The Civil War Of 2016: U.S. Military Officers Told To Plan To Fight Americans...

[JakeStarkey]

Why? A band of domestic terrorists take over and terrorize a town, perhaps murder the elected officials and military authorities? State they are the rightful government?

There is no need for prisoners from people who defy the Constitution in such a situation.

If it makes you feel better, summary courts-martial can be held as the rebels are taken. Then they can be executed.

The Small Wars Journal is not particularly respected. But it does offer a forum for considering the actions of an extremist militia effort to take a small town.

The only sensible operation by U. S. military troops will be to treat their enemy as what they are, domestic terrorists, and summarily execute them on the battle field.

Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.

At issue is an article in the respected Small Wars Journal titled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future.” It was written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army's University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It posits an “extremist militia motivated by the goals of the ‘tea party’ movement” seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, “occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest.” The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens. It’s a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.

The article is a choppy patchwork of doctrinal jargon and liberal nightmare. The authors make a quasi-legal case for military action and then apply the Army’s Operating Concept 2016-2028 to the situation. They write bloodlessly that “once it is put into play, Americans will expect the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas.” They claim that “the Army cannot disappoint the American people, especially in such a moment,” not pausing to consider that using such efficient, deadly force against U.S. citizens would create a monumental political backlash and severely erode government legitimacy.

The scenario presented in Small Wars Journal isn’t a literary device but an operational lay-down intended to present the rationale and mechanisms for Americans to fight Americans. Col. Benson and Ms. Weber contend, “Army officers are professionally obligated to consider the conduct of operations on U.S. soil.” This is a dark, pessimistic and wrongheaded view of what military leaders should spend their time studying.

A professor at the Joint Forces Staff College was relieved of duty in June for uttering the heresy that the United States is at war with Islam. The Obama administration contended the professor had to be relieved because what he was teaching was not U.S. policy. Because there is no disclaimer attached to the Small Wars piece, it is fair to ask, at least in Col. Benson’s case, whether his views reflect official policy regarding the use of U.S. military force against American citizens.

EDITORIAL: The Civil War of 2016 - Washington Times
DRUDGE REPORT 2012®

Jake, that is just absurd! If it's a small, marginalized group, (seizing a small town would take a group of as few as 20-40 men with nothing but small arms and maybe a limited amount of Improvised explosives/incendiaries. That could be handled by civilian law enforcement (state and federal), with maybe a company of National Guard for backup. You don't need heavy armor, artillery or air support. Your answer is to go in, and just "summarily execute them all". Yeah, that's just the right thing to do; make martyrs out of them, maybe kill a few innocent civilians too. Remember Waco? You REALLY want to do something like that again, this time with the military involved? Sounds like the Russian or Chinese way of handling that, not ours.

Remember the last time we had something resembling a "revolution", back in the sixties and seventies?Why didn't we go after the the SDS and the Weather Underground with the military; I mean, after all, they were blowing up and burning buildings, many were armed, and they were openly advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government. Now, we could have sent military hit teams to summarily execute the terrorists among them (which is exactly what Ayers, Mark Rudd, and the rest of their little group were), and put down their riots with tanks in the streets; we could have called in airstrikes. Know why we didn't? We didn't, because that kind of action risked creating popular support for their little uprising,which it fundamentally lacked. One goal of any real revolutionary movement, whether of the Left or of the Right, is to provoke massive government overreaction, with a view toward radicalizing everyone with the slightest sympathy for their cause. If that overreaction results in casualties among the innocent, all the better; more martyrs and sympathizers for the movement. You think losing the hearts and minds of the local population in a guerrilla war abroad is a bad thing? Try losing the hearts and minds of the American people in a civil insurrection here at home! Our system heavily depends on the VOLUNTARY cooperation of the citizenry; give a significant portion of the population at large reason to withhold that, and you have got a major problem.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one sane came up with such a ridiculous situation. One of the loonies (bigrebnc, nick, gadfly, pauli) came up with the idea then try to blame it on their "enemies."

What a bunch of crazees.

Why? A band of domestic terrorists take over and terrorize a town, perhaps murder the elected officials and military authorities? State they are the rightful government?

There is no need for prisoners from people who defy the Constitution in such a situation.

If it makes you feel better, summary courts-martial can be held as the rebels are taken. Then they can be executed.

The Small Wars Journal is not particularly respected. But it does offer a forum for considering the actions of an extremist militia effort to take a small town.

The only sensible operation by U. S. military troops will be to treat their enemy as what they are, domestic terrorists, and summarily execute them on the battle field.

Jake, that is just absurd! If it's a small, marginalized group, (seizing a small town would take a group of as few as 20-40 men with nothing but small arms and maybe a limited amount of Improvised explosives/incendiaries. That could be handled by civilian law enforcement (state and federal), with maybe a company of National Guard for backup. You don't need heavy armor, artillery or air support. Your answer is to go in, and just "summarily execute them all". Yeah, that's just the right thing to do; make martyrs out of them, maybe kill a few innocent civilians too. Remember Waco? You REALLY want to do something like that again, this time with the military involved? Sounds like the Russian or Chinese way of handling that, not ours.

Remember the last time we had something resembling a "revolution", back in the sixties and seventies?Why didn't we go after the the SDS and the Weather Underground with the military; I mean, after all, they were blowing up and burning buildings, many were armed, and they were openly advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government. Now, we could have sent military hit teams to summarily execute the terrorists among them (which is exactly what Ayers, Mark Rudd, and the rest of their little group were), and put down their riots with tanks in the streets; we could have called in airstrikes. Know why we didn't? We didn't, because that kind of action risked creating popular support for their little uprising,which it fundamentally lacked. One goal of any real revolutionary movement, whether of the Left or of the Right, is to provoke massive government overreaction, with a view toward radicalizing everyone with the slightest sympathy for their cause. If that overreaction results in casualties among the innocent, all the better; more martyrs and sympathizers for the movement. You think losing the hearts and minds of the local population in a guerrilla war abroad is a bad thing? Try losing the hearts and minds of the American people in a civil insurrection here at home! Our system heavily depends on the VOLUNTARY cooperation of the citizenry; give a significant portion of the population at large reason to withhold that, and you have got a major problem.

 

[The Gadfly]

In the senario put forth by the OP's article it is not the Tea party that took over the town but a hypothetical extremist group.

Leave the Tea Party out of it. Would you support an extremist militia taking over a town by force? If that happened (unlikely as it may be) would you support the US military taking the town back from the extremist?

Unless they were committing mass murder, and/or there was absolutely NO other way to resolve the situation, ABSOLUTELY NOT! Turning the military on Americans, on American soil, is and ought to be an absolute last resort. Sounds to me like for you, it's the preferred option. God in heaven, where do you people get your ideas?

Where did the idea come from? Lib-o-Pauli's article of course. (After all it is merely contingency plans isn't it, sort of a what if senario) It sure as hell is not a liberal idea. So under certain circumstanses you too would support sending in the military to take the town back. What if this group had some heavy artillery and anti-aircraft weapons? Would you support air strikes or cruise missile strike too?

Oh, I don't know; what if they had a twenty-megaton nuclear warhead? What if they had a squadron of F-18s? Reminds me of a line from an old book, "See Here, Private Hargrove": Sergeant, "Private Hargrove, what would you do if you saw a battleship coming over that hill?" Hargrove, "I'd torpedo it, Sarge!" Sergeant, "And where the hell would you get a torpedo?" Hargrove, "The same place YOU got the damn battleship!" See how ridiculous playing "what if" can get? The fact remains, that there is nothing in the scenario as outlined that would justify military force in the first place, a point which you seem happy to overlook. I don't know which is worse, the people here itching for any excuse for civil insurrection, or the ones itching for any excuse to declare martial law, and turn the military on their political opponents; if you ask me, BOTH ought to be damn careful what they wish for! I've been saying that over and over here, and neither side seems to care. I'm beginning to think you are ALL crazy! What do you think combat is, a damn video game?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No one sane came up with such a ridiculous situation. One of the loonies (bigrebnc, nick, gadfly, pauli) came up with the idea then try to blame it on their "enemies."

What a bunch of crazees.

Why? A band of domestic terrorists take over and terrorize a town, perhaps murder the elected officials and military authorities? State they are the rightful government?

There is no need for prisoners from people who defy the Constitution in such a situation.

If it makes you feel better, summary courts-martial can be held as the rebels are taken. Then they can be executed.

Jake, that is just absurd! If it's a small, marginalized group, (seizing a small town would take a group of as few as 20-40 men with nothing but small arms and maybe a limited amount of Improvised explosives/incendiaries. That could be handled by civilian law enforcement (state and federal), with maybe a company of National Guard for backup. You don't need heavy armor, artillery or air support. Your answer is to go in, and just "summarily execute them all". Yeah, that's just the right thing to do; make martyrs out of them, maybe kill a few innocent civilians too. Remember Waco? You REALLY want to do something like that again, this time with the military involved? Sounds like the Russian or Chinese way of handling that, not ours.

Remember the last time we had something resembling a "revolution", back in the sixties and seventies?Why didn't we go after the the SDS and the Weather Underground with the military; I mean, after all, they were blowing up and burning buildings, many were armed, and they were openly advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government. Now, we could have sent military hit teams to summarily execute the terrorists among them (which is exactly what Ayers, Mark Rudd, and the rest of their little group were), and put down their riots with tanks in the streets; we could have called in airstrikes. Know why we didn't? We didn't, because that kind of action risked creating popular support for their little uprising,which it fundamentally lacked. One goal of any real revolutionary movement, whether of the Left or of the Right, is to provoke massive government overreaction, with a view toward radicalizing everyone with the slightest sympathy for their cause. If that overreaction results in casualties among the innocent, all the better; more martyrs and sympathizers for the movement. You think losing the hearts and minds of the local population in a guerrilla war abroad is a bad thing? Try losing the hearts and minds of the American people in a civil insurrection here at home! Our system heavily depends on the VOLUNTARY cooperation of the citizenry; give a significant portion of the population at large reason to withhold that, and you have got a major problem.

No one sane came up with such a ridiculous situation. One of the loonies (bigrebnc, nick, gadfly, pauli) came up with the idea then try to blame it on their "enemies."

What a bunch of crazees.

Dumb ass that's what the government does.
Fast and the furious

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Which law is that?

That would be the Second Amendment. Planing to nullify that, by presidential or legislative fiat, then act on that nullification before the courts can rule on it, are you? Good luck with that.

The second amendment is not a law. There are however, thousands of gun laws on the books

You're stupid, ignorant useful idiot.
So the Constitution isn't the law of the land?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"...an “extremist militia motivated by the goals of the ‘tea party’ movement” seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, “occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest.” The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens."

God damn right I would want the army to go in and take control of the city back from an "extremist militia. Who in their right mind would support a militia taking over a town and holding it's elected offical hostage?

A more realistic scenario would be OWS taking over Wall Street and holding traders hostage..

The Tea Party never demonstrated any sort of violence yet the Tea Party is used as the faux aggressor in this fictional scenario?

Besides, why the hell would a libertarian militia take a town when there would be no strategic point in doing such? - it would be more practical to take over the local military base itself.... The military would have big fucking problems if a base was seized....

That's a great point!

Romney might have to call in the 101st to break up an OWS takeover.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You have no concept of the Constitution or it's purpose. The Bill of Rights are not laws. Laws are written and must conform with the Constitution as ruled on by the courts.

You do noy defend the Constitution, only your limited interpretation of it's scope

The right of the people to keep and bear arms would be?

Which law is that?

It's part of the law of the land.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sounds like an OWS Rally. You may be right Jake.

Why? A band of domestic terrorists take over and terrorize a town, perhaps murder the elected officials and military authorities? State they are the rightful government?

There is no need for prisoners from people who defy the Constitution in such a situation.

If it makes you feel better, summary courts-martial can be held as the rebels are taken. Then they can be executed.

The Small Wars Journal is not particularly respected. But it does offer a forum for considering the actions of an extremist militia effort to take a small town.

The only sensible operation by U. S. military troops will be to treat their enemy as what they are, domestic terrorists, and summarily execute them on the battle field.

Jake, that is just absurd! If it's a small, marginalized group, (seizing a small town would take a group of as few as 20-40 men with nothing but small arms and maybe a limited amount of Improvised explosives/incendiaries. That could be handled by civilian law enforcement (state and federal), with maybe a company of National Guard for backup. You don't need heavy armor, artillery or air support. Your answer is to go in, and just "summarily execute them all". Yeah, that's just the right thing to do; make martyrs out of them, maybe kill a few innocent civilians too. Remember Waco? You REALLY want to do something like that again, this time with the military involved? Sounds like the Russian or Chinese way of handling that, not ours.

Remember the last time we had something resembling a "revolution", back in the sixties and seventies?Why didn't we go after the the SDS and the Weather Underground with the military; I mean, after all, they were blowing up and burning buildings, many were armed, and they were openly advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government. Now, we could have sent military hit teams to summarily execute the terrorists among them (which is exactly what Ayers, Mark Rudd, and the rest of their little group were), and put down their riots with tanks in the streets; we could have called in airstrikes. Know why we didn't? We didn't, because that kind of action risked creating popular support for their little uprising,which it fundamentally lacked. One goal of any real revolutionary movement, whether of the Left or of the Right, is to provoke massive government overreaction, with a view toward radicalizing everyone with the slightest sympathy for their cause. If that overreaction results in casualties among the innocent, all the better; more martyrs and sympathizers for the movement. You think losing the hearts and minds of the local population in a guerrilla war abroad is a bad thing? Try losing the hearts and minds of the American people in a civil insurrection here at home! Our system heavily depends on the VOLUNTARY cooperation of the citizenry; give a significant portion of the population at large reason to withhold that, and you have got a major problem.

 

[The Gadfly]

No one sane came up with such a ridiculous situation. One of the loonies (bigrebnc, nick, gadfly, pauli) came up with the idea then try to blame it on their "enemies."

What a bunch of crazees.

Why? A band of domestic terrorists take over and terrorize a town, perhaps murder the elected officials and military authorities? State they are the rightful government?

There is no need for prisoners from people who defy the Constitution in such a situation.

If it makes you feel better, summary courts-martial can be held as the rebels are taken. Then they can be executed.

Jake, that is just absurd! If it's a small, marginalized group, (seizing a small town would take a group of as few as 20-40 men with nothing but small arms and maybe a limited amount of Improvised explosives/incendiaries. That could be handled by civilian law enforcement (state and federal), with maybe a company of National Guard for backup. You don't need heavy armor, artillery or air support. Your answer is to go in, and just "summarily execute them all". Yeah, that's just the right thing to do; make martyrs out of them, maybe kill a few innocent civilians too. Remember Waco? You REALLY want to do something like that again, this time with the military involved? Sounds like the Russian or Chinese way of handling that, not ours.

Remember the last time we had something resembling a "revolution", back in the sixties and seventies?Why didn't we go after the the SDS and the Weather Underground with the military; I mean, after all, they were blowing up and burning buildings, many were armed, and they were openly advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government. Now, we could have sent military hit teams to summarily execute the terrorists among them (which is exactly what Ayers, Mark Rudd, and the rest of their little group were), and put down their riots with tanks in the streets; we could have called in airstrikes. Know why we didn't? We didn't, because that kind of action risked creating popular support for their little uprising,which it fundamentally lacked. One goal of any real revolutionary movement, whether of the Left or of the Right, is to provoke massive government overreaction, with a view toward radicalizing everyone with the slightest sympathy for their cause. If that overreaction results in casualties among the innocent, all the better; more martyrs and sympathizers for the movement. You think losing the hearts and minds of the local population in a guerrilla war abroad is a bad thing? Try losing the hearts and minds of the American people in a civil insurrection here at home! Our system heavily depends on the VOLUNTARY cooperation of the citizenry; give a significant portion of the population at large reason to withhold that, and you have got a major problem.

I didn't come up with the scenario, Jake, Col.Benson and Ms, Weber did. The clear intent of the article they wrote is to be politically provocative.

By the way, last I checked, we don't even summarily execute Taliban insurgents in the field in Afghanistan, but I gather you think the army should summarily execute Americans here at home. I don't know what you're smoking or otherwise ingesting today, but your thinking has definitely become unsound.

P.S. Wasn't it your side that complained we were "executing enemy prisoners" in Vietnam?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am infuriated that Americans believe they can summarily rise up against the government.

If you think the Colonel and the Lady are social progressives, go for it.

My side? I served for twelve years, active duty, airborne infantry. Rise up against our country, be ready for what happens.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

OWS is on notice, Jake! Well done! Let's see them try to take over a NYC Park again and terrorize passersby.

I am infuriated that Americans believe they can summarily rise up against the government.

If you think the Colonel and the Lady are social progressives, go for it.

My side? I served for twelve years, active duty, airborne infantry. Rise up against our country, be ready for what happens.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree anybody better be on notice, although the dangers are far more from the extremist right or libertarians than from the pussy OWS.

OWS is on notice, Jake! Well done! Let's see them try to take over a NYC Park again and terrorize passersby.

I am infuriated that Americans believe they can summarily rise up against the government.

If you think the Colonel and the Lady are social progressives, go for it.

My side? I served for twelve years, active duty, airborne infantry. Rise up against our country, be ready for what happens.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Which law is that?

That would be the Second Amendment. Planing to nullify that, by presidential or legislative fiat, then act on that nullification before the courts can rule on it, are you? Good luck with that.

The second amendment is not a law. There are however, thousands of gun laws on the books

It's a right - a civil liberty - hence law.

Gun control laws are tyrannical....

Your feelings on guns are moot considering the Second Amendment exists - what you or anyone else feels is "logical" is irrelevant, and that is something a lot of progressives don't comprehend...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Jake, give OWS your War Face! Grrrrrrrr! Hear the anger in my voice! Grrrrrrrrrrr!!

I agree anybody better be on notice, although the dangers are far more from the extremist right or libertarians than from the pussy OWS.

OWS is on notice, Jake! Well done! Let's see them try to take over a NYC Park again and terrorize passersby.

I am infuriated that Americans believe they can summarily rise up against the government.

If you think the Colonel and the Lady are social progressives, go for it.

My side? I served for twelve years, active duty, airborne infantry. Rise up against our country, be ready for what happens.

 

[Mr.Nick]

No one sane came up with such a ridiculous situation. One of the loonies (bigrebnc, nick, gadfly, pauli) came up with the idea then try to blame it on their "enemies."

What a bunch of crazees.

Why? A band of domestic terrorists take over and terrorize a town, perhaps murder the elected officials and military authorities? State they are the rightful government?

There is no need for prisoners from people who defy the Constitution in such a situation.

If it makes you feel better, summary courts-martial can be held as the rebels are taken. Then they can be executed.

I didn't come up with the scenario, Jake, Col.Benson and Ms, Weber did. The clear intent of the article they wrote is to be politically provocative.

By the way, last I checked, we don't even summarily execute Taliban insurgents in the field in Afghanistan, but I gather you think the army should summarily execute Americans here at home. I don't know what you're smoking or otherwise ingesting today, but your thinking has definitely become unsound.

P.S. Wasn't it your side that complained we were "executing enemy prisoners" in Vietnam?

Progressives want anyone who disagrees with their "big government knows best nanny state" bullshit dead.

Progressives have ZERO value for life, individualism or liberty.

These are the same idiots that support abortion but denounce the death penalty - they make no fucking sense. They're hypocrites and to them that is "logic."

OWS could hijack Wall Street and those idiots that did it would be heros and a libertarian organization could hijack a small town and that organization would be "domestic terrorists."

They're just partisan fucks and tyrants....

 

[rightwinger]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms would be?

Which law is that?

It's part of the law of the land.

The Constitution in itself, is not a law. It is a framework for which our government is built and is the basis of our laws. However, it is not enforceable in itself

 

[JakeStarkey]

Go for it, CF.

Jake, give OWS your War Face! Grrrrrrrr! Hear the anger in my voice! Grrrrrrrrrrr!!

I agree anybody better be on notice, although the dangers are far more from the extremist right or libertarians than from the pussy OWS.

OWS is on notice, Jake! Well done! Let's see them try to take over a NYC Park again and terrorize passersby.

 

[rightwinger]

That would be the Second Amendment. Planing to nullify that, by presidential or legislative fiat, then act on that nullification before the courts can rule on it, are you? Good luck with that.

The second amendment is not a law. There are however, thousands of gun laws on the books

It's a right - a civil liberty - hence law.

Gun control laws are tyrannical....

Your feelings on guns are moot considering the Second Amendment exists - what you or anyone else feels is "logical" is irrelevant, and that is something a lot of progressives don't comprehend...

If that's the case, why do gun laws exist? How do we determine which guns can be sold, who can legally buy them, where and when you can fire them?

A right is not a law. However, laws must comply with those rights

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ah, Nick, you are one on the insane ones here, for sure. Rise up and you will be face down in the end.

No one sane came up with such a ridiculous situation. One of the loonies (bigrebnc, nick, gadfly, pauli) came up with the idea then try to blame it on their "enemies."

What a bunch of crazees.

I didn't come up with the scenario, Jake, Col.Benson and Ms, Weber did. The clear intent of the article they wrote is to be politically provocative.

By the way, last I checked, we don't even summarily execute Taliban insurgents in the field in Afghanistan, but I gather you think the army should summarily execute Americans here at home. I don't know what you're smoking or otherwise ingesting today, but your thinking has definitely become unsound.

P.S. Wasn't it your side that complained we were "executing enemy prisoners" in Vietnam?

Progressives want anyone who disagrees with their "big government knows best nanny state" bullshit dead.

Progressives have ZERO value for life, individualism or liberty.

These are the same idiots that support abortion but denounce the death penalty - they make no fucking sense. They're hypocrites and to them that is "logic."

OWS could hijack Wall Street and those idiots that did it would be heros and a libertarian organization could hijack a small town and that organization would be "domestic terrorists."

They're just partisan fucks and tyrants....

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigreb has never understood the Constitution, so understand you will have to work with him.

Which law is that?

It's part of the law of the land.

The Constitution in itself, is not a law. It is a framework for which our government is built and is the basis of our laws. However, it is not enforceable in itself