Currently Posse Comitatus and Northcom are incompatible.  Constitutionally a square peg trying to be fit into a round hole.

I have serious issues with the rationale for establishment of Northcom outside of an invasion of the US by a hostile power.  To me Northcom is just one step away from Martial Law.  Ivo Daadler and Professor Slaughter have been discussing the failed redfinition of GWOT to GSAVE.  Our efforts against terrorism has to be a classified as a "war" to justify establishing Northcom in peacetime.  That is why GWOT and twisting constitutional interpertation of the law continues to be the modus operandi for Bush.  Call it a "war" so the administration can justify torture at Gitmo, enact the Patriot Act and establish Northcom.  And I am even more concerned when hearing Admiral Keating saying the DoD is ready to take the lead in the wake of another terrorist attack...The military doesn't have to follow civilian law like state and local law enforcement does.

Are we such wusses and scaredies we are willing to PLAN to give up our freedoms? We got through two world wars and the great Commie scare without anything of the sort, what could be the reason to do it now? "Nuclear attacks in several cities simultaneously...." Bah! Paranoia of the highest order! That a rag-tag bunch of desert brigands like al Quada could somehow manufacture, ship and detonate even one atomic device is a fantasy worthy of an Orson Wells radio show. These people have shown they can attack airline pilots with utility knives and strap explosives to their bodies---they are universes away from having the ability to mount any kind of mass attack. But I fear this country has gone so soft that any explosion anywhere will be an allowable reason to declare marshal law, and so we must strenuously challenge even tiny gestures in that direction. Fear for the United states of America---not at the hands of terrorists, but at the hands of people who are supposed to be protecting us.

What, if anything, can be done about this?

Nothing at all can be done about it as long as the sheep we call citizens refuse to vote intelligently. Last November was the ideal time to do something about it. But, the sheep, realizing that the end of life as we know it would occur if gays were ever allowed to marry, chose to live with the lesser threat of a military takeover of the country under Bush. We are now reaping what we sowed.

Consider that the DOD expanded reading of their role in the US may also be their solution to the Base Closure conflict over the authority of governors vs. DOD to control state National Guard forces.

The current BRAC dispute is whether DOD can legally consolidate Air National Guard forces and their jets into larger bases in fewer states.  Governors who have primary authority over the guard forces have gone to court to stop the DOD. Last I read the BRAC Commission acknowleges this may be a valid legal issue.

This new reading of Nothern command's role may be a way to solve the BRAC issue and take legal control over guard forces, cutting governors out of the authority loop.  Governors should be the first to fight this.

Re: But, it defies logic, let alone history and law, to hold that the DoD has sufficient authority to take "the lead" (in the words of Admiral Timothy Keating, the head of Northcom) in the event of a really disastrous attack.  I don't know what "the lead" means, nor do I suspect does most of the military.

That's an awfully flip statement to make. The military does indeed understand what "lead" means versus support. As you yourself note, DOD has historically resisted being the lead in any domestic situations. NORTHCOM is probably working out potential scenarios where the military would be called in, and I think he must have been solely referring to CBRN terrorism when he said "lead". Not that this excuses his statement, I don't think it's appropriate for DOD to "lead" in CBRN response either - that's DHS, DHHS, or EPA.

I think you confuse the situation by referring to OSD, NORTHCOM, and the military leadership equally with the term "DOD". That's a wide set of people - this is perhaps, at best, an overstretching by NORTHCOM, and OSD civilian leaders need to constrain those NORTHCOM planners since they're writing checks that OSD can't afford. Nonetheless, you are correct that we ought to be questioning the tone of the article, where there is no recognition that DHS should be leading and DOD should be supporting in all cases short of an invasion of the United States by a foreign power.

Am I missing something here? Isn't it the job of the Defense Department to abort or respond to an attack on the United States? In any other country that would be obvious, but we have become so accustomed to wide oceans and friendly or cowed neighbors that the idea that the military would need to take action within the country in order to defend the country that this simple concept elicits cries of coup d'etat and violations of Posse Comitatus. If we knew Pearl Harbor was going to happen tomorrow who would take the lead? The FBI? The police? Homeland Security? Similarly on 9/11, once the hijackers gained control of the planes, the only possible response was military -- intercepting the planes and shooting them down. I see nothing in this discussion that recognizes or refutes that this is what DoD is talking about.