ARTICLE: Agencies Clash on Military's Border Role, By Spencer S. Hsu, Washington Post, June 28, 2009

Interesting piece.

You are almost stunned to see this quote:

"It should not be that we always rely on the Department of Defense to fulfill some need," said Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr., head of U.S. Northern Command, which is responsible for defending the continental United States.

Weird, but I thought that was the whole point in creating Northern Command.

Better framing found here:

The debate goes to the heart of the military's role, which has expanded since the 2001 terrorist attacks, with an increasing commitment of troops and resources to homeland defense, particularly to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear attack or other domestic catastrophe. Deploying new troops to the border would represent a mission the military has not traditionally embraced.

"What we're seeing here is a move toward reframing where defense begins and ends," said Bert B. Tussing, director of homeland defense and security issues at the U.S. Army War College's Center for Strategic Leadership. "Traditionally the military looks outward, but looking outward has begun a lot closer to home, and it may involve looking just across the border."

It's clearly the "disproportionate" argument that drives the states to look to the Fed on this, and within the Fed, we concentrate the bucks and the bodies in DoD, because DoD is one hungry and greedy beast. So for DoD to swear off this sort of thing pre-emptively is a bit disingenuous, to my way of thinking. We see this all the time on disasters (like Katrina), where the argument is always, exhaust all other options before bringing us in but when we go that route, sometimes we end up with far larger disasters than they need to be.

So long as our military goes so deeply on the SysAdmin stuff abroad, expect governors and states to do their damnedest to tap that capability.

(Thanks: John Garrish)