Anyone who’s a regular reader knows I would do almost anything to stop it. I would fight against it any way I could.
Americans who love their country should be shocked that highly respected military officers are right now considering this scenario:
A key and understudied aspect of full spectrum operations is how to conduct these operations within American borders. If we face a period of persistent global conflict as outlined in successive National Security Strategy documents, then Army officers are professionally obligated to consider the conduct of operations on U.S. soil. Army capstone and operating concepts must provide guidance concerning how the Army will conduct the range of operations required to defend the republic at home. In this paper, we posit a scenario in which a group of political reactionaries take over a strategically positioned town and have the tacit support of not only local law enforcement but also state government officials, right up to the governor. Under present law, which initially stemmed from bad feelings about Reconstruction, the military’s domestic role is highly circumscribed. In the situation we lay out below, even though the governor refuses to seek federal help to quell the uprising (the usual channel for military assistance), the Constitution allows the president broad leeway in times of insurrection. Citing the precedents of Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and Dwight D. Eisenhower sending troops to Little Rock in 1957, the president mobilizes the military and the Department of Homeland Security, to regain control of the city. This scenario requires us to consider how domestic intelligence is gathered and shared, the role of local law enforcement (to the extent that it supports the operation), the scope and limits of the Insurrection Act–for example maintaining a military chain of command but in support of the Attorney General as the Department of Justice is the Lead Federal Agency (LFA) under the conditions of the Act–and the roles of the local, national, and international media.
The Scenario (2016)
The Great Recession of the early twenty-first century lasts far longer than anyone anticipated. After a change in control of the White House and Congress in 2012, the governing party cuts off all funding that had been dedicated to boosting the economy or toward relief. The United States economy has flatlined, much like Japan’s in the 1990s, for the better part of a decade. By 2016, the economy shows signs of reawakening, but the middle and lower-middle classes have yet to experience much in the way of job growth or pay raises. Unemployment continues to hover perilously close to double digits, small businesses cannot meet bankers’ terms to borrow money, and taxes on the middle class remain relatively high. A high-profile and vocal minority has directed the public’s fear and frustration at nonwhites and immigrants. After almost ten years of race-baiting and immigrant-bashing by right-wing demagogues, nearly one in five Americans reports being vehemently opposed to immigration, legal or illegal, and even U.S.-born nonwhites have become occasional targets for mobs of angry whites.
The target of these “full spectrum operations”? The Tea Party. Yes, Americans who are committed to the Constitution, who have not once shown the slightest propensity for violence, who have meticulously cleaned up after events, but who have nonetheless been accused of bogus racism charges, and even “terrorism” — now they find themselves the object of hypothetical military exercises in a popular, influential article published in a journal respected by military insiders.
A growing number of people — including Stephen Green, Bill Whittle, and Scott Ott — are very worried, as they should be. (And so are many military insiders who have left comments here.)
Promoting the idea of using the military against civilians is at minimum irresponsible. Whether they’re conspirators floating an evil idea or just trolls looking for hits, I think these military consultants ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Comments
6 responses to “Who wants civil war?”
Either they are serious (a possibility) or they are using the TEAs in place of some politically incorrect target – Black and Hispanic gangs.
No, the Tea Party isn’t code for black and Hispanic gangs. Why would the government target gangs? Gangs are doing the government’s work of making white middle class people keep their heads down in their own neighborhoods.
Having read the comments at the mil site I’m inclined to think it was against the TEAs.
I read the comments too and I especially like this bit by Cuffy Meigs August 9, 2012 – 2:45pm
The assumption that the US military will necessarily be on the side of the central government is, I think, the strongest failing of this exercise. If there is civil unrest of such magnitude that a benign entity like the Tea Party Movement has graduated to armed insurrection, one in which the federal government can no longer depend on its state governors for support, simply assuming that US Army formations will do as they are told is not realistic.
Not too long ago (20 years?), those prone to hysterics got all wadded up when it was learned the Army had a plan for invading Canada. The Army has plans for invading everyplace, it was explained. It’s what they do.
Good luck with this one. We can’t even secure and hold the south side of Chicago, much less anyone trying to take places like West Virginia.
I’m not sure what Colonel Joker was trying to pull here, but it wasn’t just a “think” piece. I’ve read plenty of those, and they’re usually pretty careful to sanitize the intended targets.
He used the Tea Party/KKK mashup because that’s what he wanted in his little wet dream.
I think the most interesting question is this: Who was the intended audience for this article?