controversy that require your personal answer.
29 April 2010
MG James M. Milano
CDR, US Armor Center
Fort Knox
Dear General Milano,
You are no doubt by now well aware of the controversy ignited by
Mark Alexander’s article “Army Preps for Tea Party
'Terrorists'.” Mr. Alexander updated his post this evening
thusly:
Publisher's Note: Regarding my essay, Army Preps for Tea Party
'Terrorists,' I was contacted by senior command staff at Ft.
KnoxFt. Knox this week, but an officer in the security loop
altered the scenario "in order to make it more realistic." Those
alterations were described in my essay, exactly as they appeared.
The command staff informed me that the alterations were not
approved at the command level and that the individual who
circulated the scenario through official channels will "receive
appropriate counsel." I was assured that the Command staff would
not have authorized such a scenario.
This response is all well and good, sir, but it does raise some
issues and questions that should be answered, if not now in the
court of public opinion then certainly later in front of
Congress.
The over-arching concerns raised by this incident are, in order,
a. The politicization of US Army security exercise, targeting
‘US Persons’ and associated groups to which they
belong, for constitutionally protected behavior (free speech,
protest for redress of grievances; keeping and bearing arms;
expression of political/ideological opinions).
b. The conflation of peaceful, constitutionally protected
activity, with arguably militant but mis-characterized
“violent” protest groups. (Muslim, Black-Nationalist, and left-progressive and anarchist groups, who do in fact commit violence, are seemingly never mentioned in these scenarios.)
c. The following concerns, excerpted from Alexander’s
essay:
“amateurish in its construct …the fact that it made
it out into official channels sets an ominous political
precedent.”
“… the scenario "misrepresents freedom loving Americans
as drunken, violent racists -- the opponents of Obama's policies
have been made the enemy of the U.S. Army.”
“... equally concerned that it appears the command staff
at Ft. Knox had signed off on this exercise.”
“One officer insisted, "The American people should require
greater accountability of their commissioned officers, that they
abide by their oath and never allow politically motivated
propaganda like this exercise on any post or base again.”
Now if I may guess, and feel free to correct me if I am wrong,
this was almost certainly a STAFFEX (Staff Exercise) or possibly
a Command Post Exercise – although I doubt that. I very
much doubt that this involved any actual ‘troop’
action. I would be very surprised if anyone, other than a few
operations and training personnel, and security types were even
aware of the exercise or participated. Such participation would
have been limited to release of ‘scenario events’
(programmed from the Master Event Scenario List aka
‘MESL’; otherwise known as “MESLs”),
acknowledgement by targeted recipients, with appropriate
(fictional) responses. Actual dispatch of the QRF is not normally
an actual part of such an exercise -- it tests and exercises
systems, chains-of-command, and responsiveness of headquarters.
As you know, occasionally these do go to the next level and
involve actual units and troops.
That being the case, I must ask the following relevant questions:
1. To what level were soldiers and units participant in this
exercise? Please specify at minimum the level of participation of
the following named organizations: 5-15 CAV (read as
“Fifth of the Fifteenth Cavalry Squadron”); 16th
Cavalry Brigade; and 194th Cavalry Brigade (both of which are
schools units – not operationally deployable maneuver
brigades).
2: Were the field or operations command posts of the US Armor
Center, US Army Garrison, Fort Knox; 16th Cav Bde (QRF I), 194th
Cav Bde (QRF II), and 5-15 Cav Sqdn set up in field or simulated
field conditions?
3: Which office (US Armor Center, G3 or US Army Garrison, Fort
Knox, DPTMS) planned and developed the exercise? Who developed
the scenario event items, specifically the characterization of
the “threat” as a mixture of
· “White Supremacists [sic] Organizations”;
· “Local Militia Groups”;
· Anti-Government (Health-Care) Protestors;
· Tea Party
4: Who approved the scenario and the characterization of the
“threat” as “armed”; with
“combative training”; “some are former
Military Snipers”; “Some may have explosives
training/experience”; “Viable Threats have been
made”; “Many members were extremely agitated at
what they referred to as Government intervention and over
taxation in their lives….”; “Some members
have criminal records relating to explosive and weapons
violations.”
5: Does Commander, Fort Knox (either one) consider it appropriate
to conflate constitutionally protected speech and civic action
seeking “a redress of grievances” (the Tea
Party’s purpose and activity) with violent, criminal
behavior? Does Commander, Fort Knox, have an opinion regarding
the political characterization evident in the conflation of
(presumably violent) “white supremacists” and
“militia groups” – without appropriate
differentiation regarding which type of group have actually been
violent in recent political history? Specifically, what about
left-leaning progressives and/or anarchists (SDS, etc.), militant
environmentalists, or Aryan/Neo-NAZI collectivists – not
constitutional militia who are defensive in nature or groups who
protest the over-reach of government? Or, as Mark Alexander
observes:
“Perhaps the author of the Ft. Knox scenario should focus
on a response plan for, say, an Islamic terrorist who attacks
unarmed troops on his own post. -- See Ft. Hood / Major Nidal
Malik Hasan.”
6: As noted above, Mark Alexander, Publisher The Patriot Post who
broke this story on Thursday, 29 April, published an update:
“I was contacted by senior command staff at Ft. Knox on
the afternoon of the date of publication. There was a security
exercise at Ft. Knox this week, but an officer in the security
loop altered the scenario "in order to make it more realistic."
Those alterations were described in my essay, exactly as they
appeared. The command staff informed me that the alterations were
not approved at the command level and that the individual who
circulated the scenario through official channels will 'receive
appropriate counsel.'”
That being the case, was the person or persons responsible for
“altering the scenario” to “make it more
realistic” actually disciplined; or is that merely a
cover-up to appease concerned citizens questioning the propriety
of this event? What was the nature of the discipline?
7: Will Fort Knox publish policy guidance preventing conflation
of groups and/or individuals that participate in constitutionally
protected behavior (speaking out for redress of grievances;
protesting; keeping and bearing arms) as opposed to militant or
criminal elements that have broken laws, communicated threats,
attacked military installations?
8: Does Fort Knox gather intelligence or security information on
US citizens and groups? As you know, gathering intelligence on
‘US Persons’ is a violation of public law and
executive order whereas gathering and maintaining records on
security threats is arguably not. Where does Fort Knox draw this
line, and to what extent does the exercise as written and amended
reflect or contradict that policy?
I await your response with great interest.
M. Vanderboegh
From the newsgroup AMOJ. Thank you.
Permission from the writer given to reprint here.
Publisher's Note: Regarding my essay, Army Preps for Tea Party
'Terrorists,
KnoxFt. Knox this week, but an officer in the security loop
altered the scenario "in order to make it more realistic." Those
alterations were described in my essay, exactly as they appeared.
The command staff informed me that the alterations were not
approved at the command level and that the individual who
circulated the scenario through official channels will "receive
appropriate counsel." I was assured that the Command staff would
not have authorized such a scenario.
This response is all well and good, sir, but it does raise some
issues and questions that should be answered, if not now in the
court of public opinion then certainly later in front of
Congress.
The over-arching concerns raised by this incident are, in order,
a. The politicization of US Army security exercise, targeting
‘US Persons’ and associated groups to which they
belong, for constitutionally protected behavior (free speech,
protest for redress of grievances; keeping and bearing arms;
expression of political/ideologic
b. The conflation of peaceful, constitutionally protected
activity, with arguably militant but mis-characterized
“violent” protest groups. (Muslim, Black-Nationalist, and left-progressive and anarchist groups, who do in fact commit violence, are seemingly never mentioned in these scenarios.)
c. The following concerns, excerpted from Alexander’s
essay:
“amateurish in its construct …the fact that it made
it out into official channels sets an ominous political
precedent.”
“… the scenario "misrepresents freedom loving Americans
as drunken, violent racists -- the opponents of Obama's policies
have been made the enemy of the U.S. Army.”
“... equally concerned that it appears the command staff
at Ft. Knox had signed off on this exercise.”
“One officer insisted, "The American people should require
greater accountability of their commissioned officers, that they
abide by their oath and never allow politically motivated
propaganda like this exercise on any post or base again.”
Now if I may guess, and feel free to correct me if I am wrong,
this was almost certainly a STAFFEX (Staff Exercise) or possibly
a Command Post Exercise – although I doubt that. I very
much doubt that this involved any actual ‘troop’
action. I would be very surprised if anyone, other than a few
operations and training personnel, and security types were even
aware of the exercise or participated. Such participation would
have been limited to release of ‘scenario events’
(programmed from the Master Event Scenario List aka
‘MESL’; otherwise known as “MESLs”),
acknowledgement by targeted recipients, with appropriate
(fictional) responses. Actual dispatch of the QRF is not normally
an actual part of such an exercise -- it tests and exercises
systems, chains-of-command, and responsiveness of headquarters.
As you know, occasionally these do go to the next level and
involve actual units and troops.
That being the case, I must ask the following relevant questions:
1. To what level were soldiers and units participant in this
exercise? Please specify at minimum the level of participation of
the following named organizations: 5-15 CAV (read as
“Fifth of the Fifteenth Cavalry Squadron”); 16th
Cavalry Brigade; and 194th Cavalry Brigade (both of which are
schools units – not operationally deployable maneuver
brigades).
2: Were the field or operations command posts of the US Armor
Center, US Army Garrison, Fort Knox; 16th Cav Bde (QRF I), 194th
Cav Bde (QRF II), and 5-15 Cav Sqdn set up in field or simulated
field conditions?
3: Which office (US Armor Center, G3 or US Army Garrison, Fort
Knox, DPTMS) planned and developed the exercise? Who developed
the scenario event items, specifically the characterization of
the “threat” as a mixture of
· “White Supremacists [sic] Organizations”;
· “Local Militia Groups”;
· Anti-Government (Health-Care) Protestors;
· Tea Party
4: Who approved the scenario and the characterization of the
“threat” as “armed”; with
“combative training”; “some are former
Military Snipers”; “Some may have explosives
training/experience”; “Viable Threats have been
made”; “Many members were extremely agitated at
what they referred to as Government intervention and over
taxation in their lives….”; “Some members
have criminal records relating to explosive and weapons
violations.”
5: Does Commander, Fort Knox (either one) consider it appropriate
to conflate constitutionally protected speech and civic action
seeking “a redress of grievances” (the Tea
Party’s purpose and activity) with violent, criminal
behavior? Does Commander, Fort Knox, have an opinion regarding
the political characterization evident in the conflation of
(presumably violent) “white supremacists” and
“militia groups” – without appropriate
differentiation regarding which type of group have actually been
violent in recent political history? Specifically, what about
left-leaning progressives and/or anarchists (SDS, etc.), militant
environmentalists, or Aryan/Neo-NAZI collectivists – not
constitutional militia who are defensive in nature or groups who
protest the over-reach of government? Or, as Mark Alexander
observes:
“Perhaps the author of the Ft. Knox scenario should focus
on a response plan for, say, an Islamic terrorist who attacks
unarmed troops on his own post. -- See Ft. Hood / Major Nidal
Malik Hasan.”
6: As noted above, Mark Alexander, Publisher The Patriot Post who
broke this story on Thursday, 29 April, published an update:
“I was contacted by senior command staff at Ft. Knox on
the afternoon of the date of publication. There was a security
exercise at Ft. Knox this week, but an officer in the security
loop altered the scenario "in order to make it more realistic."
Those alterations were described in my essay, exactly as they
appeared. The command staff informed me that the alterations were
not approved at the command level and that the individual who
circulated the scenario through official channels will 'receive
appropriate counsel.'”
That being the case, was the person or persons responsible for
“altering the scenario” to “make it more
realistic” actually disciplined; or is that merely a
cover-up to appease concerned citizens questioning the propriety
of this event? What was the nature of the discipline?
7: Will Fort Knox publish policy guidance preventing conflation
of groups and/or individuals that participate in constitutionally
protected behavior (speaking out for redress of grievances;
protesting; keeping and bearing arms) as opposed to militant or
criminal elements that have broken laws, communicated threats,
attacked military installations?
8: Does Fort Knox gather intelligence or security information on
US citizens and groups? As you know, gathering intelligence on
‘US Persons’ is a violation of public law and
executive order whereas gathering and maintaining records on
security threats is arguably not. Where does Fort Knox draw this
line, and to what extent does the exercise as written and amended
reflect or contradict that policy?
I await your response with great interest.
M. Vanderboegh
From the newsgroup AMOJ. Thank you.
Permission from the writer given to reprint here.
No comments:
Post a Comment