U.S. troops on DEFCON 2 alert

September 11, 2002 7:45 PM

U.S. troops on DEFCON 2 alert "The Canoe.qc.ca web site has learned that American Marines in the Persian Gulf have been placed on DEFCON 2 alert status, a possible precursor to war with Iraq." - the Canoe.ca site is often several hours ahead of more popular news sites (CNN, MSNBC, ect) with breaking news.
posted by stevengarrity (22 comments total)

Hmm ... did anyone watch Bush's speech? Did he sound as bellicose as the article implies?
posted by risenc at 8:05 PM on September 11, 2002

A senior source inside the Expeditionary force of American Marines - a special operations unit that is usually first on the scene - told Canoe.qc.ca that President Bush has put U.S. military forces in the Middle East and Southeastern Asian on high alert.

These are also the quick response forces that would be first to respond to terrorists attacks on American interests in the Middle-East and Asia ... which was not exactly an unlikely possibility on 9/11. The "senior source" said they were put on high alert. The website writer has made the leap and is trying to imply that this relates to an attack on Iraq.
posted by MidasMulligan at 8:21 PM on September 11, 2002

According to an article at the NY Times, the alert status was "upgraded to their highest alert status on Wednesday in response to warnings of possible terror attacks on the anniversary of strikes against America."
posted by quam at 8:24 PM on September 11, 2002

Quam, Threatcon and Defcon are two different things.

Threatcon was graded at Delta which is the highest level for Threatcon. Defcon 2 is not the highest, Defcon 1 is. I imagine within the next day or two we will be invading Iraq.
posted by SuzySmith at 8:37 PM on September 11, 2002

I could be wrong, but I though Defcon only had to do with Nuclear threats. ??? Maybe I just watched War Games too many times.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 8:42 PM on September 11, 2002

SuzySmith, that's just irresponsible, and I say that as a former member of the US special operations community (37F psyop specialist, if anyone cares).

There's no way you can draw the inference you did from any information explicitly stated in responsible sources.
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:50 PM on September 11, 2002

Psyops, eh?

(Memo to self: Never believe anything adamgreenfield says without independent corroboration.)
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:00 PM on September 11, 2002

LOL. Have you been talking to my ex, crash_davis?
posted by adamgreenfield at 9:05 PM on September 11, 2002

DEFCON stands for "Defense Conditions."

DEFCON 5 Normal peacetime readiness
DEFCON 4 Normal, increased intelligence and strengthened security measures
DEFCON 3 Increase in force readiness above normal readiness
DEFCON 2 Further Increase in force readiness, but less than maximum readiness
DEFCON 1 Maximum force readiness.
posted by frykitty at 9:08 PM on September 11, 2002

Threatcon was graded at Delta which is the highest level for Threatcon. Defcon 2 is not the highest, Defcon 1 is. I imagine within the next day or two we will be invading Iraq.

It's nothing foreign intelligence wouldn't assume of such a report. (Not to say that I'm certain this report is correct. I haven't heard this anywhere else yet.)
posted by jennak at 9:10 PM on September 11, 2002

err...dang! sorry, i copied the wrong thing.

SuzySmith, that's just irresponsible [to say we're going to invade], and I say that as a former member of the US special operations community (37F psyop specialist, if anyone cares).
posted by jennak at 9:11 PM on September 11, 2002

DEFCON 5 Normal peacetime readiness
DEFCON 4 Normal, increased intelligence and strengthened security measures
DEFCON 3 Increase in force readiness above normal readiness
DEFCON 2 Further Increase in force readiness, but less than maximum readiness
DEFCON 1 Maximum force readiness.

War Games way too many times, Steve :D
posted by SuzySmith at 9:13 PM on September 11, 2002

One way to think about Defense Condition is the military stance in reaction to wars anywhere on the globe. DefCon can be upgraded if Russia and China are fighting, because that would destablize the whole region and potentially require US reaction.

Threat Condition is how probable the military thinks an attack on a specific installation is. They can have different ThreatCons throughout the globe, but only one DefCon. If the Marines in the Gulf are at DefCon 2 then all US military throughout the globe is too.

This particular ThreatCon increase probably has to do with yesterday's terror alert. The specific targets mentioned by Omar al-Faruq were in South Asia, not America, so being on a higher alert is the Gulf is probably prudent.
posted by raaka at 9:36 PM on September 11, 2002

(In other words, Canoe screwed up. I don't blame them, the DoD can be pretty damned confusing. Hell, I probably screwed something up in my previous post.)
posted by raaka at 9:40 PM on September 11, 2002

Canoe screwed up their information. The military's terrorist threat condition has been raised, not the defense (readiness) condition. Previously known as THREATCON, last summer this was changed to the awkward FPCON, for force protection condition (or maybe it was changed back -- there was a namespace conflict with a State Department term). The basic procedures are probably similar to this mid-90s THREATCON document -- essentially, battening down the hatches at bases and public facilities, doing more thorough ID checks and vehicle searches, more guards on the fenceline, pretty basic stuff. This is an indication that they are concerned about a terrorist-style attack on a military installation in the region notified. It has nothing to do with military preparation to fight, pre-emptively or not, nor expectation of a military-style attack on our forces.
posted by dhartung at 9:43 PM on September 11, 2002

...precisely. And, mind you, my old unit was on Threatcon Bravo for, like, forever...Bravo is like background radiation, it's ambient.

As a matter of fact, it was so lax that I can't quite believe that a lower state of readiness is provided for. Threatcon Bravo basically meant "don't let the FedEx truck get too close to the side of the building, and make sure to check everyone's ID (or at least make sure they've got a reasonable story) before letting them on-post."

And while securing posts is of course well and good, as you can see, it tells you very little about the state of combat readiness for any given unit. We shared a single common Threatcon with all kinds of other units, some of which would never ever need to worry about deployment.
posted by adamgreenfield at 9:55 PM on September 11, 2002

SuzySmith, that's just irresponsible [to say we're going to invade], and I say that as a former member of the US special operations community (37F psyop specialist, if anyone cares).

How is that irresponsible? I am not a member of the military. I am not a government offical. I no longer work for the DOD and haven't for several years.

I am an average citizen. I can, and will, say that I do think we're on the verge of attacking Iraq, as all signs point to it.
posted by SuzySmith at 10:04 PM on September 11, 2002

I am an average citizen. I can, and will, say that I do think we're on the verge of attacking Iraq, as all signs point to it.

Actually, most of the signs are pointing towards Bush making a speech Thursday at the UN, and urging them towards giving Iraq an ultimatum. The troops are nowhere close to being in place for an invasion of Iraq in the next two days. Or even the next two weeks.

Heightened military alert status - especially in the Middle-East and Asia - is hardly surprising, since intelligence reports have been saying for two or three days that those two regions in particular had the highest liklihood of terrorist activity against US targets ... in fact a number of US Embassies in those regions were temporarily closed.
posted by MidasMulligan at 11:25 PM on September 11, 2002

This site interested me so much that i checked out the front page. The article entitled Bush: Iraq must Disarn mentions Bush's plans:

The Bush administration has made clear it feels justified in going it alone if necessary and contends it does not need new legal authority to use force to try to oust Saddam.

Like father like son?
posted by tatochip at 7:53 AM on September 12, 2002

I don't mean this to be a rhetorical question (I'm not trying to make a point, just find something out)...
When was the last time we were at DEFCON 5?
posted by wanderingmind at 8:14 AM on September 12, 2002

The Bush administration has made clear it feels justified in going it alone if necessary and contends it does not need new legal authority to use force to try to oust Saddam.

Like father like son?

Actually, the elder Bush made a point of not going alone. There was a tremendous emphasis on coalition-building before, during, and after the Gulf War. The younger Bush's apparent readiness to "go it alone" is therefore rather surprising, I think.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:44 AM on September 12, 2002

wanderingmind: It's hard to find amongst the hacker and gamer chatter, not to mention the legions of people who talk about it in terms of quotidian personal issues, often reversing the importance. But it appears that DEFCON 2 was reached during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and it has never since been higher. According to Rumsfeld [cf. WaPo] we went to DEFCON 3 during the 9/11 attacks and soon reduced that to DEFCON 4, where it remained for some time; it had not been at DEFCON 3 since the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. (Many erroneous reports said we went to DEFCON 1, but that is pretty much equivalent to open war. As it was, we let the Russians know we were doing this, and they let us know they were cool with it.) I would expect we may have been at DEFCON 5 last summer, actually, although certain elements. I seem to recall a big deal being made about ratcheting down in the latter Gorbachev years: Looking Glass went to ground alert after 30 years of continuous airborne alert, and except for the Moscow coup crisis, we've pretty much been at peacetime since then. Ah -- according to the Atlantic, except for the US Strategic {Air} Command and forces in Korea, which were at 4, DEFCON is normally 5, even during the Cold War; specifically, Reagan's shooting.
posted by dhartung at 2:40 PM on September 12, 2002