MDL sent this in today, probably being as incensed as I was about it (ironically he and I both know one of the SWJ principals). I was planning on bringing it to everyone’s attention, with a little side note about how easy it is to despise its loathsome authors– a West Pointer and an Ivy Leaguer. But since it’s been noted elsewhere, especially at Sipsey Street’s solid takedown, my work has been done.
Read it, understand it, and feel free to weigh in.There is much to mock, much to dislike, but also much to file away for future use. I work at the Pentagon, and I well understand the valedictocrats and how they view large segments of the US population.
Oh, my. The (near?) future is going to be lively, isn’t it?
UPDATE: The more I read it, the more I hate it. And– another link to look at.
Good lord. Is this a transcript for a MSNBC broadcast??? Have any of these idiots who write this trash ever listened to an actual tea-party event? I guess we should just stick with the party led by the proto-Marxist. That’s the ticket.
Wow. That is one disturbing article, but I don’t think unusual for a class that has come to believe themselves a “ruling elite” of a severely flawed society. They are contemplating ways to circumvent the founding principles of our country. We are now being faced with what de Touqueville termed the potential tyranny of the majority. A concept that the founders clearly understood, and so set up a representative republic with a system of checks and balances to limit central power. To succeed our system requires, among other things, (1) equality of conditions i.e. equality under that law, NOT defacto equality in all things, (2) sovereignty of the populace, i.e. respect and enforcement of individual rights and (3) an informed and subsequently participating citizenry. Some term 3 “popular opinion”, but that is not enough.
We are fast reaching the point where the “takers” will outnumber the “producers”. Such takers have been enabled by the Marxist (no other term for it!) philosophy that has become pervasive in the present ruling elite. They also want the central government to control, if not own, the means of production. The denigrated “Tea Party” is a natural reaction to that philosophy by a people that embrace the three points outlined above.
My professional training is in law and economics. I confess that I have conducted a thought exercise to explore the means by which a people might separate from such a tyrannical philosophy. Can a people separate? No, according to the events leading up to the Civil War. Of course this scenario is entirely different. The potential “insurrectionists” are not trying to enforce a system abhorrent to the fundamental principles of our country. They aspire to regain the fundamental principles. Will a movement for separation begin in state legislatures? Will certain states elect to no longer stand with a federal government that no longer operates under the Constitution? If so, will the federal government elect to use the military in a manner outlined by our erstwhile ruling elite authors, Col. Benson and Dr. Weber. If so, will the rank and file military “follow orders”? I think not.
Something in the milk ain’t clean.
“[T]he Defense Department does not collect or store information on American civilians or civilian groups during peacetime, the military will have to rely on local and state law enforcement officials at the start of operations to establish intelligence data-bases…”
The data is there – but with such players as currently exist in the DoJ, Treasury, NSA, NGA, and elsewhere – would they share with DoD? Or, water it down to uselessness? The weakness is human behavior, and the favorite game of bureaucracies is “I got a secret!”
“Department of Defense Directive 5200.27 and Department of Defense Directive 5240.1R. These directives state: “Operations Related to Civil Disturbance. The Attorney General is the chief civilian officer in charge of coordinating all federal government activities relating to civil disturbances. Upon specific prior authorization of the Secretary of Defense or his designee…”
Anyone researched these DoDDs? Is this accurate?
“Given that Soldiers and Marines stationed at Forts Bragg and Stewart as well as Camp Lejuene live relatively nearby and that many come from this region, chances are they will know someone who lives in or near Darlington. Countering Al Qaeda web-based propaganda is one thing, countering domestic information bombardments is another effort entirely.”
So: soldiers and marines are not to be trusted because they’re likely TEA Partiers, rednecks, good ole boys, and Sympathizers? Wow.
Here’s the thing. We’ve seen the steady villainization of American servicemembers, conservatives, and anyone opposed to President Obama for any reason. If this article is accurate in its use to open discussion on FSO in the US of A, there’s something to consider:
It can be used against Enemies of the State: anarchists, OWS, folks who undermine soldiers’ privilige to vote, racist anti-American groups like NBPP, KKK, La Raza and others.
A tool, once created, has to be used. It’s human nature.
I am almost speechless after reading this. I wonder why the scenario did not involve a large city in the rust bucket with high unemployment and rioters in the streets? Urban riots? There have already been cities with large populations causing civil disturbances. Why not discuss these?
Simple.
Given the current political environment, everybody involved in the publication of the more likely scenario of a metropolitan area meltdown would be unemployed, and that’s whether or not the scenario even were published. Given that the challenges the scenario explores are one’s of command and control, coordination with civilian authorities, etc, the change in venue from “urban yutes demonstrating” in Newark, NJ (with apologies to Newark’s mayor, who seems to be the first one w/o his head up his a** in decades) to Tea Party rednecks in Georgia doesn’t make a lot of difference.
So if you want to explore the problems presented by domestic operations against insurrection, this is really the only way to do it. You can’t build a plausible scenario with anything except either the Tea Party types, or radicalized militant leftists such as La Raza, NBP and such, in an urban area. For anybody using the scenario for training/gaming purposes, the exact nature of the opposition isn’t always important, as long as it’s plausible enough.
In many ways, it’s the Zombie Maxim. The Zombie Apocalypse is a pop culture stand-in for real concerns about a break down in society. When talking about blowing away brain eating POS’s that are on a path to inexorably destroy us, many folks are actually talking about surviving inexorable tyranny, lawless roving gangs, etc. But you don’t talk about putting a NATO 7.62 through the brain pan of a crack head from across the river in polite company.
Some observations.
I have some issues with the characterization of the Insurrection Act under Title 10. With a functioning state government and Title 32 forces available, plus a state police force, the call to the feds for US forces in South Carolina to retake Darlington is both improbable and preposterous. Each state governor has rather broad emergency powers, and not a little resources to bring to something like this.
That said, here are some deeper issues:
The scenario is a thinly-veiled assertion that the current Administration’s political opponents are in actuality existential enemies of this country. Which might seem a bit of a reach in isolation, but not with the FBI “identifying” of white male returning Veterans who believe in the Second Amendment and smaller government as domestic terrorist threats, and the dropping of “Islamic extremists” for “violent extremists”, which facilitates that assertion. And the AG refusing to prosecute or even investigate “his people”, which can be taken to mean he has even more interest in doing so against those who are not “his people”. (Have a white AG make that statement…)
Even more alarming, I think, is that this is the floating of the idea that it is reasonable to employ Title 10 forces against US citizens on US soil. The idea is couched in the jabberwocky of seeming to attempt to define force structure and liaison requirements for an all-but certain future mission, but is in reality a radically dangerous threat to Constitutional freedoms. And this is by no means the first time. I sat and listened to the Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Cartwright, speak openly of the Constitutional limitations against use of the military domestically as “barriers to mission accomplishment”. For him to say that, such ideas are well entrenched at the upper levels of DoD leadership. We were horrified. (Salamander wrote a piece on it for USNI.)
The ever-more pliable senior leadership of our Armed Forces, both at DoD and the individual services, becomes very, very dangerous here. This road of military employment in CONUS leads, without much variance, to a situation in which senior leaders and Officers will be presented with a choice/decision. On one side they will have the Constitution they have sworn to uphold and defend. On the other they will have the orders and directives from their political leaders that they KNOW violate that Constitution. Most, being reduced to minions of their political masters, will choose the latter without hesitation, and then scheme ways to obfuscate and confuse the issue so they can claim that infamous “gray area” when they know good and well it is not. The word, I think, is character. This Administration was very happy to see General Conway depart, because his answer would have been “F*ck no!”. But Casey? Mullen? Dempsey? Roughead? They would have been eagerly complicit. I dunno, frankly, about Amos and Greenert. Or Schwartz. Think Seven Days in May, except coming from the civilian side. Who’s betting on the Preakness?
They should of used Anaheim CA for their test case. Some of the rioting groups there stated simple goals of having the city government turned over to them.
Gentlemen, get your panties unknotted. I have known COL (RET) Kevin Benson for over twenty years, he is hardly a wide eyed radical, he is a thoughtful, prudent, intelligent gentleman.
Most of you do not remember a similar article a number of years ago by then Colonel Charles Dunlap (now MG USAF Retired) entitled “The Origins of the American Military Coup 2012″ which asked some very hard questions about civil military relations. http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/Articles/2010winter/Dunlap_Jr.pdf
As I read Kevin’s article he is challenging the USG and the military to consider what would happen if we faced an insurgency within our nation. The insurgency could come from white supremacists, environmental activists, or any number of groups. The Tea Party was the vehicle Kevin and his co-author chose. They raise important question, how does the government react, what is the relationship between the Title 10 force and the Title 32 force, how does the government deal with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1877 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act etc.
Kevin article is a challenge to think outside the proverbial box, while some of the comments are good and the analysis in the links is okay, they are hardly reflective of anyone doing any real thinking. Think-don’t allow your emotions to override your ability to think.
Then why didn’t he choose a group that has already demanded a change in the form of government? Like the Islamic Extremists who want Sharia in the United States?
I would do some real thinking, but the domestically-deployed surveillance drones are kinda distracting.
But then, I suppose the REAL thinking is following General Cartwright’s admonition to figure out ways for DoD to overcome the Constitutional “barriers” to mission accomplishment. Got it.
But then, what would I know? I am a likely terrorist, anyway, according to Federal Law Enforcement. White, Veteran, believes in smaller government, the Second Amendment, and God.
Maybe the VA can declare me a suicide risk, and General Chiarelli can have my guns confiscated. For my own protection, of course.
Yeah, boy, no reason to be concerned which way the signposts are pointing.
Sorry to see this thread dying out. Very interesting stuff — to this nonmilitary slacker. I’m reasonably reassured and, surprisingly, not (too) concerned.
There is more. Much more.
http://xbradtc.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/18887/
I seem to remember training to combat “fictional” enemies such as Krasnovians, Pinelandians, Samarans and Atlanticans. There was no reason to set this scenario in a specific, real US (southern) city, with the “enemy” a very real group in current American politics. I’ll leave my comments restrained to that for now…..
Drudge is now carrying the article and an accompanying blog. Kudos to Op-For for being out in front of Drudge!