History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
The U.S. Army has assigned an infantry brigade to domestic operations, according to the Army Times. The first two paragraphs of the linked story are just too perfect (emphasis added):
The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.
Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home
[...]
They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control...The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use"the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded," 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.
In case there's any doubt at all about where we've arrived.
Good reply, Chris. Note I did not presume that all the Army might do is help in hurricane recovery, or that such missions gave them a free pass to do anything else. Indeed, I cited two instances wherein the Army was used to quell "civil unrest" ---Little Rock in 1957 and in LA in '92.
However, I believe that your original comments focused unfairly on the presumption that the Army would only be used to deal with legitimate protest. What I was concerned about was what I viewed as your tacit presumption of "where we've arrived."
Actually the National Guard, under direction of a Governor is most often used in this manner. And while the Guard has often performed well in this role, I can never forget or forgive the horrific incident at Kent State in 1970.
And, anyone should agree that we all need to be aware and concerned about the use of any military or police force as it pertains to citizen protest.
In that regard, I would suggest that the Posse Comitatus Act, which was originally concerned with the behavior of Union troops in the south during Reconstruction, needs to be reviewed and amended to reflect modern exigencies.
Chris Bray -
9/26/2008
"I did not intend any hostility and apologize if you took it that way."
Thanks for this, and I apologize for my own hostility -- I'm good at it, and it's enjoyable, but still. I've tried to respond more substantively below -- see my second reply to Tim Lacy, hostility and all.
Chris Bray -
9/26/2008
I'm looking for the conspiracy theory part, and I'm missing it.
The Army Times -- a Gannett paper, not known for its radicalism -- noted that the U.S. Army has assigned a mechanized infantry brigade to "subdue" American citizens inside the United States, in the context of "civil unrest and crowd control." The words in quotes are from their report, is how it works.
Surely you recognize that one person's "civil unrest" is another person's "free expression of dissent" or "free assembly to petition government for redress of grievances." Surely you recognize that the line between these things has been unclear -- and that, for example, the men of the Bonus Army thought they were engaged in a form of political expression appropriate to free people, while Douglas MacArthur thought they were vermin who deserved to be driven out of the streets. The Posse Comitatus Act was in effect when Patton's cavalry charged the Bonus Army marchers, by the way. And when MacArthur's infantry fixed bayonets.
Now, let's get to the shockingly bad piece of reasoning, here: "What of Galveston?" This argument, such as it is, echoes Les Baitzer's discovery that the Army is also planning to do other things with the same brigade; somehow this is supposed to negate the part about subduing unruly people.
Put it this way: I said, this brigade is going to do X. You said, and Les Baitzer said more explicitly, no, the brigade is going to do X, Y, And Z.
Here's the problem: "Z, Y, and Z" pretty obviously includes X. If they suppress riots and help with post-hurricane recovery -- well, what? The first part somehow magically goes away because the second part is really neat? (The Army is going to suppress protests.) (No, they helped after the hurricane in Galveston!) Huh?
Didi: I'm going to come to your house, bake some cookies, pet your cat, and shoot you in the head.
Gogo: Oh my god, you're going to shoot me in the head?
Didi: No, no, no, don't you listen, you fool? I said I'm going to bake some cookies, pet your cat, and shoot you in the head!
Gogo: Oh, well, that's different, then.
The Army said explicitly that one of its infantry brigades is being trained for, and assigned to, the the suppression of "civil unrest," an inherently vague descriptive category that has been historically subject to considerable mischief. It's not a conspiracy theory to note earthly reality; it's not a refutation of earthly reality to note the presence of other realities.
Les Baitzer -
9/26/2008
In reply to your three comments:
I recognized in my comment that you provided the link to the article, but I felt it was rather telling what you chose to omit.
I did not use Dr. Grimsley in support of any "argument," but rather as a suggestion to you in making your point. Note that I stated he " might have mentioned..." not that he would or did mention.
Read.
Your replies sound a bit hostile, and that is likely my fault. I did not intend any hostility and apologize if you took it that way.
Chris Bray -
9/26/2008
What of it?
Tim Lacy -
9/26/2008
...does seem a bit conspiracy "theory-ish." What of Galveston? - TL
Chris Bray -
9/26/2008
Last thought on this: If I were you, I would probably hesitate to invoke Mark Grimsley's name in support of your argument without first asking if Mark Grimsley supports your argument.
"After omitting information in the link he provides..."
After omitting the thing I know about because he told me where to find it...
We really draw the winners, here, don't we?
Les Baitzer -
9/25/2008
If you're "pretty sure" it's Sgt. Bray, then what is your point? If your concern is etiquette, then, I'm quite sure I'm not trying to pull rank on him, if that's what you mean.
David Silbey -
9/25/2008
Mr. Bray of West Hollywood
I'm pretty sure it's actually Sgt. Bray, though since I'm not sure of the etiquette of using his military rank at the moment.
Les Baitzer -
9/25/2008
Forgive me, but I have confusion and "doubt about where we've arrived." I'm new here so perhaps someone with more experience in understanding the "Group Think" of this Blog and the not-too-subtle anti-military agenda of Mr. Bray of West Hollywood can help me up what is no doubt, a steep, perilous learning curve here.
As I read the quoted material in the post, it appears that the mission of the 1st Brigade in Iraq was "helping to restore services and escorting supply convoys."
And Bray emphasizes in bold that the 1st of the 3rd is now training for "the same mission ... at home.
Let's see, since there are Army convoys every day in the US that travel unescorted, I guess we can conclude that they won't be doing much of that mission. So, that leaves "helping to restore services."
Can you imagine the terror this hardened unit of Iraq war veterans will strike in the hearts of Americans when, as Federal Soldiers, they show up after a hurricane to reconnect water, gas, and electrical power for our citizens?
The HORROR!
Is this "where we've arrived?" What manner of diabolical, Karl Rovian thinking could ever conceive of using a US Army unit, trained and experienced in "helping to restore services," to help Americans in such need?
But wait! There's more! After omitting information in the link he provides to The Army Times that explains how several US Army units provided such restoration service assistance in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Bray informs us only that, “They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control …” completely omitting the remainder of that sentence which continues, “ … or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.”
The Army stands ready to help Americans to potentially deal with these “horrific scenarios” as well. Is this “where we’ve arrived?”
But, Bray focuses instead on “civil unrest and crowd control.” Before pandering to the fears of uninformed readers about Federal Troops’ role in civilian law enforcement, Bray might have consulted with another member of this Blog, Dr. Mark Grimsley, a scholar of Military and Civil War History. Dr. Grimsley just might have mentioned The Posse Comitatus Act, a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 16, 1878. This statute generally prohibits federal military personnel from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States.
But, on very rare occasions, the US Army has been tasked to deal with “civil unrest and crowd control,” as in an incident 51 years ago today (September 25, 1957) when the US Army’s 101st Airborne Division escorted nine black students, who had the audacity to think they could attend a public school, into Central High School in Little Rock, AR. Is this “where we’ve arrived?”
And, more recently, in April 1992, Federal Troops were called upon in the wake of the “Rodney King Riots” in Los Angeles to assist police there with “civil unrest and crowd control” including six days of widespread looting, assault, arson, and murder that caused one billion dollars of property damage. Without US Army intervention, this “civil unrest” might well have spread to West Hollywood where Bray lives. Is this “where we’ve arrived?”
I’ve read many excellent postings on this blog but have never once commented. This agenda-driven, biased, poorly researched pabulum is so far below your usual standards
that I can only reply in utter astonishment, “Is this where we’ve arrived?”
