On the one hand, this creeps me out on too many levels to list.

On the other hand, I wonder how many people are reading the news out of Mumbai and thinking that this doesn't sound like a bad idea.

Hell, I remember the relief I felt post-9/11 when I saw soldiers, complete with guns, patrolling Penn Station in NYC. I live in a part of the world where people can (and do) carry weapons on their person legally, but if I lived in a place where that wasn't true, I'd start to wonder what or who would protect me if terrorists stormed into my shopping mall on a crowded holiday shopping afternoon and started spraying machine gun fire everywhere.

I would love to know, however, just how they're going to square this with the Posse Comitatus Act. I have a bad feeling that there will be an effort to "modernize" the Act. Imagine, for a moment, if Dubya had proposed "modernizing" the Posse Comitatus Act in order to put soldiers on U.S. streets...

You're right to be creeped out, Amy. Combined with the privatization of so much of our armed services, this might be the biggest retrograde motion in our culture since casual divorce.

(Sorry: Several messages in a row here. Disk space is cheap, right?)

A tragic irony about American life is that millions of us never encounter a soldier in uniform. Military illiteracy isn't just a crude stereotype of media and academic elites. There are many, many people in this country who think they can ignore military processes and events because the military is icky and authoritarian; because war is unhealthy for children and other living things; and because war means getting shot, which means pain, and pain hurts!

(I'm just such a person, by the way: Born in 1959 and never even had to register for the draft.)

Without seeing the military in their daily lives, people don't know they're protected by it. They think their lifelong international safety in a product of their own personal grooviness. (Europeans do this, too.)

Let's talk about picnics! This is one of my top five picnic spots. It overlooks the Catalina channel to the west, which is incredibly beautiful even in bad 'weather'. To the south are stunning views of the first- and second-largest cargo ports in the United States, Los Angeles and Long Beach, respectively.

But let's look a little closer....

(more)

...at the center of the park. Just offscreen top right is the Korean Bell monument, one of the best places in a America to throw a frisbee. Just offscreen bottom left is a care facility for injured sea lions and harbor seals: You can watch them feed and play up close.

But those things in the center are cannon mounts, a century old. The cannons were more than 30 feet long, and fired shells that reached the far side of Catalina Island. 26 miles away. The entire hillside was/is a warren of underground tunnels and passageways. It's the kind of place that sends a 10-year-old boy's imagination into overdrive. Even today, someone who's running to catch a pass in a game of touch football will stumble in some loose soil and discover another vein in the tunnel system. I'm surprised Hollywood hasn't made a movie about the place.

More...

An important thing to know about the gun batteries is that the noise was incredible... People could hear them from several miles away.

So in those days, everyone knew how the Port of Los Angeles was defended.

Nowadays, the site is a musuem, casually operated by enthusiasts. One of the displays in the tunnels shows the carcass of a missile from an older generation of munitions: This was the technology that allowed the guns to be decommissioned in the middle of the century and sold for scrap.

But guided missiles like that can be safely and quickly fired from anywhere, even Nevada. The guy on the street never sees that technology at work. (Almost never: Every ten years or so, we in LA get a show like this.)

So anyway... I think your concern (and Marion's) about these events is correct. Having the military far removed from civilian life for so long is going to make the frictions even hotter if Obama (or whomever) tries to put them to use stateside.

Last one: The Golden Gate area was similarly defended, and is also great for picnics.

Fort Mackinac and Fort Holmes, Mackinac Island.

And Fort Holmes was a British fort, deep in da Midwest, eh? Talk about occupation.

Well, in texas we have that. It's called texans with guns. There's a movement to allow open carry. I don't know that it will pass, but it'd be nice if it did.

Obama's idea really freaks me out. Nothing like a bunch of young brainwashed idealists armed with the mandate to keep the rest of us in line, as well as with guns. Wait, hasn't that happened already somewhere? Didn't it end in the deaths of millions of non-desirables?

'Member when I took my girls to Virginia this summer? To see their cousin play college baseball? http://www.peninsulapilots.com/
We went to Newport News and Hampton, and military presence there is very noticable. So much so that when we went to breakfast one morning, I bought for the 2 guys in the next booth. #2 asked why, and I told her because they were brave enough to serve our country, and they needed to know that we appreciate it. o.O

Said Flynne, "We went to Newport News and Hampton, and military presence there is very noticable."

It's all over Hampton Roads. Where you went is mainly Air Force and Army. Take I-64 into Norfolk, and you can see the aircraft carriers off in the distance to the right as you cross the bridge. They're massive even from miles off. On the South Side, it's Navy, Navy, Navy, Navy!

By the way, Flynne, I'm a cybercultural moron. What does "o.O" represent?

OPEN carry? Heck, I'd settle for concealed carry, but I happen to be in one of the last two states who adamantly refuse to allow it. We had it on the ballot for our county during the election and it got shot down by a narrow 2%. The anti-gun fanatics, especially the one that runs our newspaper, trumpeted the resolution's failure to the heavens, but failed to mention just how narrow the margin was, a mere 1,446 votes.

The idea of putting Federal troops on the ground after a disaster is a terrible, terrible idea. National Guard I can understand, at the very least everyone of those soldiers wears a patch that says, "hey, I'm from this state too!"

No other organization in the country has the power to do the most good or evil to the citizenry. Sending warriors to do the work of a police force is the last thing that any President should consider. I have no doubt that the military would be effective if it were handed this mission, but at what cost?

Oh I know, rpm daddy, we came into Virginia from Maryland via the Cheasapeak Bay Bridge Tunnel, saw massive ships, it was cool!
"o.O" is just my little happy face thingy, no cybercultural mystery there! o.O

Nothing like a bunch of young brainwashed idealists armed with the mandate to keep the rest of us in line, as well as with guns. Wait, hasn't that happened already somewhere? Didn't it end in the deaths of millions of non-desirables?

R U talking about Chairman Mao's "Red Guards"?

I want no part of Obama's brownshirts, sorry. History is full of examples why that sort of force is always a bad idea.

The military could perform the mission, but why would they need to? Most city police forces are equipped with swat teams and enough paramilitary equipment to fight a small war. The Guard could be called out if needed. What is needed is more training and coordination for the police and Guard.

Had Bush called for this, the country would be seething. It's not a good idea because a Democrat proposes it.

"A Republic, if you can keep it" is looking more prophetic each day. I'm a veteran and as pro-military as they come. This is not their mission.

Guys, Warren v. DC is all you have to know, to know that no matter how may troops are present, you're on your own. There is a real reason the term is "self-defense".

As for this - ""We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

You're really, truly looking at a police state. Court action after the fact of any transgression is always too late for the victims. A search for police abuse cases out there already will show you that.

This is the primary reason I voted against Sen. Obama. He and Sen. Biden are very much against the idea that any of you should be able to do anything for yourselves when it really counts. Look at their voting record, not at their campaign!

I'm not mentioning a name, here, but Germany did the same things we are now in the late 1930s.

How did that turn out, and why might you imagine it turns out differently than before?

I don't think it will be different. Already, millions bend over to be searched uselessly by Federally-mandated morons for wanting to fly on a plane.

I'm just a little confused as to how this militarization works. I don't think it's exactly rocket science...here's my train of thought:

Let's make an assumption that terrorists are whacked in the head. Any arguments so far? In their minds, they have rational goals based on their points of view (brainwashed by religion/leaders) and will stop at nothing to achieve them. This includes dying (they aren't mentally stable, remember?).

Attacks are random and deadly and on our soil. We don't want to die. Solution? Let's put military personnel in public places and give 'em guns. Kind of like at the T station this morning. I think they were MBTA cops but they 1) were suited up in scary black clothes with scary black boots 2) were armed. They do bag checks - if you don't submit you don't get on the train (and the surveillance cameras probably snap your picture and you're probably put on a list of people who put up a stink. I realize I'm highly paranoid.). They do this a few mornings a week at various T stations.

Now let's say I'm a terrorist. Isn't my objective to create terror? Surely, most of these nutjobs are economic-minded and would like to simultaneously maximize terror and death on infidels. The armed guards are probably trained to spot suspicious behavior and would stop me, the hypothetical bad guy. I don't get on the train. But I still want to achieve my goal. BAM! Blowing up 10 people in the entrance to the station isn't as terrorizing as a train car full of people and causing it to derail completely, killing many more. But - remember, these folks are desperate. Armed guards aren't going to stop them completely - they'll just wreak havoc in the station, instead of the train. People still die. Terror is still spread.

I don't really see any gains made in the fight against terror in this situation.

I don't get on the train feeling more secure.

Militarization by the REAL military is scary enough, but the idea of "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" scares me even more.
And it's off-topic, but I'm still very confused as to why our National Guard troops were being deployed overseas at all.

"And it's off-topic, but I'm still very confused as to why our National Guard troops were being deployed overseas at all." -ahw.

well there's your problem... Seems MUCH better to me to deploy these 20,000 troops overseas, and bring 20,000 guardsmen home... then they can do what they need to do WHEN needed on their home turf. If you want to specially train them? Go for it.

There is some quote from an old guy about freedom vs. security...

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserver neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin

And it's off-topic, but I'm still very confused as to why our National Guard troops were being deployed overseas at all.

With the consent of state governors, members or units of state National Guard may be appointed to be federally recognized armed force members in active or inactive service. If so recognized, they become part of the National Guard of the United States. The National Guard of the United States units or members may be called up for federal active duty in times of Congressionally sanctioned war or national emergency.

Effectively, with the approval of the state governor, they can be put on active duty and thus are part of the deployable forces. That is one of their primary duties. This has always been one of their missons. That is why they must do their 1 weekend a month and 2 weeks active duty a year. To keep the training up to speed.

I had to do this as a former active duty Navy, and National Guard reservist.

That was one of the issues with Katrina, IIRC.

Blanco refused to request federal military assistance and federalize the La. National Guard due to the high level of desertions by NOPD. As federal troops, the LNG could not be used to police the neighborhoods unless martial law was declared. As state militia, they could.

Obama's new "national security force" will not be under such constraints.

"This is not the proper role of active-duty soldiers, who have been trained and seasoned in combat," says Redpath. "When you have active-duty soldiers being substituted for National Guardsmen, you're opening yourselves up to potential violations of civil liberties during their operations.

"If there needs to be an emergency response team that can assist and supplement local emergency responders, it should be comprised of National Guardsmen--not active-duty soldiers," says Redpath.

Has this Redpath guy ever heard of a little place called Kent State?

This is insanity.

Not unlike calling in a bunch of firefighters because we have a whole lot of active arsonists, but all the while we are training and admitting new arsonists.

In this case Islam is the arson.

Before we start adding many boots on our own ground, could we please stop allowing the troublemaker population (read: jihadists) to expand within our own borders?

Here are two suggestions:

1) Stop allowing the the preaching of jihad warfare and Islamic supremacism in US mosques:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020190.php

...What’s more, an undercover reconnaissance survey of mosques and Islamic schools all over the United States has found that as many as seventy-five percent of mosques and Islamic schools in this country preach jihad warfare and Islamic supremacism. Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, according to a World Net Daily report, “confirmed that ‘the vast majority’ are inciting insurrection and jihad through sermons by Saudi-trained imams and anti-Western literature, videos and textbooks.”

2) Stop allowing imams to develop new jihadist recruits in American prisons.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023020.php

Lawful jihad continues to flourish in prisons

... In 2005, then FBI Director Robert Mueller stated, "Prisons continue to be fertile ground for extremists who exploit both a prisoner's conversion to Islam while still in prison, as well as their socio-economic status and placement in the community upon their release."

"And it's off-topic, but I'm still very confused as to why our National Guard troops were being deployed overseas at all."

If you go read the fence around the National Guard Armory, you'll see this sign: "U.S. Government Property". Every pen and pencil, desk, truck, gallon of diesel fuel, is Uncle Sam's.

Just read the fence. Uncle gets to do what he wants with his property.

This is also the reason that the National Guard is not the "militia" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. But that's another story.

"Obama's idea really freaks me out. Nothing like a bunch of young brainwashed idealists armed with the mandate to keep the rest of us in line, as well as with guns. Wait, hasn't that happened already somewhere? Didn't it end in the deaths of millions of non-desirables? "

Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, and I hope I am...but momof3 it sounds like you're suggesting that America's soldiers are "brainwashed" and that our job is to keep you obedient.

Surely I'm misunderstanding something. Because if it is as it reads to my eyes, its the most ignorant paranoid incredibly stupid pap that I've heard in quite some time.

Robert,

I think you did misunderstand. She was referring to the Obama Civilian National Security Force (Community service program). He basically wants to increase or form about 10-15 new corps. Some of which would be armed and assist government enforcement agencies, but with much less training, using young idealists, primarily college students/leftist indoctrinaires (take your pick as to which term you prefer). It is a recipe for disaster.

Well that would be, wouldn't it? Not what I wrote though. I am pro-military. Anti-community-force. I was raised by a marine, married the son of a marine who was himself an airman, had men from my family in every war back to the revolutionary one. Virtually every man, in my family. We've yet to achieve equality of the sexes here. But boy, did my dad laugh long, hard, and evilly when I thought about enlisting. All he got out was "Paris Island..." before convulsing into giggles. Something about my mouth getting me killed there....