Somewhat troubling

A report in the Washington Post today.

A little troubling. If you can answer the following question in a different fashion, I'd be very happy: why military, if not for population control / martial law?

Oh, come on you far--out paranoid, if there were a terrorist attack on the country, wouldn't we need twenty thousand (at least) soldiers to help out?

No, not soldiers. A terrorist attack would NOT be an invasion. I can't see a reason, beyond population control, that you couldn't do what the military is here to do with a corps of trained citizen volunteers, like volunteer firemen. Logistically, yes, it might be a little more difficult. But it avoids having the military active in the country (in large numbers,) which is just an open invitation for trouble. I guarantee that if they are ever used (why are they there if not to be used) there will be abuses times a billion. Perhaps (but only perhaps) it is better than, say, using Blackwater, at least it's out in the open.

I'm not saying it's going to happen, but it could.

And that's more troubling to me than a terrorist attack. Terrorists do not win when they attack. But they'd win if we deployed the military in response to one.