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

[rightwinger]

What do you call OWS??????

Sorry libertarians or anyone who would be willing to take on such an operation certainly wouldn't seize a town.... They'd seize a military base or an area that has some sort of strategic value or an area that has value to the government....

The whole faux scenario of seizing a town really shows how fucking dumb progressives are and what they believe is logical....

Sorry I don't see it as a left/right issue but an "extremist" verse "rule of law" issue.

Rule of law is the Bill of Rights - NOT "do as I say not as I do."

I don't understand how someone could be considered "extreme" for defending the Constitution?

How the hell is that extreme??

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 not defend the Constitution, only your limited interpretation of it's scope

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sorry I don't see it as a left/right issue but an "extremist" verse "rule of law" issue.

Rule of law is the Bill of Rights - NOT "do as I say not as I do."

I don't understand how someone could be considered "extreme" for defending the Constitution?

How the hell is that extreme??

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?

 

[The Gadfly]

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.

 

[rightwinger]

If rightwing terrorists revolt against the evil Obama making people get healthcare, then local authorities will put them in their place. Nobody will stand up for them and nobody will shed a tear if they end up dead

That's what the British said.

No it isn't and right wing terrorists have nothing in common with the American Patriots

 

[rightwinger]

Rule of law is the Bill of Rights - NOT "do as I say not as I do."

I don't understand how someone could be considered "extreme" for defending the Constitution?

How the hell is that extreme??

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?

 

[The Gadfly]

Not as ridiculous as your wingnuts' premise. These are your fellow Socialists/Progressives who have concocted this plan.

So you'd support an extremist militia that seized a town, disbanded the City Counsel, was holding the City's Mayor hostage and were stopping an searching vehicle on the interstate?

Yeah you go with that......

What do you call OWS??????

Sorry libertarians or anyone who would be willing to take on such an operation certainly wouldn't seize a town.... They'd seize a military base or an area that has some sort of strategic value or an area that has value to the government....

The whole faux scenario of seizing a town really shows how fucking dumb progressives are and what they believe is logical....

Correct. Any revolutionary movement of whatever political stripe would NOT seize a small town; it would go for a higher value strategic target. I won't go into what kind of target, primarily because I don't want to give any nutcases out there any ideas, but there are multiple possibilities; criteria would include ease of defending the target, its value, and the amount of disruption resulting from an attempt to re-take same that resulted in its destruction.

What makes the scenario outlined in this article even more absurd, is the fact that something of that sort (taking over a small town and establishing roadblocks), could easily be done without any casualties, or even a single shot being fired by the supposed "terrorists". You seriously advocate using heavy military force in THAT situation? Damn, some of you need to read the drivel you post and realize just how damned ridiculous and authoritarian you sound! I'm not even certain an order to open fire in THAT situation would even be lawful, much less morally legitimate, still less wise and prudent. Some of you would invoke martial law at the drop of a hat, without regard to the consequences. That's more than partisan hackery, hell, it's insanity!

 

[paulitician]

And if this farfetched scenario doesn't happen on its own, you can bet they will work tirelessly to make it happen. Oh, the evil our Government is capable of. Most Americans are completely oblivious to it.

 

[rightwinger]

And if this farfetched scenario doesn't happen on its own, you can bet they will work tirelessly to make it happen. Oh, the evil our Government is capable of. Most Americans are completely oblivious to it.

I am not worried

I have my trusty tin foil hat at the ready

 

[The Gadfly]

The tea party isn't taking over any towns, that would be OWS smashing store windows.

What I can see is obama saying "We can't let them win. My work is not finished."

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?

 

[paulitician]

And if this farfetched scenario doesn't happen on its own, you can bet they will work tirelessly to make it happen. Oh, the evil our Government is capable of. Most Americans are completely oblivious to it.

I am not worried

I have my trusty tin foil hat at the ready

Yeah, you used the ole 'Tin foil hat' insult before. Many times in fact. Get some new material. You're boring.

 

[MikeK]

They are called "ThinkTanks". They are supposed to "imagine" scenarios of potential threats to the United States and derive solutions. Had George W. Bush employed think tanks that took middle eastern terrorism a bit more seriously or listened to the advice of the few that were, perhaps 9/11 could have been avoided.

No doubt about it.

And that is exactly why the conniving dolt did not employ such think tanks. The 9/11 attack was a joyous occurrence for Bush and there is plenty of evidence to suggest he was well aware something of that nature was coming, which is why he replaced Richard Clark with Condoleeza Rice and why he paid no attention to FBI Agent Colleen Rowley's (et al) anxious warnings. He wanted it to happen!

George W. Bush is one of American history's worst criminals and the sonofabitch should be turned over to the World Court -- which already has indicted him in absentia as a war criminal!

 

[The Gadfly]

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?

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.

 

[paulitician]

They are called "ThinkTanks". They are supposed to "imagine" scenarios of potential threats to the United States and derive solutions. Had George W. Bush employed think tanks that took middle eastern terrorism a bit more seriously or listened to the advice of the few that were, perhaps 9/11 could have been avoided.

No doubt about it.

And that is exactly why the conniving dolt did not employ such think tanks. The 9/11 attack was a joyous occurrence for Bush and there is plenty of evidence to suggest he was well aware something of that nature was coming, which is why he replaced Richard Clark with Condoleeza Rice and why he paid no attention to FBI Agent Colleen Rowley's (et al) anxious warnings. He wanted it to happen!

George W. Bush is one of American history's worst criminals and the sonofabitch should be turned over to the World Court -- which already has indicted him in absentia as a war criminal!

Yes, these 'Think-Tanks' will be the death of us.

 

[MikeK]

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?

It's already been done -- and not that long ago. (Google: "Hooverville - Gen. Douglas MacArthur)

This is a major reason why I am opposed to an all volunteer army. A conscript army is a Peoples' army because it is more inclined to disobedience. I recall being constantly reminded by DIs at Parris Island that, "You weren't drafted. You asked to be here . . . !"

 

[GHook93]

From your article:

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 vision is hard to take seriously. As retired ArmyBrig. Gen. Russell D. Howard, a former professor at West Point, observed earlier in his career, “I am a colonel, colonels write a lot of crazy stuff, but no one listens to colonels, so I don’t see the problem.” Twenty years ago, then-Air Force Lt. Col. Charles J. Dunlap Jr. created a stir with an article in Parameters titled “The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012.” It carried a disclaimer that the coup scenario was “purely a literary device intended to dramatize my concern over certain contemporary developments affecting the armed forces, and is emphatically not a prediction.”

They don't even take it seriously! And out government from the beginning of the country has planned for all different military intervention including insurrection! This is nothing new and I would be disgusted if our government didn't prepare for such thing!

Second, why does if have to be Tea Party activist, WHO OBEY THE LAW and get permits for all there protest and events. It's the leftist OWS the engage in civil disobedience and they are 1000 fold more likely to try to take over a town and tey to -succeed it from the Union!

 

[JakeStarkey]

You don't get to dictate anything, sockpuppet.

Because you, kiddo, don't get to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.

Rule of law is the Bill of Rights - NOT "do as I say not as I do."

I don't understand how someone could be considered "extreme" for defending the Constitution?

How the hell is that extreme??

I don't allow sock puppets to dictate what is constitutional either, the people will drag sock puppets like you out in the street and deal with your type.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your interpretation of that, puppet, is only your interpretation, not binding on anyone else and not authoritative for you either.

Rule of law is the Bill of Rights - NOT "do as I say not as I do."

I don't understand how someone could be considered "extreme" for defending the Constitution?

How the hell is that extreme??

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?

 

[rightwinger]

And if this farfetched scenario doesn't happen on its own, you can bet they will work tirelessly to make it happen. Oh, the evil our Government is capable of. Most Americans are completely oblivious to it.

I am not worried

I have my trusty tin foil hat at the ready

Yeah, you used the ole 'Tin foil hat' insult before. Many times in fact. Get some new material. You're boring.

It's just my way of reminding everyone that you are batshit crazy

 

[rightwinger]

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

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

 

[BlindBoo]

The tea party isn't taking over any towns, that would be OWS smashing store windows.

What I can see is obama saying "We can't let them win. My work is not finished."

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?