National Guard’s “Homeland Response Force” to Patrol Missouri, Nine Other States

Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
July 15, 2010

Homeland Response Forces are descending upon Missouri and nine other states, where National Guard units will be the face of Federal power in the regions in the event of a terrorist attack or disaster.

RAND Corp. "Katrina Offers Lessons for Improving the National Guard Response to Catastrophic Domestic Emergencies" http://www.rand.org/…/summer2007/katrina.html
The Sedalia Democrat reports that, along with Missouri, the state where the report was written, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Texas, Utah and California will also host the National Guard Homeland Response Forces in the name of fighting terrorism. A unit will be placed within each of the regions established by FEMA, effectively implementing Federal powers at the state level premptively.

The U.S. Department of Defense announced Monday that Missouri will be one of 10 states to host National Guard Homeland Response Force units to help coordinate federal response to a terrorist attack.

According to the DoD announcement, the move came about following the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review — a congressionally mandated report put together every four years that highlights changes and challenges in national defense strategy. The 2010 report calls for improved coordination with civilian officials and providing resources for large-scale emergency response.

Other states that have announced participation in the program include Ohio.

This ties in with other recent reports of National Guard pitted against the domestic population. Infowars reporters recently exposed the National Guard involvement in Vigilant Guardian exercises training for terrorism & disaster during drills taking place in Chicago, Illinois. Video footage detailing this activity can be seen exclusively at PrisonPlanet.tv.

More shockingly, New York State has further announced the use of National Guard– merged with police– to aid in curbing the drug trade by intervening in local neighborhoods (despite the cynical fact that the CIA and other government agencies enable the importation of narcotics). The reports state that the National Guard will even scan vehicles for ‘guns and drugs’ using high-tech gamma rays.

The National Guards Role in Homeland Defense http://www.ng.mil/features/HomelandDefense/cerfp/index.html



This roll-out of National Guard is not new, but is being phased in at an accelerated pace. The publicly-presented mandate for these National Guard troops continues to revolve around the “disasters” and “terrorism” theme. However, the RAND Corp., an authoritative think tank that has proven close to the political agendas actually being implemented, has prepared the nation for riots within the United States and control of widespread domestic unrest. Their 2009 report “A Stability Police Force for the United States” [PDF] proposes a “hybrid” military/law enforcement unit that would respond to disasters, but effectively act as a Federally-controlled policing force implemented within the bounds of States under the guise of controlling domestic riots, preparing for terrorism and even training for overseas deployment.

The RAND report outlines in part:

“The USMS [U.S. Marshalls Service] hybrid option … provides an important nondeployed mission for the force: augmenting state and local agencies, many of which currently suffer from severe personnel shortages.”

“Furthermore, the USMS has the broadest law enforcement mandate of any U.S. law enforcement agency…. [This model] provides significant domestic policing and homeland security benefits by providing thousands of additional police officers across the United States.”

It is clear that while these events seemingly take place independently, and trickle out of the news without alarm, it is part of a larger plan to implement National Guard in duties never meant for them to undertake across the country, functioning, in essence, as another layer of “authority” over the states and inviduals, and taking power under the pretense of national disaster, terror attack, biological or chemical warfare, the drug war or general domestic unrest. Notice the difference between a response to something that might happen utilizing the National Guard when needed vs. the premeditated deployment of the National Guard along the 10 regional lines drawn by FEMA to serve at any pretext that can be justified. I have included both a RAND Corp. study for integrated National Guard response following Hurricane Katrina as well as an Army report playing out the joint command structures and integrated control of National Guard between Federal and State authorities, all closely paralleling the rise of Fusion Centers to ‘protect the homeland.’

RAND Corp (2007): Katrina Offers Lessons for Improving the National Guard Response to Catastrophic Domestic Emergencies

http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/summer2007/katrina.html

The table outlines how the effects and response requirements of several scenarios now being envisioned by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security — from radiological, nuclear, and biological terrorist attacks to a major earthquake — would be generally comparable to the effects and response requirements experienced in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Thus, the lessons so painfully learned from the hurricane could help America become stronger for all types of future catastrophic domestic emergencies.

Numerous difficulties beset the military response. The initial call-up of the U.S. Army National Guard in Louisiana and Mississippi was hindered by the fact that each state had a brigade, or about 3,000 troops, redeploying from Iraq. It took more than three days for roughly 6,000 backup troops to arrive from other states, because many had neither planned nor exercised for such emergencies. As the forces flowed into the region, they lacked command and control, because it took more than a week for U.S. National Guard (henceforth national guard) division headquarters staffs to arrive. Finally, the president did not decide until the end of the first week of the response to send in active-duty land units from the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps, in part because most of these units were either overseas or preparing to deploy.

To improve military disaster-response efforts, the U.S. Army should take the following steps:

* Give state national guard units the federal mission to conduct homeland security activities, as is the case today for planning and funding counterdrug operations.
* Create ten regional national guard rapid-reaction homeland security task forces.
* Collocate these task forces with the regional planning offices of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
* Create opportunities for the regional national guard task forces to train regularly with local first responders, including law enforcement officials, and other local units that are focused on counterterrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
* Train state national guard units for rapid response not only within their states but also for emergencies in other states.
* Prepare governors to call up state national guard units quickly and involuntarily for active-duty, out-of-state emergencies.
* Establish plans to use the Air National Guard or commercial airlines to fly designated national guard units to out-of-state emergencies.
* Prepare state officials to designate backup national guard units that could fill in during disaster response operations for national guard units deployed overseas.
* Assign both national guard and active-duty army units to homeland security missions as part of the army’s routine unit-readiness planning process.
* Prepare state and federal leaders to select quickly from a set of predefined command-and-control alternatives, giving the lead to federal or state task forces, depending on the characteristics of an emergency.



Excerpts from Army Paper Discussing Use of National Guard for Homeland Disaster & Terrorism Response, Including Debate Over Military Command in Light of State vs. Federal Control

Command and Control: Command and Control of Military Forces in the Homeland

Jeffrey W. Burkett
U.S. Army Combined Arms Center
July 15, 2010

“To serve in the National Guard is to accept a dual mission. You can be called on to defend the country against enemies abroad, or to protect lives and property here at home in times of local emergency.“1 -Richard B. Cheney

The U.S. military and state National Guard have a long and proud tradition of defending our nation from attack and assisting civil authority during times of crisis. Notwithstanding their primary Federal purpose of fighting wars, the frequency with which U.S. military forces are employed for missions related to homeland security has risen dramatically since 9/11. This change is understandable given the increase in the perceived and actual threat to the United States. The American military, which is one of the largest Federal investments, is arguably the most versatile organization in terms of capability and responsiveness. Fiscal appropriations by Congress for its organizational structure, composition, and equipment are intended to satisfy the current National Military Strategy.

In an effort to streamline military roles and responsibilities for homeland defense2and civil support, several notable changes have taken place since 9/11. First, Presidential authority established U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) in 2002. Second, the National Guard reorganized itself at the state level and launched a series of homeland defense and security programs. Likewise, the National Guard Bureau (NGB) also transformed itself by improving its national coordinating ability and refining its supporting role for state governments and the national defense community. Finally, Congress changed the Federal law (Title 32) that governs the National Guard to create the legal framework for the executive branch to employ the Guard in homeland defense and civil support actions.

Polarizing Domestic Military Assistance

After witnessing complications in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Governor Rick Perry of Texas was determined to lead the Hurricane Rita response by retaining command and control over the Texas National Guard. In response to a White House request to establish an Active-duty officer as a dual-status commander, Governor Perry requested Presidential authorization for a Texas National Guard officer to be approved as a dual-status commander.6 Hurricane Rita did not have the impact on Texas that Katrina had on Louisiana, and significant Federal military support was not required. Nevertheless, Governor Perry’s request went unfulfilled, and unity of command under a dual-status arrangement never happened. Federal forces operating in Texas answered to the Federal chain of command that ran back to USNORTHCOM versus integrating with the state military response directly.

The stalemate over C2 left the impression with Governors and Guard members that National Guard dual-status commanders are not trusted to lead both state and Federal forces for a disaster response.

State Command



The first option is state command and consists purely of National Guard forces ordered to duty by a Governor. Every aspect of such National Guard employment is in accordance with state law and funded by the state. Several hundred Guardsmen around the Nation are in state Active-duty status every day performing state missions such as search and rescue, incident response, and critical infrastructure protection. These missions also provide a domestic deterrent against potential attackers and indirectly support the Nation’s homeland defense and homeland security missions.8 The other status that falls under state command is Title 32, by which Guardsmen perform duties to accomplish training for their Federal mission or execute operational missions approved by the Federal Government, such as counterdrug or homeland defense activities.

The use of state command employs a Joint Force Headquarters-State (JFHQ-State) providing command and control for all in-state National Guard forces. The JFHQ-State can also act as a joint Service headquarters for national-level response efforts during contingency operations.9 In this role, the JFHQ-State will generate a tailored JTF to assume tactical control of National Guard units supporting emergency response requirements. For operations that demand a large response force or multiple unique military capabilities, subordinate JTFs may be generated. The C2 diagram in figure 1 illustrates the simplicity of state-only coordination with multiple JTFs.

The primary advantages of the state command option include the preservation of state sovereignty over the response effort, detailed local area knowledge, clear lines of command, unity of effort, unity of command, avoidance of Posse Comitatus restrictions, and fast response times. With a state-only Guard response, Governors retain their constitutional authority and control. Additionally, this option maximizes familiarity with local conditions, resources, personalities, and organizations.



Because Governors’ constitutional responsibilities span a range of issues from enforcement of civil order to protection of critical infrastructure, the National Guard is a powerful capability in supporting a Governor’s ability to discharge the duties of office effectively. Figure 2 highlights equities against the National Defense Strategy and shows the range of possible duty statuses to reveal the overlapping state-Federal relationship. Viewed in this manner, it is apparent why every state considers essential programs such as Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams, CBRNE Enhanced Response Force Packages, and National Guard Rapid Reaction Forces.

Parallel Command



Graphic showing Parallel Command and control: The generic parallel C2 structure depicted in figure 3 illustrates the organizational divide and the high degree of effective coordination that must occur at the operational and tactical levels for this option to be effective.
The second command option introduces Federal military forces under the command and control of USNORTHCOM. For civil support operations, the Federal military responds to DOD-approved requests that originate from an incident command within a state, and USNORTHCOM employs capabilities that operate in parallel with state Guard forces. The underlying assumption for this approach is that the Federal military is available and prepared to respond. Additionally, it is assumed that the National Guard will already be operationally engaged, given their proximity and ability to respond rapidly.

Parallel state/Federal commands have been used exclusively since Operation Winter Freeze in 2004 for operations ranging from the deployment of Navy salvage divers to multiple JTFs with thousands of troops. In all cases, USNORTHCOM operates in support of a Federal agency responsible for an emergency support function (ESF) with the exception of ESF-3, Public Works and Engineering, which is the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers. The Federal response usually only occurs in support of the already ongoing state response.

Dual-status Command



The dual-status command structure combines the advantages of the state command option and the parallel command option. The dual-status command structure addresses the unity of command dilemma directly. Under this construct, National Guard commanders on Title 32 status are ordered to Federal Active duty (Title 10 status), retaining their state commission when activated.

This dual-status provides the statutory authority for one person to command both state and Federal military forces simultaneously. This permits the dual-hatted commander to control a unified military response at the operational level in support of the state. In figure 4, a notional dual-status command illustrates the chain of command beginning with the President and Governor. National Guard forces in state Active-duty or Title 32 status perform state missions under the authority of the Governor, and assigned Title 10 Federal forces perform defense support of civil authority for USNORTHCOM.

The advantages of the dual-status command include a Governor retaining authority over the response, clear lines of command, and the ability to integrate Federal military forces operationally to achieve unity of effort. Conversely, Presidential C2 is preserved. Every advantage previously described for the state command applies to the dual-status command.

Federal Command



The final option is a pure Title 10 Federal command. In this arrangement, all National Guard forces are federalized and integrated with Active-duty forces under the command and control of USNORTHCOM. Resorting to this option is unlikely unless an extreme event unfolds and a state is completely overwhelmed and local government ceases to operate. Under these conditions, the President is constitutionally obligated to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States.

The concept of operations is to mobilize National Guard forces using the JFHQ-State and integrate them into the responding Federal JTFs or functional component commands illustrated in figure 5. The Federal Government unilaterally makes decisions, and Presidential involvement is expected to be significant until functioning civil authority is restored in the affected state.

The advantages of a Federal command are that it preserves U.S. sovereignty, leverages the Total Force, and establishes unity of command and effort. The disadvantages include the compromise of state sovereignty, political cost of federalizing the National Guard, and economic cost of taking charge of the response.