Retired general says National Guard could help curb Chicago violence

Chicago Tribune ^ | 2/21/13 | Lolly Bowean

[Libloather]

To reduce the homicides and shootings plaguing Chicago streets, elected officials should consider calling on the state and federal governments for help, even the National Guard if necessary, said a retired Army lieutenant general who spearheaded the military response after Hurricane Katrina.

"Just like we do with any disaster. When the tornado comes, or the floods come, the federal government comes in to help," Russel L. Honore said Thursday at a news conference in Chicago.

"Let's not let this be about pride. 'We are big ol' Chicago, we are too proud, we can handle this.' Maybe you can't handle it. If you need help, get the federal government here. But let's control the streets so children and elderly people can be in a safe community."

Honore, known for his no-nonsense leadership, was in Chicago as part of The HistoryMakers project to record and archive the stories of African-American military leaders. The nonprofit organization houses the largest collection of recorded histories of African-Americans.

[publius911]

I'm not a legal expert of any sort, but it has been my lifelong belief (unquestioned) that the federal armed forces are forbidden to act militarily within the United States. Am I wrong?

Is this prohibition in the original Constitution or in subsequent laws?

Inquiring minds, etc. Apparently this retired "general" does not see a problem with his suggestion.

[publius911]

Because in afganistan the locals are not nationalists.

You really think Obama's armed peeps in Chicago are nationalists?

[publius911]

Because in afganistan the locals are not nationalists.

You really think Obama's armed peeps in Chicago are nationalists?

[snoringbear]

“
You really think Obama’s armed peeps in Chicago are nationalists?”

You must care a lot about this post because posted your reply twice :)

Anyway, I went back and re-read my post. I have to acknowledge that I didn’t do a very good job in expressing my thoughts. Soooo, I’ll try again. Guess I was thinking more about the Afghanistan situation than the Chicago cesspool in stating that they are tribal vs national. Meaning they have no interest in forming a nation as their allegiance is to their respective tribe and its customs and rules. As you may know, many have attempted to bring Afghanistan within their sphere of influence; Greece (Alexander The Great), Brit’s, USSR, and now the U.S. Now, what does that have to do with Chicago and their gangs? Not much I suppose except that they pledge their allegiance first and foremost to their homie gang and not to anything else. Do I think that our military could clean these rat nests out? Sure, it’s had plenty of practice doing so in Afghanistan. But, I seriously doubt that their ROE’s that they would be required to operate under would allow that. Heck, they might not even be allowed to pack live ammo.

Well, hope clarified this some and soothed your festering soul :)

[Houghton M.]

Police presence does deter. My neighborhood has been invaded by gang turf wars precisely because police really cracked down on an adjoining area after a toddler was shot in crossfire.

I agree that courts and prisons are part of the problem. But policing tactics were changed by the Ballerina.

The only real solution is family and society. And not much hope there.

This thread is about using the National Guard. That’s foolish. None of the options are great.

[PapaBear3625]

If the street gangs had tried their thing in a solid neighborhood of 100 years ago, the working men of the neighborhood, in order to protect their families and property, would have just lynched all the gang bangers, and that would have been that.

It is the welfare state that allows this chaos. In an environment where if you don't perform productive work, you die, the gang bangers could not exist for long.

[snoringbear]

“If the street gangs had tried their thing in a solid neighborhood of 100 years ago, the working men of the neighborhood, in order to protect their families and property, would have just lynched all the gang bangers, and that would have been that.
It is the welfare state that allows this chaos. In an environment where if you don’t perform productive work, you die, the gang bangers could not exist for long.”

Hey fellow Bear! Agree with all you say. However, I’m not very hopefull that these festering cesspools will ever be turned around. So, the question is should we, the productive tax paying class continue to sustain these hell holes, I.e., Detroit, Chicago, or cut’em off and thereby force them to relocate? Personally, I’m thinking most of those with a modicum of ambition and self respect have already left these places. So, maybe it’s more cost effective to leave those who remain where they are. Call it tribute if you like. I know I don’t want them around me. Just saying....

[rxtn41]

They can’t stabilize Alghanistan because of the rules of engagment use now....If we would fight to win and get the HXXX out we would save more lives...

[PapaBear3625]

Hey fellow Bear! Agree with all you say. However, I’m not very hopefull that these festering cesspools will ever be turned around. So, the question is should we, the productive tax paying class continue to sustain these hell holes, I.e., Detroit, Chicago, or cut’em off and thereby force them to relocate?

I would wean them off.

First, take all the dozens of means-tested programs, and consolidate them under one program, called "welfare". The programs are spread out among a bunch of agencies to hide how much welfare spending there actually is.

Second, adopt a policy that welfare benefits WILL NOT be increased if a woman has additional kids.

Third, reduce welfare spending to the point where it's not at all worth it for a women to have kids in order to get benefits.