Sunday, August 5, 2012

Bringing the War Back Home. "Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland": Getting the military to start preparing for the violent repression of its own citizenry. US Army "deep thinker" creates an "enemy" out of the Tea Parties & "extremist militias." "Red Teaming" from an Ignorance-Inspired Faulty Premise.

On an office door at the United States army's Command and General Staff College someone has scrawled: "You can't see the forest if you burn down all the trees."
Alongside is another titbit of advice to the hundreds of officers studying how to wage a counter-insurgency: "It should be obvious that there is a gigantic difference between defeating an army and running a country."
Fort Leavenworth, a sprawling base on the Missouri River, is in ferment as the army frantically tries to learn the harsh lessons from Iraq. This is the cauldron of a revolution in the US army's psyche. . .
In the words of a colonel at the staff college, officers during the Cold War era were taught what to think. Now they must be taught "how to think".
Critical to the army's hopes is Col Kevin Benson, the head of the School of Advanced Military Studies, also at Fort Leavenworth, which each year picks the army's top 78 majors to train as war-planners. -- US army officers learn harsh lesson in history, London Telegraph, 3 June 2006.
COL Kevin Benson, 2006. (Photo credit, London Telegraph.)
Before we plunge into this column, a little background is in order. The first thing for the reader to understand is where this ill-thought, offensive and dangerous article appeared:
The Small Wars Journal (SWJ) is an electronic journal and website focusing on counter-insurgency. Aside from its online journal, SWJ hosts an accompanying blog and the Small Wars Council discussion board. Other site features include an online reference library, recommended reading and event listings.
Contributing authors to SWJ include Gary Anderson, Matt Armstrong, Robert Bunker, Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell, General Martin Dempsey, Thomas Hammes, Jim Gant, Gian Gentile, Robert Haddick, Frank Hoffman, David Kilcullen, Robert Killebrew, Peter Mansoor, William "Mac" McCallister, John Nagl, Malcolm Nance, John Sullivan, Bing West, Paul Yingling and Michael Yon among others.
The title Small Wars Journal is a reference to the 1940 Marine Corps Small Wars Manual, which used "small wars" as a catch-all term for unconventional and guerrilla warfare, also encompassing foreign internal defense (FID), military operations other than war (MOOTW) and military operations in urban terrain (MOUT). -- Wikipedia.
To say that the Small Wars Journal is influential in current military thinking circles is an understatement. SWJ has this caveat lector up front:
Small Wars Journal publishes contributed work from across the spectrum of stakeholders in small wars. We look for articles from serious, authentic voices that add richness, breadth and depth to the dialog that too often occurs in cloistered venues. We do not screen articles for conformance with a house view; our only position is that small wars are wicked problems warranting consideration of myriad views before action, to inform what will no doubt be imperfect decisions with significant unintended consequences. On the continuum from paralysis by analysis, to informed action with recognition & maybe mitigation of cascading effects, to bold & ignorant decisiveness, we strive to help our readers find the middle ground.
Next, you need to know who the authors are. First, from the SWJ thumbnail:
Kevin Benson, Ph.D., Colonel, U.S. Army, Retired, is currently a seminar leader at the University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He holds a B.S. from the United States Military Academy, an M.S. from The Catholic University of America, an MMAS from the School of Advanced Military Studies and a Ph.D. from the University of Kansas. During his career, COL Benson served with the 5th Infantry Division, the 1st Armored Division, the 1st Cavalry Division, the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, XVIII Airborne Corps and Third U.S. Army. He also served as the Director, School of Advanced Military Studies. He works for AECOM.
AECOM is no fly-by night military consultant company:
AECOM Technology Corporation is a professional technical and management support services conglomerate. Ranked in terms of revenue from design projects, the company was the number one design firm for 2010 and 2011 by Engineering News-Record and ranked number one by Architectural Record for 2008. It provides services in the areas of transportation, planning, environmental, energy, water and government. With approximately 45,000 employees in 2012, AECOM is listed at #353 on the Fortune 500 list. The name AECOM is an acronym for Architecture, Engineering, Consulting, Operations and Maintenance. -- Wikipedia.
Retired Colonel Kevin C. M. Benson (USMA, 1977), is currently employed as Senior Analyst for defense policy and business development as AECOM's Seminar leader at the University of Foreign Military & Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth.
The School of Advanced Military Studies, of which Benson was Director for 3 years and 10 months from August 2003 to May 2007, educates commanders and general staff officers for US Army divisions and corps as well as officers from other US services and international armies ranging from Great Britain to Egypt.
Benson's last operational job in the U.S. Army was as Director of Plans (J5) for Third US Army/CFLCC (June 2002 to July 2003) where he was, according to his LinkedIn biography, "Director of plans for the initial invasion and occupation of Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom."
A May 2011 graduate of the University of Kansas with a PhD in American history, later that year Benson was named the Summer 2011 Fellow at the Dole Institute where he developed and presented a series of five study seminars on warfare in the 21st century.
And what is the University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies where Benson currently works as a seminar leader?
The University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies (UFMCS) at Fort Leavenworth is an Army-directed education, research, and training initiative for Army organizations, joint organizations, and other government agencies.
Red Teaming is a structured, iterative process, executed by highly trained, educated, and practiced team members that provides commanders an independent capability to fully explore alternatives to plans, operations, concepts, organizations, and capabilities in the context of the operational environment and from our partners’ and adversaries’ perspectives.
UFMCS educates Red Team Leaders, Members, and Practitioners; researches best practices for Red Teaming tactics, techniques, and procedures; and develops a reach-back capability to provide commanders and staffs alternative perspectives. Graduates of Leader and Member courses receive an additional skill identifier (ASI).
UFMCS offers four courses of instruction: An 18-week Leaders Course, a 9-week Stop-Gap Leaders Course, a 6-week Members Course, and a 2-week Practitioners Course (no ASI).
"Red Teaming" requires further explanation for the uninitiated:
A red team is a independent group that seeks to challenge an organization in order to improve effectiveness. The general idea of Red Teaming can be described as a bright light we shine on ourselves to expose areas where we can improve effectiveness. This light starts out white for everyone, under the banner of Red Teaming, but it goes through the prism of the particular organization and takes many different forms in its application. Some of these forms are as different as black and white. Sandia National Labs uses teams that attempt malicious entry in both the physical and cyber world, while the intelligence community has teams that speculate about alternative futures and write articles as if they were despotic world leaders. . .
The idea of using Red Teams has been around for a long time. Private business such as IBM, and other government agencies like the CIA and Sandia National Labs have long used them to help improve their organization. Red Teams in the military got a boost after a 2003 Defense Science Review Board recommend increasing the use of Red Teams to help guard against the shortcomings that led up to 9-11. Largely in response to 2003 report, the Army stood up its service-level Red Team, the Army Directed Studies Office, in 2004. This was the first service level Red Team and until this year was the largest Red Team in the DoD.
One type of Red Teaming can take the form of penetration testers that assess the security of an organization, which is often unaware of the existence of the team or the exact assignment. This type of Red Team provides a more realistic picture of the security readiness than exercises, role playing, or announced assessments. Red team may trigger active controls and countermeasures in effect within a given operational environment.
In wargaming, the opposing force (or OPFOR) in a simulated military conflict may be referred to as a red cell (this is a very narrow form of Red Teaming) and may also engage in red team activity, which is used to reveal weaknesses in military readiness. The key theme is that the aggressor is composed of various threat actors, equipment, and techniques that are at least partially unknown by the defenders. The red cell challenges the operations planning by playing the role of a thinking enemy. -- Wikipedia.
A UFMCS-trained Red Team is educated to look at problems from the perspectives of the adversary and our multinational partners, with the goal of identifying alternative strategies. The Red Team provides commanders with critical decision-making expertise during planning and operations. The team’s responsibilities are broad—from challenging planning assumptions to conducting independent analysis to examining courses of action to identifying vulnerabilities.
Red Team Leaders are expert in:
1. Analyzing complex systems and problems from different perspectives to aid in decision making using models of theory.
2. An analysis of the concepts, theories, insights, tools and methodologies of cultural and military anthropology to predict other’s perceptions of our strengths and vulnerabilities.
3. Applying critical and creative thinking in the context of the operational environment to fully explore alternatives to plans, operations, concepts, organizations, and capabilities.
4. Applying advanced analytical skills and techniques at tactical level through strategic level and develop products supporting command decision making and operational execution. -- Wikipedia.
The UFMCS Red Teaming handbook is found here.
Benson, in short, is no lightweight in his circles, although the same cannot be said about his thinking, but more of that in a moment. First, a bit about his co-author:
Jennifer Weber. The bloody irony of a Civil War scholar writing a planning scenario for a second civil war is apparently lost on this academic.
Jennifer Weber is an Associate Professor of History (Ph.D. Princeton, 2003) at the University of Kansas. Jennifer Weber specializes in the Civil War, especially the seams where political, social, and military history meet. She has active interests as well in Abraham Lincoln, the 19th century U.S., war and society, and the American presidency. Her first book, Copperheads (Oxford University Press, 2006), about the antiwar movement in the Civil War North, was widely reviewed and has become a highly regarded study of Civil War politics and society. Professor Weber is committed to reaching out to the general public and to young people in her work. Summer's Bloodiest Days (National Geographic), is a children's book about the Battle of Gettysburg and its aftermath. The National Council for Social Studies in 2011 named Bloodiest Days a Notable Social Studies Trade Book for Young People. Dr. Weber is very active in the field of Lincoln studies. She has spoken extensively around the country on Lincoln, politics, and other aspects of the Civil War. -- SWJ thumbnail bio.
That's it for the background, here's what these two big brains wrought -- Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A “Vision” of the Future.
The U.S. Army’s Operating Concept 2016-2028 was issued in August 2010 with three goals. First, it aims to portray how future Army forces will conduct operations as part of a joint force to deter conflict, prevail in war, and succeed in a range of contingencies, at home and abroad. Second, the concept describes the employment of Army forces at the tactical and operational levels of war between 2016 and 2028. Third, in broad terms the concept describes how Army headquarters, from theater army to division, organize and use their forces. The concept goes on to describe the major categories of Army operations, identify the capabilities required of Army forces, and guide how force development should be prioritized. The goal of this concept is to establish a common frame of reference for thinking about how the US Army will conduct full spectrum operations in the coming two decades (US Army Training and Doctrine Command, The Army Operating Concept 2016 – 2028, TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1, dated 19 August 2010, p. iii. Hereafter cited as TD Pam 525-3-1. The Army defines full spectrum operations as the combination of offensive, defensive, and either stability operations overseas or civil support operations on U.S. soil).
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.
In May 2016 an extremist militia motivated by the goals of the “tea party” movement takes over the government of Darlington, South Carolina, occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council, and placing the mayor under house arrest. Activists remove the chief of police and either disarm local police and county sheriff departments or discourage them from interfering. In truth, this is hardly necessary. Many law enforcement officials already are sympathetic to the tea party’s agenda, know many of the people involved, and have made clear they will not challenge the takeover. The militia members are organized and have a relatively well thought-out plan of action.
With Darlington under their control, militia members quickly move beyond the city limits to establish “check points” – in reality, something more like choke points -- on major transportation lines. Traffic on I-95, the East Coast’s main north-south artery; I-20; and commercial and passenger rail lines are stopped and searched, allegedly for “illegal aliens.” Citizens who complain are immediately detained. Activists also collect “tolls” from drivers, ostensibly to maintain public schools and various city and county programs, but evidence suggests the money is actually going toward quickly increasing stores of heavy weapons and ammunition. They also take over the town web site and use social media sites to get their message out unrestricted.
When the leaders of the group hold a press conference to announce their goals, they invoke the Declaration of Independence and argue that the current form of the federal government is not deriving its “just powers from the consent of the governed” but is actually “destructive to these ends.” Therefore, they say, the people can alter or abolish the existing government and replace it with another that, in the words of the Declaration, “shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” While mainstream politicians and citizens react with alarm, the “tea party” insurrectionists in South Carolina enjoy a groundswell of support from other tea party groups, militias, racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan, anti-immigrant associations such as the Minutemen, and other right-wing groups. At the press conference the masked militia members’ uniforms sport a unit seal with a man wearing a tricorn hat and carrying a musket over the motto “Today’s Minutemen.” When a reporter asked the leaders who are the “red coats” the spokesman answered, “I don’t know who the redcoats are…it could be federal troops.” Experts warn that while these groups heretofore have been considered weak and marginal, the rapid coalescence among them poses a genuine national threat.
The mayor of Darlington calls the governor and his congressman. He cannot act to counter the efforts of the local tea party because he is confined to his home and under guard. The governor, who ran on a platform that professed sympathy with tea party goals, is reluctant to confront the militia directly. He refuses to call out the National Guard. He has the State Police monitor the roadblocks and checkpoints on the interstate and state roads but does not order the authorities to take further action. In public the governor calls for calm and proposes talks with the local tea party to resolve issues. Privately, he sends word through aides asking the federal government to act to restore order. Due to his previous stance and the appearance of being “pro” tea party goals the governor has little political room to maneuver.
The Department of Homeland Security responds to the governor’s request by asking for defense support to civil law enforcement. After the Department of Justice states that the conditions in Darlington and surrounding areas meet the conditions necessary to invoke the Insurrection Act, the President invokes it.
There is much more in this article, but consider these paragraphs:
At this point military operations will be on the downturn but the need for more politically aware military advice will not. War, and the use of federal military force on U.S. soil, remains an extension of policy by other means. Given the invocation of the Insurrection Act, the federal government must defeat the insurrection, preferably with minimum force. Insurrectionists and their sympathizers must have no doubt that an uprising against the Constitution will be defeated. Dealing with the leaders of the insurrection can be left to the proper authorities, but drawing from America history, military advice would suggest an amnesty for individual members of the militia and prosecution for leaders of the movement who broke the law. This fictional scenario leads not to conclusions but points to ponder when considering 21st century full spectrum operations in the continental United States. The Insurrection Act does not need to be changed for the 21st century. Because it is broadly written, the law allows the flexibility needed to address a range of threats to the Republic.
What we must consider in the design of homeland defense or security exercises is translating the Act into action. The Army Operating Concept describes Homeland Defense as the protection of “U.S. sovereignty, territory, domestic population, and critical defense infrastructure against external threats and aggression, or other threats as directed by the president” (TD Pam 525-3-1, p. 27. Emphasis added.) Neither the operating concept nor recently published Army doctrine, FM 3-28 Civil Support Operations, goes into detail when considering the range of “other threats.” While invoking the Insurrection Act must be a last resort, once it is put into play Americans will expect the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas. The Army cannot disappoint the American people, especially in such a moment. While real problems and real difficulties of such operations may not be perceived until the point of execution preparation will afford the Army the ability to not be too badly wrong at the outset.
Being not too badly wrong at the outset requires focused military education on the nuances of operations in the homeland. Army doctrine defines full spectrum operations as a mix of offense, defense and either stability or civil support operations. Curriculum development is a true zero sum game; when a subject is added another must be removed. Given the array of threats and adversaries; from “commando-style” raids such as Mumbai, the changing face of militias in the United States, rising unrest in Mexico, and the tendency to the extreme in American politics the subject of how American armed forces will conduct security and defense operations within the continental U.S. must be addressed in the curricula of our Staff and War Colleges. (The Kansas City Star, 12 September 2010, “The New Militia.” The front page story concerns the changing tactics of militia movements and how militias now focus on community service and away from violence against the government. Law enforcement agencies feel this is camouflage for true intentions. The story covered armed paramilitary militias in Missouri and Kansas.) (MBV NOTE: The Missouri Militia responded to the article cited above here.)
The Army must address the how to of intelligence/information gathering and sharing, liaison with local law enforcement and conduct of Information Operations in focused exercises, such as UNIFIED QUEST, given a wider range of invited participants. The real question of how to educate the Army on full spectrum operations under homeland security and defense conditions must be a part of an overall review of professional military education for the 21st century.
Why is it that the longer I live, the more prescient the 70s comedy troupe of Firesign Theater seems?
We're bringing the war back home
Where it ought to have been before!
We'll kill all the bees And spiders and flies
And we wont play in iceboxes lying on their sides
We'll wash our hands after wee-wee.
And if we're a girl, before!
And we'll march,march,march, et cetera!
'Til we never do march no more!
(All together, now, boys!)
Not to put too fine a point on such an article, Small Wars Journal helpfully included this at the end for a link: "Related Content: A Knife into the Heart of the Confederacy: How General Sherman’s Georgia and Carolinas Campaign Helped Empty Southern Hearts and Minds of the Will to Wage Insurrection."
At least some wag at SWJ understands the bloody road down which this article points.
The reactions of SWJ readers were not universal acclamations of approval. Here's one:
Congratulations to COL (Ret) Benson. You have just hit the national political scene via Free Republic. The headlines will read: "US ARMY PLANNING TO QUELL TEA PARTY INSURRECTIONS." This article should be a thoughtful discussion on the process of suppressing potential insurrections and Military/Defense Support to Civil Authorities. However, your scenario using the TEA Party, combined with your credentials as a Seminar Leader at Ft Leavenworth, has a high potential of causing a major political firestorm on the national level. Your scenario could easily give the President, the SECDEF, the CJCS, the SECARMY, and the CoS a political black eye. You have given credibility to the conspiracy theorists who believe the President is preparing to implement martial law to stay in power, and have undermined the faith which so many of the TEA Party members place in the United States Military to support and defend the Constitution. For an author who discusses the importance of information operations your article, you have demonstrated your utter incompetence in this area.
This socialist/progressive retired Col. and his sidekick sure missed the boat on this analysis. They miss reality to the point of being creepy/otherwordly.
How about this 1000 times more likely scenario:
In November 2012 the communist progressives fail to reelect Obama by a very small margin. Major riots break out in 15 major cities nationwide with disenfranchised-feeling blacks, Islamists, and Latinos expanding their destructive protests into the suburbs. The governors of three of the most liberal states refuse to take action to quell the disturbances.
These clueless writers fail to understand who tends to be violent and who tends to be peaceful. They are either disconnected from reality or are driven by an ideology that ignores reality.
As a retired Marine and as a retired cop, I find the authors' fictional scenario quite disturbing and not well thought out.
What the heck happened to the Posse Comitatus Act?
Your scenario is clearly a law enforcement action. One that can and would be handled by state and local police -- and the state's National Guard if need be.
Roll federal tanks and APCs down main street, and you would have more than your fictional, evil Tea Party to contend with. You'd have everyone from high-school kids to retired folks running around shooting up your tanks and troops, while screaming: "Wolverines!"
As one retired military guy I talked to said, "This is the ultimate mission creep. The Pentagon bright boys understand that we're not going to have the money anymore to project force overseas so they're planning to fight in the one place that doesn't require it: 'the Homeland', which is a damned socialist term anyway."
What strikes me is that this retired big-brain colonel has so little grasp of reality that he should choose the Tea Parties and "extremist militias" for his offensive action scenario. I guess it must be true what folks have been saying for some time -- that white Christian "bitter clingers" are the only politically correct evil enemy anymore.
Benson touches only tangentially on the National Command Authority's principal problem in his scenario:
Once the Fifth Army commander determines he has a complete picture of activity within the town and especially of the insurrectionists’ patterns of behavior, deployment of combat, combat support and combat service support forces will begin from Forts Bragg and Stewart, and Camp Lejuene. Commanders will need to consider how the insurrectionists will respond. Soldiers and Marines involved in this operation, and especially their families will be subject to electronic mail, Facebook messages, Twitters, and all manner of information and source of pressure. Given that Soldiers and Marines stationed at Forts Bragg and Stewart as well as Camp Lejuene live relatively nearby and that many come from this region, chances are they will know someone who lives in or near Darlington. Countering Al Qaeda web-based propaganda is one thing, countering domestic information bombardments is another effort entirely.
Yet Benson seems to think that individual troop morale is his only problem. He ought to be wondering whether his orders will be obeyed at all, or, more to the point, which way the military's weapons will be aimed.
As ridiculous and faulty-premised as Benson's article is, we must take it seriously. At least some Pentagon planners are considering how to wage "anti-insurrectionary" operations against that class of folks that Obama sneeringly referred to as "the bitter clingers." That such military tyranny would be both a violation of their Constitutional oaths and treason seems not bother Benson and his ilk a whit. Thus, if the Pentagon is going to consider us potential enemies, we must give some thought to the application of Fourth Generation Warfare techniques in righteous self-defense against tyranny.
Now there's a nugget around which Benson can build his next article.
Benson lectures on future military threats. "The real enemy is the Tea Parties. Those blue-haired grandmas can be treacherous."


Anonymous said...

Most interesting to me was that within the linked smallarmsjournal article by the Colonel and Dr. Weber was another link to a US Training and Doctrine Command 2016-2018 pamphlet; which I clicked on to be promptly told it was unavailable and I was in violation trying to reach it; and it echoed to me my IP address, threatening me obviously that my identity was known. Was the article merely a trap to root out potential domestic insurgents? (of which I'd like to say, to all those who are listening, that I am NOT).

TPaine said...

So - I'm all over the Web, reading this blog and many others dedicated to patriotism and the taking back of our country. And I read the Oathkeepers and others who promise that our own troops would never turn on their own people, their own friends, their own families.

And then I read other blogs (and this most recent post), where we are learning that our military is being trained to shoot their own mothers. That these mil-bots will follow orders and kill anyone who gets in their way.

So which way is it? Are we doomed to be gunned down by our own troops? Or can we believe that there are some military types out there who actually believe in the Constitution and will not turn their guns on their own citizens.

After reading this article, I am guessing any idea for a "Red Dawn" scenario in the U.S. is as ridiculous as the movie was.

Anonymous said...

Caesar overthrew the Roman Senate because he owned the loyalty of his troops; no such bonds of fealty exist between BHO and the US Army.

Most soldiers have more affection for Colonel Sanders than they do for COL Kevin Benson.

All the political Left has is an arsenal of scolds like Jennifer Weber, none of whom wish to face off against an armed opponent. Their order of battle is composed of lawyers, journalists, schoolmarms and a handful of Labor leaders. They will just talk, talk and talk some more.

When these foot soldiers of fascism were agitating for the Soviet Union, their proxy would talk, talk and fight, fight. Back then, they were a credible threat.
After all, the Kremlin had The Bomb! Better Red than dead, eh?

Now, the political Left is toothless. They have made several overtures to Islamists but the jihadi have few scruples against sawing off journalists' heads. Jennifer Weber safely remonstrates against the tea party from her lofty perch in academia. She would have little say in political affairs if she were squatting in the sands of Saudi Arabia.

Jennifer Weber is right about one thing, though: a cataclysmic battle is about to unfold but it is a fight the Left will lose.


Anonymous said...

I despise these treasonous bastards. This whole unfolding tyrannical effort of "homeland security" reeks of the stench of military psychopaths gone rouge. The day I see the military engage American citizens, is the day I pick up my weapon with extreme prejudice. The mere fact that there are people in the military preparing and training for domestic operations, makes my blood boil. I don't know what happened to this country, but I DO know this. Eisenhower was right. The MIC is a rotting, vile, cesspool of degenerate vulgar maggots, whose only purpose is war...war...and more war. They are a revulsion to humanity and I SPIT IN THEIR FACE.

Dedicated_Dad said...

I'm heading out the door, and didn't read your whole post - I'd found this elsewhere already this morning...

Am I nuts, having a deja-vu moment, or...?

This is, IIRC, the same "exercise" that caused such ire when it was first "outed" a couple of years ago!

IIRC, we were told that the "tea party" bit was added by someone local, that it was unauthorized, and that whoever was responsible would have their peepee whacked rather soundly so they'd never think of doing it again.

Doesn't this latest seem to belie that claim?

Anonymous said...

Interesting that a legitimate, recognized pro-U.S. political movement is being denigrated and maligned as subversive and violent and singled out for assault by the U.S. Army and DHS police forces. Yet they choose to ignore the extremely violent threats and rhetoric from the NBPP and LaRaza as well as the ongoing violence directed against the public, police and city governments by the occupy movement ---which has been endorsed by this nations Democratic leadership!

Why are they 'floating' this balloon now, before a national election?

A covert warning perhaps? Or signaling their next move?

B said...

Though the article and the authors are focused on history from the American Civil War period, think not of the antebellum and the war years. Instead, look to the roots of the nation a hundred years before. The creation of this scenario has far greater overtones of the 1770s. This is a great example of a self-fulfilling prophecy that the power-establishment is flirting with. Someone, somewhere, has the national government on a crash course with repeating history.

Our founders, fearful of an over-reaching and all-powerful authoritarian government (the crown and the parliament -- compare stamp act/sugar act/etc to contemporary political events, perhaps) began preparations for defense. They didn't even really know what they were preparing against, but they knew they needed powder and cannon. That government, meanwhile, became alarmed by the preparations and so took a more aggressive stance against the colonies (passing MORE intolerable acts, etc. and increasing its military readiness). This all manifested itself on an otherwise benign evening-come-morning in April 1775.

Someone, somewhere believes conservative Americans are a threat. Whether or not they are concerned about the overt signals they are telegraphing with articles and studies such as this one is unknown and unimportant. What is important to understand is that they think we are their foe; and ready or not, here they come.


Mt Top Patriot said...

More Waco rules writ large by the leviathan that is completely out of control.

johnnyreb said...

"Insurrectionists and their sympathizers must have no doubt that an uprising against the Constitution will be defeated."

So I guess the current Executive, Legislative, and SCOTUS uprising against the constitution is OK?

Wait til this assclown finds out how quickly and how many of his gang-affiliated troops head home to divvy up the loot with their homies.

Anonymous said...

Oh, yah, they be smart as hell.

Some one on the ground out in the people wooks took photos of tank tracks accorss over the fence.

Took the photos of I-Corps intel in DaNang.

No way say the smart ones.
That is earth moving equipment!
Stand down, cooler smarter heads than you walk and look people will deal with this.

Two weeks later those tracts lead to Lang Viegh Special Forces Camp and it got over run.

They pat one another on the back and tell each other how smart they are. Then when the poop hits the fan they have to have 1/2 breed E-5's to bail their ass's out of the mess. Then they take credit for that.

Gen. Cushman (I-Corps Commander for to dam long) would be a glowing example of this "we say we are smart circle jerk.

Anonymous said...

show me any red blooded american that is cornered wouldnt come flying out teeth barred, gun ready and feet ready to stomp the vile bastards that have any plan to subvert this country and its founding pricipals.

play that game and find your future in the bottom of a 6' hole..its that simple. doesnt matter the uniform, political party, or profession said...

Thanks for sharing this nice post.
As the conviction of solidarity grows, parochial issues and aspirations merge imperceptibly with a compelling national agenda which only a short time before may have been the dream of only a few.

Jon Roland said...

This is interesting for how some in positions of power think of constitutionalists, as just disguised racists. That slander will not go unnoticed.

Many of us have attributed such thinking to such groups as the ADL and the SPLC, as propaganda they use for fundraising, but we need to recognize such thinking has infected many people beyond those front organizations. It is not too far for Allen West to refer to it as "communism", which may have been defeated in the Soviet Union but is alive and well in the U.S. and infesting the halls of power.

rexxhead said...

Oleg Volk told me: "Frank, I hope you haven't written a documentary."

Me, too, but it's becoming less clear by the moment.

Anonymous said...

I try to ask every currently serving armed forces member I encounter to go to the Oath Keepers website and simply read the 10 orders. When I mention their oath to the constitution, most seem unable to intellectually sever the two parts of their oath. Few can conceive that their oath to the constitution and their oath to obey orders might conflict. One senior Army NCO could not wrap his head around the idea that he might be given an order that conflicted with the Constitution. His trust in the chain of command was so complete that he considered any perceived conflict could only be an artifact of his own limited view of events. I suspect that this honest, sincere, decent but politically naive man is entirely typical of our troops. They are not robots (mil-bots to use TPaine's perjorative) but they have been conditioned to trust and sworn to OBEY the officers appointed over them.

To Mr. Paine, I don't know if you are, yourself, a veteran but I, along with one of my brothers, my son, my son's father-in-law, my own father, my father-in-law, my paternal grandfather, and both my father's brothers, am a veteran. As such I take extreme offense to your use of such a perjorative to describe out active duty and reserve armed forces members. I have shaken the hand of and thanked a large number of uniformed service members. I have yet to meet any who appeared in any wise to deserve being called such a derogatory term.

J. Travis said...

I really don't see how the fedgov can realistically withdraw significant numbers of troops from military operations overseas to utilize them here. Where would they take them from? Afghanistan? Germany? South Korea?

Add up ALL the soldiers, marines, reservists, NG, and police in this country and they would be massively outnumbered when even a tiny fraction of gun-owners commit to self-defense.

Back in the 60's some radicals were quite matter-of-fact about how many Americans resistant to a Marxist regime would simply have to be "eliminated". 25 Million I believe was the estimate.

By this point I'm sure their estimates would be over 50 million.

Some people will go Karl Drega (look him up) when they see their neighbors, or relatives taken out with a Hellfire missile. Some will consider a shutdown of the internet to be their own tripwire.

PT said...

They worry all day about the Tea Party overthrowing a government. I'd worry about the group that already tried to blow up bridges in Ohio than a group that is interested in protecting Medicare.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for lunch, and good conversation. A prudent man would never corner a wolverine.
in defiance

Anonymous said...

In reply to B....
Ready Sir.

Anonymous said...

You'll have to forgive these folks.
They forget that they and theirs live, eat, shop, and sleep just like the rest of us.
How froggy do they really feel.
10 years in the sandbox and they learn nothing.

SWIFT said...

The cloak of conspiracy theory has just fallen away; and the other shoe has dropped.

Anonymous said...

Seems like Mathew Bracken's book Enemies Foreign and Domestic may be something to reread. I can't wait for Absolved to be finished.

David Codrea said...

Anon@8:26--try getting to it from here:

Anonymous said...

You, you mean there aren't any friendlies?!!

Good thing I didn't think there would be then, ain't it?

Anonymous said...

You only need to understand one thing and they mention it not once but three times.

" 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" **".......and the roles of the local, national, and international media."**

And then, "They also take over the town web site and use social media sites to get their message out unrestricted."

And then, "Countering Al Qaeda web-based propaganda is one thing, countering domestic information bombardments is another effort entirely."

What is of overarching importance to "them" is the control of the information that the public receives, control of the story because they will no doubt lie as they have done before and do not want either Blowback or accountability issues. In other words, any hearings will be very well scripted, with an assured outcome, better than the Waco hearings.

Moreover, it is manifestly evident that evasion of constitutional provisions and the bill of rights will be implicit from the planning stages and throughout any subsequent operations. They plan to engage in this conduct and then justify it though the creative application of statutory provisions in opposition to superior constitutional provisions, which they will ignore anyway but feel the need to justify to themselves and later to others, if need be. In short, they are going to do what they want to do and are planning to that standard and worst case scenario.

The fact that this is even being considered, coupled with the language used and actions implied, if not outright stated, indicates a high probability of execution at the proper time. You must consider that if they are talking about this openly, they are expressing that they have high confidence of success without negative consequences or even a negative perception on the part of the public.

They are saying that they will be acting to protect the public and the constitution but they clearly intend to protect the government government power, information and news.

They want to be able to use all their tools and toys on Americans, on American soil, justify it and get away with it and preserve their current power as minimums.

Anonymous said...

Could someone please explain to me why DHS needs enough AMMO TO KILL EVERY MAN, WOMAN, CHILD, AND NEWBORN IN THE USA TWICE OVER?

450,000,000 of .40 caliber

175,000,000 of .223 caliber




Do NOT tell me the munitions are needed to "train"--how many of us remember the famous line in the movie "Goldfinger":

“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.”

Anonymous said...

Jackson Browne's "Lives in the Balance"--whoever thought it might apply HERE IN THE USA:

I've been waiting for something to happen
For a week or a month or a year
With the blood in the ink of the headlines
And the sound of the crowd in my ear
You might ask what it takes to remember
When you know that you've seen it before
Where a government lies to a people
And a country is drifting to war

Anonymous said...

Well it seem`s they are now going "all in" there was another false flag attack in Wis.yesterday. They are desperate to disarm the people of this country. Why ?. ( we know why ! ). Mr. V. there is a short film, about an hour long posted at Green Mtn. Homesteading , called Innocence Betrayed . Every person in this country need`s to view it. " Full Spectrum Operation`s in the Homeland " - THIS ! is a rogue government gone insane. The window of opportunity is fast closing now, we are about to be plunged into a nightmare beyond anything the average blob of protoplasm in the " Land of the Fee and Home of the Slave "could ever imagine .

Mark Matis said...

Let me put this succinctly:

If this country's "Leadership" gives these orders
And if the designated military units form up per these orders
And if EVERY OTHER "Law Enforcement" officer and military member do NOT immediately rise up, force these units to stand down, and arrest and execute the "Leadership" - both civilian and military - who gave these orders then

Every "Law Enforcement" officer
Every "Law Enforcement" officer's family
Every military member
Every military member's family
are the enemy, and must be dealt with under the VERY SAME Rules of Engagement they will be using against Mere Citizens.

Anywhere. At any time.

AJ said...

In other news, a "white supremacist" shoots up a Sikh temple. Coincidence? I think not.

AJ said...

Also relevant:

CowboyDan said...

MM, you're right. Rules need to be rules for one and for all, and once they cross the line, they've chosen the rules.

They will light the fuse, not us.

I wish there were more men of honor. Remember the line from one of the Godfather movies, "We only kill each other. No wives, no families."

If there were more men of honor, though, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

Anonymous said...

I wonder if the Syrian Army has a similar document?

Kathy from Kansas said...

I thank you good people from the bottom of my heart for doing the work of actually reading the damn document. It made me so spitting mad, I couldn't even get past the fifth or sixth paragraph.

tweedydave said...

As a former Green Beret and Army Intel guy I can tell you this is very disturbing. I taught FID/UW/L.I.C., the art of insurgency/counter-insurgency and the mere fact it is being taught to mid-level officers is confirmation of the worst imaginable scenario in my mind. I HOPE I'm wrong, but God help us if I'm right.

Anonymous said...

Tweedy Dave,

The question is, "What will the tens of thousands of retired special forces troops do if such a scenario plays out." They, like many of us, took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic" - an oath that does not specify (nor contemplate) an expiration date.

I sincerely hope that those elites who are thinking along the lines of this report have many sleepless nights thinking about what a few hundred trained Spec Ops guys who are no longer in the chain of command could do to THEM if they start up.

Anonymous said...

It's like all the Army has is a hammer so all their scenarios are of various types of nails to isolate, intimidate and then hit.

But TEA partiers wouldn't put themselves into boxes like that if the local and state cops did nothing. They'd have no reason to ride around in 'technicals' tottin long arms in public and shaking down good citizens at stop lights or choke points. So there'd be no easily identifiable targets to bomb. The lights would stay on, the traffic would still flow (why shut down I-95, the lifeblood of commerce?). In reality, if such a thing happened, it would go statewide and then national. There would be pockets or groups around every federal base and MIC civilian contractor. You'd have spotters around every drone base, depot and naval yard. Even if the Feds shut down the internet they'd be challenged to shut down surface traffic, Ham, and line of sight communication.... and if things went Hot, the war zone would be nation-wide.

There would be no clear and obvious demarcation between "insurrection held ground" and federal controlled area.

Fact is, the US Army and our military (or any military) is great for easy to identify enemies. It's not very well suited for counter-insurgency operations when the 'enemy' is not a particular, easily identified tribe or ethnicity, not living in an isolated, easily contained place, and is not incorporated into a unified command structure that can be infiltrated and taken down in detail.

A "TEA party insurrection" would involve an entire class of Americans of all races and ethnicities, of all socio-economic conditions, and living in all 50 states and many foreign countries.

They would not be interested in holding some town at all cost. That town would be bait. The Army that takes that bait would lose the nation it supposedly exists to protect.

ShortTimer said...

Anonymous said...

Could someone please explain to me why DHS needs enough AMMO TO KILL EVERY MAN, WOMAN, CHILD, AND NEWBORN IN THE USA TWICE OVER?

Sure can.

The mobile checkpoints I'd lean towards being used on the southern border. The "xray trucks" from a while back all are, including in places where they aren't needed. There are maintenance issues with trucks being put in locations where they aren't needed.

The original story on the mobile checkpoints doesn't work. Without seeing the original source, I'd still lean towards border enforcement. It's worth it to look into, of course. If I can find another, better link to the original source (your link works, the link they have doesn't), then I'll see what there is to see.

bloodyspartan said...

What else can you expect from a Catholic Commie Trainee.
I will leave you with this.

“Hearken, we beseech thee, O Lord, to our prayers, and deign to bless with the right hand of thy majesty this sword with which this Thy servant desires to be girded, that it may be a defense of churches, widows, orphans and all thy servants against the scourge of the pagans, that it may be the terror and dread of other evildoers, and that it may be just both in attack and defense.”

Flori, Essor de la Chevalerie, 90-2 for discussion; text, 379.

ShortTimer said...

It's worth it to revisit the 29 Palms Survey of 1994:

Firing on U.S. Citizens?

While all of the questions in this survey should have stimulated concern, the survey’s final question has generated an enormous amount of attention:

The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.

The survey results: 42.3 percent strongly disagreed with this statement; 19.3 percent disagreed; 18.6 percent agreed; 7.6 percent strongly agreed; and 12.0 percent had no opinion. In one of the footnotes appearing in his thesis, Cunningham quotes comments placed by some of the Marines next to their answers to this question: "What about the damn Second Amendment? … I feel this is a first in communism! … Read the book None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen." "I would not even consider it. The reason we have guns is so that the people can overthrow the gov’t when or if the people think the gov’t is too powerful." "Freedom to bear arms is our Second Amendment. If you take our Amendments away then you can take this job and stick it where the sun don’t shine! … It is a right to own firearms for defense (2nd Amendment); I would fight for that right!"

Based on the disagreement expressed by 61 percent of the Marines, Cunningham concluded that "a complete unit breakdown would occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission."

M. Simon said...

You need a politically correct enemy? Try these on:

Terrorists Dealing Drugs

Anonymous said...

Karina ring any bells? They had no problem rounding up guns when ordered.
BTW: where was the patriotic uprising?

Anonymous said...

This is some epic propaganda BS by the Small Wars Journal.

[i] Insurrectionists and their sympathizers must have no doubt that an uprising against the Constitution will be defeated.[/i]

UPRISING AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION??? Are they fucking serious? The ones uprising against the constitutions are in Washington DC!

Anonymous said...

My computer is locked up, don't know if this got through or not.
One thing I've not seen discussed, "turn off the electricity and in 3 days everything will come to a screeching halt". Electricity is a strategical & tactical part of our lives & no part of our US population can survive without it.

Anonymous said...

Washington Times Editorial: The Civil War of 2016

WT pretty much poo-poo's the whole idea; much better analysis right here at SSI. Still good to see this criticized in the media.


ShortTimer said...

Anonymous said...

Karina ring any bells? They had no problem rounding up guns when ordered.
BTW: where was the patriotic uprising?

August 7, 2012 6:51 PM

Good point, and one worth looking at.

Katrina was a wake-up call for the rest of the country, to begin with.

But why would there be a patriotic uprising? Most people view New Orleans as a third-world slum tacked onto the US gulf coast.

It wasn't done as confiscation for its own sake in NOLA (in most places), it was done in light of a natural disaster in the midst of a city that's a man-made disaster.

Circumstances also matter. The same thing didn't happen in North Dakota during the flooding a year or so back, nor in Nashville when it flooded, nor in Nebraska when the entire western part of the state lost electricity for a couple months of winter.

NOLA was contained - there was no fear of door-to-door confiscation in the rest of the nation, and the "uprising" was one attained through courts and legislature.

Really, who would really want to fight for New Orleans anyway? :D

Joking aside, again, it was contained to NOLA, we didn't see it until after it was done since there were no communications from the destroyed city, federal forces sent in were attached to different parts of the country so they felt less connection to NOLA residents, they had threat of sanction against them for not fulfilling orders, and the units that would go are the ones who are the most militarized elements of police forces, and NOLA police are scum to begin with (there are exceptions, of course). The same circumstances on a broader scale or in other regions just wouldn't happen.

Plus, don't forget the "you loot we shoot" signs and the regions of NOLA that didn't face door-to-door confiscation, or where the LEOs/MIL tasked with it didn't do anything.

Saying "they" rounded up guns also requires looking at who the authorities in question were. Some did, some didn't.

If those who did were prosecuted for 18 USC 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law), you'd find that it could be stymied. That's an issue with pushing prosecutors to go after criminals in uniform. If you show there are consequences to criminal behavior, you deter future crime. Of course, same goes with Fast and Furious. Gotta hold people accountable in order to prevent it in the future, too.

I can say that at the same time in Iraq, the Marine unit I was with that was charged with disarming Iraqi citizens (only 1 AK per household and 2 mags) - we would routinely look the other way in the case of anything that wasn't a weapons cache. Good people would be terrorized if we disarmed them, and insurgents would just get more weapons - so saying an area was "disarmed" created nothing but a false sense of security as the area was by no means secure, so there was no point. Insurgents could just fake us out with a couple of rotted bolt guns from the 1900s, and the clan patriarch who kept his neighborhood secure who found himself and his sons disarmed would result in an opportunity for criminals and insurgents to exploit as the local good guys were disarmed. No strategic, tactical, logical, or ethical point to it.

And that was overseas.

Note also the Oathkeepers weren't founded until 2009. There are plenty of folks who took the oath seriously before then, but it also makes a difference.

Anonymous said...

I had posted two comments to the original article. One pointing out the absolute corruption and lawlessness of the current admin. The next comment I asked if the article was a psyops test or operation to gauge the reaction to such a unConstitutional action. The second comment did not get posted. I wonder why?

Anonymous said...

The Military would be better of trying to train officers in the image of Patton, Puller ,Halsey , to name a few than the political correct Officers Corps the Military Has today. If gays in the military can wear their uniform to a gay rights parade then the men in the Military can wear the uniforms to a Tea party meeting, or any other meeting they might want to attend; ie KKK, Neo Nazi, skin Heads do you get my jest.

CruzMissile said...

But what is really scaring the power elite in DC?

-85 million law abiding gun owners. A lot more than the 1.5 million troops (active/NG/reserve).

-How many ex military members there are out there, with experience in small unit tactics, weapon use, urban combat experience from Iraq.

By saying that the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants, does that make you a danger to the government? I guess that made Thomas Jefferson a danger.

If you want to know why the intellectual elite wants to disarm us, remember, it was Mao Tse Tung that said that power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Anonymous said...

My dad was a WW2 hero. He told me many things about what happened in combat. One thing he told me, EVERY officer knew that if the enemy had won and they had tried to use our army, with compliant officers, to control this country, that all the solders were to kill all the officers, take their weapons and ammo, and go home. The enemy would soon leave our shores. "O" promised an "army" of civilians, as well equipped as the regular army. I think he was talking about TSA and "homeland security". They presently are an incompetent version of the "stazi". He may try to use them
like the stazi. Sigh,..can he really be that stupid?

Unknown said...

Create a Crisis 101.

Geriatric Doorgunner said...

My oath to protect preserve and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, albeit sworn in 1966, has never expired. Nor will it. That is the same oath sworn by all military members (and Congresscritters, incidentally). As soon as any sworn member of the military violates that oath, he becomes an armed assailant, and armed assault is a felony which a potential victim is legally and morally entitled to resist with concomitant lethal force. Any military man advocating such action is by definition a traitor to his oath, if not his nation.

Geriatric Doorgunner said...

To Anonymous who asked earlier today, "can he really be that stupid?",