feel that we're winning, losing, or holding our own in fighting the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)?

That could be, depending on your point of view, a leading question. The part of the question "based on the attack" could be construed in such a way to limit focus to just the attack. But, the War on Terror can't be limited. So, whether or not that was the intent, it will not be a limit here.

HBS: Professional Athletes Conduct

The Homespun Bloggers venture into one of my favorite places this week: the world of baseball. But then they go and look at the dark side. That is, the conduct of professional athletes. Now, true, there are professional athletes other than baseball players. So why did I specifially mention baseball? Well, it seems that the impetus for this week's topic is the fine and suspension of Texas Rangers pitcher Kenny Rogers for an altercation off the field. If you haven't heard about it, here's the story from Major League Baseball.

Texas Rangers ace Kenny Rogers was suspended for 20 games -- an
equivalent of four starts -- and fined an undisclosed amount for his physical confrontations Wednesday with two cameramen at Ameriquest Field in Arlington, Commissioner Bud Selig announced Friday.

He was reportedly fined $50,000. ...

Rogers, who has generally declined to speak with the media all season, shoved and yelled at Fox Sports Net Southwest cameraman David Mammel, then wrestled a camera away from Larry Rodriguez, a cameraman from Channel 4 KDFW in Dallas-Fort Worth, throwing his camera to the ground and kicking it.

Rodriguez was taken out of the stadium on a stretcher and went to a hospital. He has filed a police report and the Arlington Police Department is investigating the incident.

My first reaction was, "I'm glad somebody's cracking down on idiot players."

Should We "Stay And Fight" Or "Cut And Run?"

Since joining the Homespun Bloggers, I have not participated like I have done with Alliance Assignments. And that's not right. So I'm going to try to correct that. To that end, I decided that, no matter what, I'd write about this week's topic.

This week's question is about the War on Terror:

Are we making any progress? Is this part of the war winnable? Should we "stay and fight" or "cut and run?"