http://highlandcountypress.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=22&ArticleID=27707
Having served in the U.S. Army, I can understand why military officials have a goal to see if groups of Special Forces can move around a civilian population without being noticed and can handle various threat scenarios.
In military science classes or in my years on active duty, I have participated in or observed military exercises; however, we never named an existing city or state as a “hostile.” We would use fictitious names before we would do such a thing.
Once I observed the map depicting "hostile," "permissive" and "uncertain" states and locations, I was rather appalled that the hostile areas amazingly have a Republican majority and believe in the sanctity of the United States Constitution.
When the federal government begins, even in practice, games or exercises, to consider any U.S. city or state in "hostile" control and trying to retake it, the message becomes extremely calloused and suspicious.
Such labeling tends to make people who have grown leery of federal government overreach become suspicious of whether their big brother government anticipates certain states may start another civil war or be overtaken by foreign radical Islamist elements which have been reported to be just across our border.
Such labeling by a government that is normally not allowed to use military force against its own citizens is an affront to the residents of that particular state considered as hostile, as if the government is trying to provoke a fight with them.
The map of the exercise needs to change, the names on the map need to change, and the tone of the exercise needs to be completely revamped so the federal government is not intentionally practicing war against its own states.