U.S. Military Preparing for Domestic Disturbances

[Hootiewho]

This doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling.

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/military_domestic_use/2008/12/23/164765.html?s=al&promo_code=%20763B-1

[Jay Cunningham]

newsmax is not a credible source

[CMFG]

There's already been a thread on this.

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=23534

[NoBody]

Deleted.

[Jay Cunningham]

What source do you consider to be credible? What is the criteria that you use to determine who is a credible source and who is not?

Not newsmax.

[Saginaw79]

Theres plenty of other source out there, and all are the same info

It was originally a Brigade Combat Team for 'civil disturbances' 'Terrorist attack' etc, then Posse was mentioned and it was suddenly for 'disaster and emergencies etc'

But now the new number is upwards of 20 Thousand troops for the same reason

I do NOT like this, not after what went down in NO etc;

[Army Chief]

There isn't anything wrong with the veracity of the story, per se; merely the lack of a more instructive perspective. Studies like this are done as a matter of routine in professional military education settings -- especially those conducted at the higher levels -- and every conceivable scenario is given consideration, no matter how implausible or distasteful. The topic and timing notwithstanding, I wouldn't view this study as a sign of anything particularly forboding.

Chief

[scottp999]

Russia and China are worried about the same thing: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081224/wl_afp/financeeconomyworld_081224170802

Next year will be a slaughter house for jobs. Civil unrest is likely. No one pays attention to how insolvent the United States is. As of September 2008 our Federeal Debt (Both on and off balance sheet) is 60 trillion dollars.

My source for that is the United States Treasury and Government Accounability Office, Financial Report of the United States Government:

http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/index.html

We have added 40 Trillion in debt just since 2000. The game of musical chairs is just about over.

[Alpha Sierra]

Seeing that these functions for the military (that IMO cross the line into subjugation by force) are being contemplated by the Administration as something more than theoretical exercises at a War College, a question is begged.

Why would any patriotic American want to serve in the US Armed Forces?

It's a sad state of affairs when a former naval officer reaches this conclusion.

Nolo Dominare

[Alpha Sierra]

newsmax is not a credible source

Army Times (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/) is.

[MisterWilson]

Not newsmax.

While I don't know enough about newsmax to make a educated statement about them, if we're using the AP, NBC, CBS, CNN & Fox as our yardstick...Maybe it's not so bad?

[Saginaw79]

There isn't anything wrong with the veracity of the story, per se; merely the lack of a more instructive perspective. Studies like this are done as a matter of routine in professional military education settings -- especially those conducted at the higher levels -- and every conceivable scenario is given consideration, no matter how implausible or distasteful. The topic and timing notwithstanding, I wouldn't view this study as a sign of anything particularly forboding.

Chief


A strong US Military presence, NOT the NG policing America in 'emergencies' w/o Marshall Law and you're not worried?

What about the 11 Thousand troops around washington for Obama inauguration? Doesnt that worry you?

[dbrowne1]

And Gen. Tommy Franks, who led the U.S. military operations to liberate Iraq, said in a 2003 interview that if the U.S. is attacked with a weapon of mass destruction, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

Sounds like a rather treasonous statement to me. (EDITED TO ADD: I found the article where Gen. Franks was interviewed. He did not seem to support this idea, but rather just seemed to acknowledge that it was a likely scenario and seemed to lament that we would lose our freedoms).

I do not care if an entire city gets wiped off the map - that does NOT justify discarding the Constitution.

[JSantoro]

The other side of that coin is the fact that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that it is to be considered a suicide pact by the citizenry. One saying that the immolation of whole cities is fine with them is, of course, protected and appropriate, being the opinion of that one person. There's whole tens of thousands of people, though, that would probably object to you committing them to the chopping block, even in theory.

By that I mean that at some point, folks have to realize that the idealism is great, but on the offhand chance that one encounters a screaming mob out for blood on or after Inauguration Day because you're the Y to their X, it's not going to stop being a screaming mob no matter how hard you wave your Kinko's copy of the document at them. The use of the Marines during the LA riots makes a pretty strong case for the idea that federal forces can be used in a limited, emergency role, with the general population having a reasonable expectation of seeing the dogs being put back on the leash when the idiots swiping TVs from the Korean-owned shops are quelled.

Here's another facet, purely speculative: let's say that such scenarios weren't at least being "war-gamed" by the 300lb brains in the Mitre think-tanks and whatnot. Something goes down, there's a pretty good chance that the same people blaring "CONSTITUTION!!" at the thought of somebody being prepared ahead of time would be among the first to point fingers and scream "WHY WEREN'T YOU READY FOR THIS, GOV'T?!? BOOOO HISSSS!" when the SHTF and the appropriate agencies hadn't at least considered the use of the resources the military can bring to the table.

And since we're splitting hairs about the laws of the land, bear in mind that there's in excess of 11,000 troops already in and around the DC Metro area all the time. Joint Task Force National Capital Region, just to narrow it down a bit, has been in place for years to provide support to local, state, and federal agencies as needed in regard to "disaster response," which is defined loosely enough to include just about anything. Where's your outrage at that?

[Alpha Sierra]

The other side of that coin is the fact that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that it is to be considered a suicide pact by the citizenry. One saying that the immolation of whole cities is fine with them is, of course, protected and appropriate, being the opinion of that one person. There's whole tens of thousands of people, though, that would probably object to you committing them to the chopping block, even in theory.

By that I mean that at some point, folks have to realize that the idealism is great, but on the offhand chance that one encounters a screaming mob out for blood on or after Inauguration Day because you're the Y to their X, it's not going to stop being a screaming mob no matter how hard you wave your Kinko's copy of the document at them. The use of the Marines during the LA riots makes a pretty strong case for the idea that federal forces can be used in a limited, emergency role, with the general population having a reasonable expectation of seeing the dogs being put back on the leash when the idiots swiping TVs from the Korean-owned shops are quelled.

Here's another facet, purely speculative: let's say that such scenarios weren't at least being "war-gamed" by the 300lb brains in the Mitre think-tanks and whatnot. Something goes down, there's a pretty good chance that the same people blaring "CONSTITUTION!!" at the thought of somebody being prepared ahead of time would be among the first to point fingers and scream "WHY WEREN'T YOU READY FOR THIS, GOV'T?!? BOOOO HISSSS!" when the SHTF and the appropriate agencies hadn't at least considered the use of the resources the military can bring to the table.

And since we're splitting hairs about the laws of the land, bear in mind that there's in excess of 11,000 troops already in and around the DC Metro area all the time. Joint Task Force National Capital Region, just to narrow it down a bit, has been in place for years to provide support to local, state, and federal agencies as needed in regard to "disaster response," which is defined loosely enough to include just about anything. Where's your outrage at that?

The use of military power to control civilian population has always been the hallmark of dictatorships (fascists and communists) and thirld world bannana republics.

Under NO circumstance do I think it is excusable to subjugate this nation's population to military authority. If we do that, the United States, as I recognize it, has ceased to exist and so has my duty to it.

It sickens me, as a former military officer, to know some people approve of this course of action. If I were still on AD, I would go to prison rather than become an instrument of subjugation.

Thank God it never happened during my time.

[Macx]

If we do that, the United States, as I recognize it, has ceased to exist and so has my duty to it.


Is that really what you meant to say? You have sworn an oath, but . . . wouldn't be more appropriate to say that in that case the administration has abandoned the United States and you are now rather morally impelled to stand up and act? The duty hasn't ceased but rather become more pressing. If this scenario plays out, it will amount to "enemies domestic" having hijacked the government.

[JSantoro]

Under NO circumstance do I think it is excusable to subjugate this nation's population to military authority. If we do that, the United States, as I recognize it, has ceased to exist and so has my duty to it.

...

Thank God it never happened during my time.

At the risk of sounding glib, based on this assertion, America as you know it has already ceased to exist in your lifetime. Prior to it and several times over, in fact, therefore your duty to your nation ceased to exist before you swore your oath or were even a licentious sparkle in your Daddy's eye. That would suggest that your time serving was wasted at the cost of more noble pursuits, and, speaking as a current NCO, I don't really think that that's the case at all.

1812, 1892, 1914, 1934, and jumping forward to Nagin mistakenly declaring it (he didn't have the authority, even if it were possible as defined in the state constitution) during the Katrina aftermath, martial law has been declared in some form or another, and in each instance, authority has been handed back over to civil gov't at such a time as was appropriate to ensure the safety and well-being of the citizenry. If not, some court ordered that martial law be rescinded, and it was. Every. Single. Time.

Given that we have an upcoming Democratic administration and Democratic Congress, I don't see either having the sand to contemplate, much less attempt, something as ridiculous as a nationwide suspension of the Posse Comitatus Act or overt declaration of martial law. In the end, this a all hypothetical, however real the plans for military involvement in such a Chicken Little scenario as wholesale regional rioting and insurrection may be, according to the article in the OP. Their use in such instances is clearly defined by federal law, as martial law is not specifically mentioned in [hushed, reverent tone]The Constitution[/hushed, reverent tone].

32 CFR SS 501.4, an excerpt: "Federal Armed Forces ordinarily will exercise police powers previously inoperative in the affected area, restore and maintain order, insure the essential mechanics of distribution, transportation, and communication, and initiate necessary relief measures." Sets prerequisites for roles other than pure support, and at least hints at defining a specific geographic zone. Tons more in SS 501. I'd be willing to bet that these not-so-insidious plans take applicable law into account, given that every major and minor military entity has a JAG representative body either with them or within their OODA loop.

Personally, I think America will muddle through, somehow. To align myself with another member of this board, our problems as a nation will begin once the French realize that we're a nation with a general population comprised of even bigger candy-asses than they, and that we're ripe for invasion. That's at least as valid a concept as a military coup d'etat or general declaration of martial law in the current climate. Either way, guess my new career path would be that of "partisan."

See you all at the invasion and/or occupation by our own forces. WOLVERINES!

[Army Chief]

A strong US Military presence, NOT the NG policing America in 'emergencies' w/o Marshall Law and you're not worried?

What about the 11 Thousand troops around washington for Obama inauguration? Doesnt that worry you?

What? Me, worry? -- Alfred E. Neuman.

Look gents, I'm a part of that "strong US military presence," and have been for the past 25 years of my life. Am I paying attention to policy shifts? Sure. Am I aware of the potential for abuse/misuse and unconstitutional edicts? Absolutely. Am I aware of the perils of a police state or martial law? Of course. Am I familiar with the expansion of powers that have come about since 11 September 2001? No question about it. Perhaps that is my point. I think most of us who have made a career of military service are tracking quite well on what can happen when good ideas result in bad decisions. Lifting a non-contextual quote from a former General Officer that would seem to imply that we are cavalier about this, or resigned to it as an Army, is absurdity.

I'm not wading into this discussion with my eyes closed; that said, we still have a Constitution, and I'm still obligated by oath to defend it.

Not the president.

Not the legislature.

Not the whims of the people.

Not our ever-changing code of laws.

The Constitution.

I am blindingly clear on that point, as are every one of my peers in leadership. What we've done here is to cross our wires a bit and make a correlation that doesn't really exist. The War College study is quite literally a "what then?" analysis of a post-SHTF scenario in which the most basic structures of our society are incapable of functioning without intervention. That response isn't necessarily to quell a civil disturbance, but rather to preserve a semblance of order by which the people can still function as a society until the catastrophe at hand has passed. Is this scary stuff? Sure.

On the other hand, designating a brigade or two to be the "on call" response force should some calamity strike in CONUS is a separate matter entirely. The stated purpose of this force (which itself is not large enough to deal with the kind of widespread insurrection that people seem to be clamoring about) is to assist and render aid. Go back and read it again. It's not about power projection nearly so much as it is making sure that the logistics, communications and lines of authority are all laid out in advance, so that when the next Katrina strikes, we aren't left watching a city like New Orleans descend into a denigrating Third-World scenario because there will already be a formation "on call" to intervene before it gets to that point. The parallel here isn't to a SWAT team nearly so much as it is to something like a MEDEVAC helicopter. The idea is that, if you get there soon enough with the right kind of help, mass pendemonium and a lot of the lawlessness can be forestalled. Yes, there is also a role to be played in the event of a massive terrorist attack -- and it may well be a more beligerent one -- but its purpose is protection from the threat at hand, and not the subbjugation of American citizens.

I would agree that there is a cautionary element to all of this, and I respect the opnions of those who feel inclined to give alarm; that said, I do believe you're in danger of missing the forest for the trees. Instead of viewing this as a proactive means of mounting a competent and timely response to a natural calamity or a bona fide terrorist event, people have begun correlating it to imaginary scenarios that hit much closer to home -- such as widespread weapons confiscation. Obama or no Obama, you can forget about your Army going door-to-door to confiscate arms and imprison those who resist. Yes, we saw something similiar to this in New Orleans once upon a time, but we would do well to remember the context, the calamity, and the later concession that it should never have happened to begin with.

I'm sure there is a worthwhile discussion to be had here, but I would caution against letting things delve too deeply into tin hat apocalyptic fare. We aren't there as a people, as a nation, or as a society, and -- economic collapse or no -- the Constitution still stands. Should the day ever come when that can no longer be said, well, good luck finding an Army to impose the government's will, because most GIs will have long since stripped off their patches and gone back home to Anytown, USA to defend what matters most: We The People.

Consider the facts that you have, not the fears that you wish you didn't have.

Chief

[Littlelebowski]

Couldn't have said it better myself, ArmyChief. Well done. If any of you think the US military is going to oppress you, think again.

[Business_Casual]

Russia and China are worried about the same thing: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081224/wl_afp/financeeconomyworld_081224170802

Next year will be a slaughter house for jobs. Civil unrest is likely. No one pays attention to how insolvent the United States is. As of September 2008 our Federeal Debt (Both on and off balance sheet) is 60 trillion dollars.

My source for that is the United States Treasury and Government Accounability Office, Financial Report of the United States Government:

http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/index.html

We have added 40 Trillion in debt just since 2000. The game of musical chairs is just about over.

Well, you're a ray of sunshine. What does the federal debt have to do with a jobs slaughterhouse? Why spread unsubstantiated doom-and-gloom opinion based on a questionable interpretation of Treasury statistics?

Can you explain how $60 trillion is bad in the context of a $14 trillion economy? What about the fact that a lot of that is entitlement programs that come due in successive years, and the fact that nations keep buying treasury bonds every day and don't seem to share your concerns?

In short, I think you need to back the tin foil off a notch or two.

M_P

[Saginaw79]

Couldn't have said it better myself, ArmyChief. Well done. If any of you think the US military is going to oppress you, think again.

Yet they did just that(some units anyway) in NO, and you still deny it can or will happen here?

I do believe many will tell the .gov to FOAD if ordered to do such thing, but many more will not, or it will be packaged in such a way as to get them to think what they are doing is just and right, like when the ATF lied to the .mil before Waco and got armor etc;

The fact is, many wont risk their own freedom, or pay, or benefits etc; for principle, they will just 'do what we are told' etc

Its happened before, and Im willing to bet it will again. Playing fast and loose w/ the Constitution and therefore bluring the lines even more is gonna get us there sooner rather than later.

[Littlelebowski]

Which units did so in NO? I saw the CHP, not any regular military units. I know for damned sure my old Marine units wouldn't have.

[Saginaw79]

SOme Guard units, one flat refused and said they wouldnt help at all, but one or two more did so willingly

One was from Kansas IIRC, not sure about the other

[Littlelebowski]

It's very hard to explain to those of you that haven't served (not singling anyone here on this thread!) how much of an insult it is to those of us that have served to even allude to active duty troops taking away your freedom. It's extremely difficult to explain how much freedom we lost while serving in the military to protect the American way of life.

I've had this discussion elsewhere on another forum and there's a few tin foil hat wearing jackasses out there I will punch in the mouth if I hear them say out loud what they wrote online.

[Army Chief]

Sag, I'm with you in principle, but I think we're venturing into the realm of the anecdotal (if not the borderline conspiratorial). By the time the New Orleans catastrophe was over, just about everybody was there in one form or another -- to include my alma mater, the 82d Airborne. Trouble is, by the time we got the right people to the right places, the city had already descended into a state of chaos that most of us would have surely considered beneath our countrymen had we not seen it with our own eyes.

When police services are intact and functioning -- even at a minimal level -- the military has a pretty hands-off role. Obviously that wasn't the case here, and control was ceded to the Louisiana National Guard. One might argue that they didn't fare a whole lot better, other than actually knowing where their people were. Were active units involved? Yes. Were they oppressing the citizenry and imposing martial law? No. Did the civil authorities in the cities attempt to disarm those who defied the evacuation order and ended up in an American version of modern-day Somalia? Yes, but even that was largely ineffective -- and soon proven illegal.

We could debate all day and night what the exact circumstances on the ground were in that particular debacle, but I'm not sure it provides many useful vignettes for the kind of broader situation you seem to be envisioning. To suggest that large scale, peacetime impositions of martial law are probable, or even plausible, is the wildest kind of conjecture. Every situation has a context, and trying to apply one to another just isn't all that enlightening. Will some "just do what they're told," as you suggest? Of course they will -- provided they are receiving what they perceive to be legal orders from their superiors.

On that note, I can only tell you that most of the officer corps is aware of the dangers you envision, and I'm not sure that a rank-and-file analysis is all that useful when we aren't even applying it to a specific place, time or event. Are you crazy? No brother, you are not, but I think you may be struggling with just a bit more pessimism than is otherwise warranted. This is an emotional issue, as well is should be, but what is needed in a discourse like this one is a basis in rational fact. Taken at face value, the stories presented at the outset of this threat are neither sinister nor an indication of inevitable doom. They are nothing more than signs of the times, but there are a lot more patriots out there wearing the uniform than you seem to realize. You're sharing a forum with more than a few of them. :)

Chief

[NoBody]

Deleted.