Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Two must-reads from Parameters, Autumn issue, 2010 -- The Military Coup of 2012 & the Insurgent's Response to the Defense of Cities.

Military Coup, Chile, 1973.

The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012 by Charles J. Dunlap Jr. (MBV: I read this when it was originally published in the Winter 1992-93 issue of Parameters. It is interesting why Parameters felt it necessary to reprint it now.)


The Insurgent’s Response to the Defense of Cities by Eric Jardine.

"The retrenchment of counterinsurgent forces in urban areas actually favors the conduct of insurgency. It is, in fact, a response to insurgent activity that is sought by strategically mindful guerrilla leaders. As T. E. Lawrence noted during the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Turks, the Arab guerrillas “must not take Medina [a major city in Saudi Arabia]. The Turk was harmless there . . . . We wanted him to stay at Medina, and every other distant place, in the largest numbers.” The Turkish counterinsurgency was welcome in the major cities and transit lines “just so long as he gave us [the insurgency] the other nine hundred and ninety-nine thousandths of the Arab world.”


Kevin said...

Cool. They reorganized the Parameters web site a few years ago and I could never find this there, but it's mirrored all over the web.

You should also see MELANCHOLY REUNION

It's interesting to see that USAF promoted him to Major General, which I just can't see the army doing to anyone who published anything like this. Hell, they tried to retire McMaster over "Dereliction of Duty". And McMaster was a hugely successful company commander in the first Gulf war and a hugely successful Regimental commander in Iraq, not a JAG puke.

Doc Enigma said...

"People need to understand that armed forces exist to support and defend government..."

Lieutenant Colonel Dunlap's position stated in his fictional account of 2012 that the military exists to support and defend government, on its face, is plainly wrong.

What people need to understand is that the military exists to support and defend the Constitution and protect the country (geographic region) from attack by outside forces.

The charge to protect, support and defend the Constitution is in the Oath taken by every military member and there is nothing about supporting and protecting 'government'.

Additionally, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), a statute enacted by Congress and signed into force by the POTUS, each officer, NCO, and enlisted man or woman is bound to disobey unlawful orders from a superior, up to and including the POTUS by military law and can and will be held accountable should such charges be preferred.

"I was only obeying orders" went out right after WWII.

It's insidious reasoning and language such as put forth by the good Lieutenant Colonel in his fiction that become accepted as fact unless challenged outright.

And every vet or AD man or woman who reads such language should, in fact, challenge it immediately, because if it is not challenged, we will have real trouble one day.

A Reader said...

Still reading, but it leaves me wondering if a scenario like this - the military doing increasingly more - is one possible path to the hypothetical future of Starship Troopers, wherein Federal Service is the route to franchise, and 'Federal Service' involves everything from ditch-digging to Astrophysics to the M.I.

Anonymous said...

The oath of office is an oath the protect and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign or domestic.

The problem is that the political class considerer's this oath to be a personal loyalty oath to them. Secondary to that problem is the acceptance and assent to that belief by the corps of general officers, with the encouragement of the political class...

They've done everything possible to promote only those who toe their line and left march better than right face.

DC Wright said...

Doc, you are absolutely correct. One detail, however... I took that oath many times over the years and when I retired from my Marine Corps, NO ONE EVER relieved me from my obligation TO my oath. I consider it in full force to this day, and I will carry that obligation to my grave.

Mark Matis said...

For the Insurgent's response to work, one HAS TO take out the counter-insurgency's Air. If the Bad Guys can deploy airborne IR at will, movement in the countryside following an action will be impossible unless done by vehicle in a way that allows thorough blending in with existing traffic. Media will cover occasional screw-ups by the counter-insurgency resulting in non-insurgent deaths - hell, they already buy every tall tale the pigs spit out - but if it becomes frequent enough they HAVE TO report it lest they lose ALL credibility...

Anonymous said...

It seems you have trouble distinguishing between what is theory and what is actually in practice.

From the Bonus March to Delta Force being used at Waco!


Anonymous said...

Note that historical turning points often occur when armed forces transfer their loyalty from the nation/state to their leaders. Examples would be:

1. Not Julius Ceasars's crossing of the Rubicon, but his legions obeying his clearly illegal orders to do so.

2. Adolf Hitler's requirement that the Wermacht swear an oath of loyalty to him that superceded their oath to their country.

IMHO The Oathkeepers may be one of the best cards in our hand.

Anonymous said...

What I found interesting was the Insurgent's Response.
It clearly outlines who a war to return the United States to a Constitutional Republic needs to be fought.
Control the country side and eventually you will control the country. The key is keeping the people on your side. Never do anything to turn the people against you. That is why the Viet Cong lost support after the Tet Offensive, why the insurgents in Iraq lost the support of the people. Meanwhile in Afghanistan the war goes on, because it is fought in the country side and the people can wait till the US military pulls out, or weakens just like the Russian's did.
If the fight to restore the Republic goes hot, it will not be a quick fight, it will be another "Long March" like Mao fought.

RDC, III said...

@DC Wright

Amen Brother. We are not alone either.

Semper Fi

Mark Matis said...

For Anonymous at 8:34 AM:
If it is indeed another "Long March" then it will be lost, for the FedPigs will be glad to pull in the ChiComs or the Russkis to help "restore order". There are enough Perfumed Princes and Princesses in the US military to help them land their forces in San Francisco or New York, and THEY won't be any more concerned about "war crimes" than our own FedPigs are.