Skip to comments.EDITORIAL: The Civil War of 2016: U.S. military officers are told to plan to fight Americans
Posted on 08/08/2012 4:50:24 PM PDT by EveningStar
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
There wont be a Gettysburg in modern insurgency. There will be a nasty insurgency, with a political component that would be as important as the killing wing.
An intelligent people who understood all of the dynamics you presented in your full post would probably push their wayward government to make the first move, and commit to a full scale imposition of martial law against its citizens, thereby hastening the inevitable outcome.
Well, of course any rational person living in Realville sees it that way, but we're talking about Obama here.
Who is Henry Bowman?
For example, I was a lot younger and a lot more ignorant when some of these things happened, but I almost blame myself and everyone else around me for Waco/Ruby Ridge, etc...
The people did not recognize these incidents for what they were at the time. 1/2 million people should have marched into those incidents and shut them down with force. I know, hindsight and time, but it's frightening to think that EVERYONE sat back and let it happen outside of a couple of hundred protesters. Only today in the light of retrospect do we see the evil and wrongs that were perpetrated.
On the other subject of actual civil war, my person belief is that it wouldn't really matter if the military stood with the citizenry or not. Of the 100m+ armed citizens in this country, only about 1 kill per 10 rebels would be required for complete and total annihilation of the governments military. Sure, it would be an absolute bloodbath for both sides, but as stated by others long before me, as long as we are armed, I do not believe America can ever be taken in one piece. I see all of the constant political bickering and division being implemented via so-called "wedge" issues... homo marriage, taxes, you name it. But then I think back at the mood of the country on 09/12/2001. If you were an American, you stood in solidarity with your neighbor regardless if he was a Barney Frank supporter. We wanted someones ass and we didn't even have to think about what side we were on. I believe the same effect would be in play if this scenario ever played out... I just can't figure out what that threshold really is for people. Waco didn't do it, what will?
if you don't add me to the list I will ask the Mods to ZOT your ass.
I am seriously thinking about reporting you to the highest authority in management about this ping list thing.
I’m talking echelons way beyond the Admin Mod. Do you hear me???
Thanks for sharing the humorous e-mail. Best regards.
After leaving active duty at Fort Benning I was in the active US Army Reserve in South Florida before and during the Cuban Missle Crisis.
We were all ordered to have our equipment and duffle bags packed and ready in the trunk of our vehicles and were on alert for notice to us at work to report to board aircraft in Fort Lauderdale for Cuba.
Kennedy called off the alert.
This never made it to the media.
There were very few in our company that were experienced and proficient in combat action.
Our egotistical idiot company commander had lost half of his men in Korea - He ordered his company to split in half and take a different route.
If you hold your breath waiting, we can call you Bluewoulf.
You are sooo there!
Ummmmmm, welcome to the list? Friend. Buddy. Pal...
The original article itself is PsyOps. Poke the nest ... see how riled up the hornets get.
Thanks for the laugh! It’s already been a long week.
I just spent three days traveling in my RV, for a one day trip.
First diagnosis: fuel filter. Tow to RV park (it’s Sunday and all the service truckers must have been watching NASCAR, so I had to spend a night.) - $230.
Second diagnosis: external fuel pump. Towed to repair shop. Idled for two hours (460 Ford burning lots of $3.559!), then said, “It must be your fuel pump!”. - $285
Third diagnosis: Spent the night parked next to Waffle House, across street from newly opened mechanic shop. Drove over at 6:30 and waited for 8:00 open. Guy shows up at 7:00, tells me “we open at 8”!
Me: “need help, now!!!”.
He “ Fix or Repair Daily” (chuckle). Common Ford problem, internal FP overheats and low flows. Wait a while and drive another. 60-80 miles at 70 mph. After ‘rinse and repeating’ three times, finally I made it to Cherokee, where I can get it fixed priorly, with some recourse.......
Third fix: INTERNAL FUEL PUMP!!! -$385. (had to drop the tank.)
I’m not a mechanic (never even played one on TV!). BUT, I wish I had gotten to the third guy first, as he IMMEDIATELY knew the problem as it is common knowledge to knowledgeable mechanics!!!!
Thanks to Good Sam Club for their Roadside services and THREE TOWS on one trip! Best $ 120 a year I’ve spent...
Glad you enjoyed it, Jim. That email actually made it into a thread here yesterday. A whole bunch of ex-military guys chimed in.
We'll see about that. I've already got my report to upper management written and ready to push the button if you so much as hiccup. Do you get my drift, soldier???
Sir, yes sir!
Are you so sure of that? No one thought the Germans would attack their own either, but, they did.
Thanks for the laughs, Nully. You really did bring a grin to my face tonight. I needed that.
The ROE in Afghanistan and Iraq were very tight. I don't ask this next question idly; this is a very serious element of this article's miscalculation.
Do you know why our ROEs were that tight?
Assuming that you know the reason for that, you'll understand that in the event of counterinsurgency operations within CONUS, the ROE would be tighter than ever before seen. It may seem counter-intuitive, but the closer the fighting gets to our vital interests, the less direct force the government will be able to bring to bear. The overlapping political and social concerns about using the uniformed U.S. security apparatus to unleash lethal force would intensify immensely if the fighting were local and not several thousand miles away.
(And yes, I'm aware of the historical background of military/LEO crackdowns in the U.S., but this is 2012, not 1912. Even Waco, the last large scale example, is still bitterly criticized today, and the Branch Dividians were isolated whackos with zero political pull or constituency outside of their compound walls. The TEA Party has sitting congressmen and tens of millions of supporters.)
The idea that the fundamental political mechanics behind tight ROEs would lessen once the contributing factors to tightening it increase astronomically is simply a non-starter. Many of our most potent capabilities would become as politically unusable as nuclear weapons. Using even comparatively gentle measures could create backlashes in public opinion that (1) would be unpopular among people on the fence, (2) ferociously energize the people opposed, and (3) weaken the resolve of supporters of the crackdown.
How many videos of helicopters (allegedly accidentally) gunning down unarmed civilians in the street would it take for public opinion to swing an additional 30% against the government? Losing control of the 'white hat/black hat' narrative is nothing less than the difference between victory and defeat. Remember, a few pictures of Abu Ghraib led to Fallujah. What would a Fallujah uprising look like in a nation of 350 million people, not 25 million?
This article was written in such a way as to ignore or minimize the social and political ramifications of stateside counterinsurgency in favor of looking at the doctrinal minutia of it, but avoiding the I/O topic isn't the same as having a plan for it.
At best, what the authors did by engineering the overt racism theme into the scenario was a bit of wishful thinking that won the I/O fight for them before it started. "These people are neo-Confederate Klansmen meanies, and nobody likes them." That's, at best, lazy writing and and lazier thinking that lets them deus ex machina their way to the fun doctrinal stuff at the end. At worst, it indicates that they don't have a blessed idea of what they're up against. Talking about an I/O plan that headlines Shows of Force (fighter jet flybys, etc) against the insurgents indicates an adequate understanding of counterinsurgency tactics, and a tragically flawed understanding of the strategies.
When dead bodies from gunfights at hospitals and schools start rolling onto CNN prime time, it's going to take a lot more than sending Jay Carney out to tapdance for the cameras and hope your presence patrols scare the insurgents into throwing down their weapons and begging for mercy.
*That's* the real danger; that the radicals on the far side of the spectrum who think they want this fight don't realize that you can't simply bomb Pearl Harbor, sail home and declare victory. You kick that dog and it's going to bite you and keep on biting you until one of your are dead.