New Army unit to supersede posse comitatus/militia within U.S.?

This link to GD is worthy of discussion here since the Army action seems to short-circuit the posse comitatus statutes and stand in opposition to any exercise of state militia powers. NOTE: this news item was from Democracy Now! (Amy Goodman)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x196421

NOW. Not later. NOW.

The unwritten rule is "please don't use the small fora as a call to arms (pun intended) for posts in the larger fora."

See the locked threads at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x186466#186476

and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x186566#186575

The sinister characterizations would be more believable if the Army wasn't made up of your fellow citizens. "Operation Garden Plot" for domestic disturbance operations were in the CQ's instruction book since the days of CONARC and STRAC units and Nike missile batteries around major US cities. (If you don't have sufficient military experience to understand the jargon, ask a male relative old enough to remember the draft.) As a career NCO I was well aware of "Posse Comitatus" and its importance and relevance.

The Army has had domestic emergency missions since the Posse Comitatus Act of 1871. Two easy examples come to mind. The Commander of the Presidio dispatched troops during the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The commander of the garrison at Fort Knox sent troops to Louisville during the 1937 flood.

In defiance of a Federal Court order, the governor of Arkansas ordered the Arkansas National Guard to keep the black students out of Little Rock High School. President Eisenhower responded by sending troops from the 101st Airborne to Little Rock with orders to protect the nine students. This marked the first time since Reconstruction that federal troops were sent to the South.

Having spent most of my adult life as a soldier I really appreciate the Founder's distrust of standing Armies. Once there is segment of the population that feels they are "too good" to serve in the military the military no longer represents them. Once that happens it is easier to get the military to perceive and "us" and "them" attitude.

If you want to know how dangerous that can get, consider this:

In May of 1970 I was a tank commander in the 2nd Bn, 34th Armor about 30 miles inside Cambodia when we hear news of Kent State on Armed Forces radio. We had a typical mix of regulars and draftees in the company, 3 of the crew on my tank were from Ohio. Our discussions of the incident did not revolve around the ethical questions of the Ohio Guard firing on its own citizens but how few people were hit for the ammunition expended.

If your core beliefs are that military service is only for some nebulous knuckle-dragging serf class than perhaps fear of vengeful servants is warranted. By subjecting soldiers to scorn and alienation from the 'civil' society they will form allegiances to their buddies and their units. The concept of citizen-soldier is a safeguard from tyranny and a concept the Founding Fathers grasped firmly. The society that disdains military service and is contemptible of its mercenaries should not be surprised if an army is no longer interested in protecting them.