Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 7/24/2002 3:05:59 PM EST
[url]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/721761/posts[/url] Rumsfeld may quit Pentagon to take on top Homeland role White House insiders say President Bush may ask Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to assume command of the new Department of Homeland Security when Congress completes work on the massive government reorganization plan in the months to come. Under this scenario, RumsfeldÕs Pentagon post would go to his top deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, a veteran administrator who has also held several key diplomatic posts.
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 3:09:56 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 3:15:14 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 3:21:12 PM EST
I would be all for that. Tom Ridge's demeanor concerned me. Almost as if he was susceptible to being controlled by the beauracracy underneath him versus him controlling it. Ben
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 3:31:18 PM EST
Scuttlebutt has it we are going into Iraq soon...would have been nice to have Rummy at the Sec Def end of the war imo...just as soon as he cleaned out the deadwood from the various service branches where they've been entrenched since Clinton installed them...but you're right much better him than ridge.. Now if they could only 86 the Sec Trans...
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 3:33:19 PM EST
Boy are you guys in for a surprise. Wolfowitz at defense and Rumsfield at "Homeland Security". There's a NWO team if I ever saw one.... Won't see no blue helmets in the US.....won't need 'em.
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 3:34:30 PM EST
I seem to trust Rumsfeld more than ridge... course that could be because he looks exactly like my great grandfather.
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 3:58:26 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 4:01:17 PM EST
Donald Rumsfeld is reportedly a Rand Futurist. I don't know if that is true or not. I don't know what tenants they hold. Ben
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 4:12:19 PM EST
But having said that: Check this out, It is about US military conducting Operations within the continental United States. This PDF file from Rand Org states point plank. That asymetric warfare within the cont. US will be instantiated, in Rands Opinion, whenever the US starts conducting Operations overseas by terrorist organizations within the Continental US. Holy Shit. This paper was prepared before september 11, 2001. [url]http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1490/MR1490.pdf[/url] Ben
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 4:34:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/24/2002 4:36:48 PM EST by Benjamin0001]
From the article
EMERGING ISSUES The following issues were raised during “national policy team” delib-erations by wargame participants who were role-playing senior gov-ernment officials such as the President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, and so forth. While sufficient analysis was not conducted during the wargames to develop findings or con-clusions, these issues were the subject of debate and require further study. • Paramilitary or covert attacks within the United States may have the potential to blur the line between law enforcement and mili-tary operations. For instance, an attack on U.S. critical infra-structure or command and control sites such as the Pentagon could be considered either an act of terrorism or an act of war. At what point does a hostile act cross the line from a crime to a national security threat? What new organizational structures, policies, and procedures are required to integrate the capabilities .... Furthermore • Existing statutes may not adequately anticipate asymmetric mili-tary attacks in the homeland and, consequently, create a per-ceived legal barrier that is likely to impede the initial response of the military. Do existing statutes provide sufficient legal basis and clarity to prepare for future asymmetric attacks within the United States? If not, what specific legislation would provide the necessary statutory authority to counter such threats?
View Quote
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 4:39:15 PM EST
From the article:
If this is a mission for the Army, are the selected units enabled by appropriate organizations, doctrine, training, and equipment to meet the threat—given legal constraints such as Posse Comitatus that are designed to limit military operations within the homeland? How might the Army work in conjunction with law enforcement in such situations?
View Quote
These are all issues which have been raised on this very board. Man... Ben
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 4:43:38 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/24/2002 4:45:47 PM EST by Benjamin0001]
Also from the article:
to prevail in combat against a wide spectrum of opponents, and to achieve rapid victory for the United States. To accomplish these goals, it was assumed that the majority of future Army forces would begin the deployment process from forts and bases located within the United States. A smaller number of forces would remain forward deployed and would be available for rede-ployment in times of crisis. Moreover, future Army forces were cred-ited with tactical and operational dominance in all aspects of game play. This assumed battlefield dominance of an Army dependent upon power projection caused Red (i.e., opposing) team leaders to plan for the use of special operations forces and covert agents to disrupt, degrade, and delay the deployment of U.S. forces. As early as 1996, the AAN hypothesized that a potential adversary might choose to “expand hostilities as rapidly as possible outside his region and even into the U.S. homeland in an effort to defeat the over-whelming battlefield capabilities of the United States.”5 Interest-ingly, in every wargame the Red military staff contemplated military strikes within the United States both to prevent the successful em-ployment of U.S. forces overseas and to establish some form of strategic symmetry in which homeland risks were not just limited to Red. Thus, from the standpoint of the Red commanders, the ques-tion was not whether to attack forces inside the United States, but when and how to conduct such attacks.
View Quote
Lets just hope that the enemies of the US are not this organized. Ben
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 4:50:23 PM EST
From the Article:
weapons, but also a large, powerful, and fully modernized conven-tional military force. This “near-peer” competitor was designed to challenge the full spectrum of U.S. military capabilities. Homeland security was not specifically played during this first wargame. Nevertheless, a significant discussion took place in the Red planning cell about the value of preemptive attacks on U.S. forces to preclude their timely arrival in theater. While a number of military plans for attacking the United States were developed, the Red political leaders were reluctant to authorize an attack on the U.S. homeland, convinced that such actions would cause them to lose political and diplomatic support in the international community. Moreover, the Red political leadership was not willing to attack the homeland of the United States because of the possibility of creating a “Pearl Harbor effect”—energizing the will of the American public and alienating the international community. Not only was Red reluctant to conduct physical attacks against military targets located within the United States, it was also unwilling to employ information opera-tions against U.S. space-related ground facilities, believing that such attacks violated the “homeland sanctuary” of the United States.3 Throughout the wargame, however, the Red military commander continued to request authorization for selective attacks on militarily significant targets within the United States. Toward the end of the game, after the U.S. military attacked targets inside the adversary’s homeland, the Red political leadership authorized special operations forces and covert action agents to conduct attacks inside the United States. These attacks came too late to influence the outcome of the war. Moreover, even when the United States was attacked, the game controllers made decisions that caused the attack to have very little effect on the outcome of the wargame.
View Quote
Good grief.. Assuming that HAMAS,ALQUEDA, and PLO wait until we attack IRAQ. By Rands calculations if the OPFOR is highly motivated they could cause us a good deal of harm.
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 4:54:48 PM EST
From the Article: Blue Force is Good guys, USA: Blue President is good Guy USA Orange President is Terrorist organization
When it became clear that conflict was inevitable, Blue forces began to take initial steps toward deploying forces to assist Green. How-ever, Orange took an unusual step and leaked information about its capability and willingness to conduct multiple large-scale terrorist operations within the United States if the United States entered the conflict.9 This disclosure prompted the Blue President to authorize the employment of all National Technical Means to assist the FBI to “locate and apprehend” suspected Orange covert agents.10 Because vital U.S. interests were not at stake, the Blue President fur-ther decided to delay the deployment of U.S. forces until he was convinced that the majority of Orange agents had either been cap-tured or their whereabouts identified. This was a contentious issue because many of the Blue players believed that the United States should not “give in to terrorism.” Nevertheless, the Blue President argued that he was unwilling to place American citizens at risk sim-ply to facilitate a rapid deployment of military forces in a conflict where less-than-vital interests were at stake. Finally, over the strong objection of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), the Blue President decided to delay the deployment of special mission units that are typically under the control of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) in the event that the FBI or other law enforcement agencies needed assistance. During the Senior Leader Seminar, the Blue President stated that asymmetric responses can create explicit linkages among domestic security, international security, and general policy concerns which, together, will limit options for policymakers.11 In this game, asym-metries directed against citizens within the United States had a crippling effect on the willingness of the Blue political leadership to enter a conflict until the large-scale terrorist threat was eliminated.
View Quote
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 4:58:29 PM EST
I'd want Rummy at Defense through at least Iraq. Wolfowitz is a smart guy, but he doesn't have the camera presence of Rummy. Homeland needs someone better than Ridge. They're drifting. Rummy would be great at it, but he's needed in the more important slot at Defense for now. I don't think terrorists could maintain a long campaign in the US. They'd be operating in hostile territory, and have limited ability to blend in and lack a support infrastructure here in the US. Not much of an ocean for them to swim in.
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 5:00:38 PM EST
From the Article:
SPRING WARGAME, 1998 The 1998 Spring Wargame consisted of 2 two-sided wargames where Red and Orange forces simultaneously challenged Blue forces.12 Orange represented the New Nationalist Movement, which was threatening a friendly government in Asia. The Red forces in this game represented the New Independent Republic (NIR), which was the dominant political, economic, and military power in the Persian Gulf region. In addition to a modernized military capable of rapidly invading neighboring countries, the NIR had a nuclear capability, ballistic missile delivery systems, and stockpiles of both chemical and biological weapons. The Red political and military leadership concluded that it could achieve victory only if it could move rapidly enough to occupy key portions of Saudi Arabia before the United States could respond either politically or militarily to the crisis. To freeze Blue politically, Red waged an extensive propaganda campaign designed to convince the U.S. public and international community that Red only sought to “liberate” holy cities in Saudi Arabia to allow unencumbered access to all Muslims—including Americans. When Blue forces began air and missile attacks against NIR forces, the Red military commander “reluctantly” initiated limited attacks against CONUS military air-fields and selected ports of embarkation to delay and degrade the arrival of Blue forces in theater.13 It is also important to note that the NIR attacks in the United States were timed to assure that they could be justified as legitimate reciprocity for Blue attacks on the Red homeland. The Red threat to CONUS-based facilities posed in this game was substantial. For planning purposes, Blue was informed that there were between 500 and 700 enemy special operations personnel and covert agents within the United States. Moreover, given their level of training, it was determined that Red special operations forces (SOF) had the potential to conduct a coordinated attack at multiple loca-tions within the United States. Additionally, the Blue policy team...
View Quote
All these scenarios the US has already WarGamed.
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 5:03:40 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/24/2002 5:07:28 PM EST by Benjamin0001]
From the artice:
was told that the primary focus of Red SOF was most likely to be mili-tarily significant targets associated with the deployment of U.S. forces and capabilities. Finally, while it was recognized that chemi-cal or biological agents might be used, Blue reasoned that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) would only be used as a last resort—if the survival of the Red regime were threatened. Given this scenario, [size=2][blue]the Blue President decided to create a Task Force led by the Deputy Attorney General—a position created by the Blue team specifically to address this issue. The Task Force membership included the Department of Justice, Department of Defense, De-partment of Customs, Department of Treasury, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Additionally, intelligence support was provided by a number of agencies, including the Central Intelli-gence Agency (CIA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and National Security Agency (NSA)[/blue][/size=2].14 Further, the military commander in chief (CINC) responsible for CONUS-based forces was directed to create three Joint Task Forces (JTFs) to provide command and control for military forces operating within the United States. One of these JTFs, JTF Crisis Response, was also designated as the Joint Special Opera-tions Command (JSOC). The JSOC commander remained under the command of the CINC and controlled all military forces assigned crisis response missions, including national mission units that have counterterrorism responsibilities. Consistent with an Operation Order approved by the National Command Authority (NCA), the JSOC commander received taskings for operations conducted within the United States directly from the Deputy Attorney General.
View Quote
This is the playbook guys, Everything that RAND has come up with we have seen the US do. Everylast thing. Which makes me feel a little better.. At least we know that they are actually trying to win this battle. Ben
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 5:07:30 PM EST
Magaw is gone, thank God. Now Ridge, Mineta and that asshole Powell need to go!
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 5:29:41 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/24/2002 5:41:45 PM EST by Benjamin0001]
If this article from Rand is accurate and I believe that it is we also now see the reasoning for the Homeland Security department and the preemptive measures that the US is taking in response to 9-11. They are running it by the book. This Homeland Security department is NOT an attempt to strip us of our liberty, and I hope that is not the result. What it is however is a way for the US to conduct military operations within the CONUS on Terrorist organizations within the US. And is a preemptive measure to ensure the security of the United States when we start conducting full scale war overseas. Which in my estimation is coming quickly now. So the bottom line seems to be this: When the US starts conducting operations overseas there WILL be terrorist attacks within the United States directed at both Military and civilian targets and the PSYOPS campaign that follows by the Terrorists leaders overseas will be such that they will blame our war in Iraq and elsewhere on the attacks that we will be experiencing here in the US, in an attempt to undermine US resolve to finish the conflict desively. That means that when we start getting attacked that the weaker elements within our society will go down on their knees like they did in Vietnam, and on 9-11 when they said, "We had to seek to understand the muslim world." Lets just hope that when this happens the US will counter effectively.
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 5:35:11 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 5:49:02 PM EST
okay, np. I thank 9divdoc for sparking the thread. Ben
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 5:55:01 PM EST
Oh wow , does that the military will also be used to root out illegal aliens ? We sure could use some help down here in Arizona .Close down those borders ! And what about Rumsfield for POTUS ?
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 6:02:46 PM EST
Originally Posted By thedave1164: Thanks Ben, interesting read....
View Quote
Yes, excellent link. Thanks for posting it.
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 6:06:59 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 6:09:10 PM EST
Looks as though this may be a moot point... Rummy not taking the Homeland Defense job after all? [url]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/721890/posts[url] Now maybe he can clean up the military...perhaps the Air Force general who asked a radical muslim group to help recruit muslim chaplains would be a good place to start.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 2:03:10 AM EST
nothing wrong with muslim chaplins. the SOI chaplin at camp giger was a muslim. and if im not mistaken he's the only one and is now at gitmo
Top Top