Civil libertarians have been concerned for years with the move toward greater use of the military in domestic operations by both President George W. Bush and now by President Barack Obama. The military continues to shift resources for prepare for large-scale domestic operations. Most recently, the Marines moved to create a battalion to allow the military to “be capable of helping control civil disturbances, handling detainees, carrying out forensic work, and using biometrics to identify suspects.” Now the Small Wars Journal, a respected publication closely followed in the U.S. military, has published an article entitled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future” 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 lays out not just the military but the legal basis for military operations to crush domestic insurrections in the United States.
The authors write how the military must be prepared to act against citizens when they received orders regarding domestic threats to the government. What is troubling is the lack of balance in the article and the general assumption of legality in the full spectrum of such operations. What is clear is that, again, Congress is allowing for such preparations without any serious discussion or review. The assumption of legality will soon become the acceptance of legality in domestic use of military forces.
The article lays out how the existing policies regarding “full spectrum” operations require the military to prepare for internal campaigns against our own citizens: “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).”
The underlying scenarios are set for as soon as 2016 if the economy does not improve and unrest grows. Focusing on a town called Darlington, the article explores an order to “Fix Darlington, but don’t destroy it!” The authors write “We cannot discount the agility of an external threat, the evolution of Al Qaeda for example, and its ability to take advantage of a ‘Darlington event’ within U.S. borders.”
The authors write “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 article takes on a chilling tone, telling its many military personnel readers that “the Army cannot disappoint the American people, especially in such a moment.”
The authors spend comparatively little time considering the constitutional and legal barriers to the operations. They details how “Federal forces continue to tighten the noose as troops seize and secure power and water stations, radio and TV stations, and hospitals.” Yet, legal limitations are treated as largely irrelevant.
I have no problem with provocative articles exploring scenarios. This are issues that we should be discussing. However, the tenor and one-sided analysis of the piece is rather chilling. What is even more chilling is the lack of national debate as the Obama Administration continues the expansion of the military into domestic law enforcement and operations. It is indeed a “vision for the future” — the question is whether this is the vision that most citizens have for their government and themselves.
Source: Wasington Times
What a difference a comma makes (familiar melody)!
“In the corrupt traditions there (in America), even JC would have climbed down from the cross and gone home to his brothers.”…..etc.
Befoe we all divide up “Ma Bell and her children” and create multiple parties, reflect a bit on the European experience. Ills lurk there too.
What are your goals? Do they automatically devolve from structural changes or from other ones?
My intent was to develop the american way from the local bottom level.
Here we have parties making open alliances to achieve publicly declared goals. Sounds sound, but not always.
In the corrupt traditions there even JC would have climbed down from the cross and gone home to his brothers. Just to give emphasis to how far it has gone there, I fear.
HenMan,
Two words for you: Bobcat Party.
Next to campaign finance reform, there is little that would benefit the country as much as breaking the two parties/no choice system currently in place.
Linnet Woods-
Very interesting comment.
I have had some hope that the traditional Republicans and Tea Party might lock horns and have a battle for control at the Rep. Convention if one or the other exercises it’s power and dumps on the other faction, This could lead to a 1912 type situation with one faction breaking away and forming a new third party. There are plenty of Rep’s. radical enough to do such a thing if they feel marginalized. And I don’t think that the establishment Republicans are ready to hand the party over to the Bible-belt redneck faction and the Ayn Randers.
This might inspire the demoralized “progressives” and “liberals” to break away from the “lesser of two evils” Obama worshipers and form a fourth party. I can think of few things that would be more beneficial for this nation than the splintering of the two party system. Maybe wishful thinking, but it would be a hell of an improvement over the current two (military-industrial-plutocracy-permanent war) party system. There are a lot of Americans not being represented by either of these two corrupt and dying organizations.
The political system in the UK is similarly stuck in a loop with equally unproductive results, unfortunately. I fear the same is true of several other countries I know of too. Having read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein a while back, I find all that is happening chillingly predictable, I’m sorry to say 🙁
Linnet Woods,
That matches well my way of organizing resistance. A party would be even better as a goal. Some try and have failed. My key point was we have to start where we stand locally, and then effect local politics etc. before expanding our cooperation. A long process or an avalanche.
A party would be a way of neutralizing the accusations of being terrorists, a concrete and acceptable goal with a program.
Do you agree with the need for figureheads with bipartisan esteem to be guarants for its seriousness?
I suggest two names: “Constitutionalist party”, or “Return to 1776 party”.
They should confuse the right wing voters and the libs can figure it out I’m sure.
PS I’m in Sweden and you are in England I presume.
Actually I am in Spain and I am a British Citizen, technically, although I prefer to think of myself as belonging to the entire human race and having planet Earth as my country… I don’t believe figuregheads would do – we have seen too many of those already. People of genuine intent and intelligence, common sense and disinterest in short-term personal financial gain would make far better political leaders and people would get to know them soon enough. Most politicians have never been heard of until they are heard of… 🙂
ME: Not to worry. When the feces hits the fan, people like the majority online here will be the ONLY ones standing up for our beliefs and our rights. The rest of you will be the ones rolling over and letting the military-industrial complex rub your bellies and tell you that black is white, day is night and that wrong is right.
If the authorities are preparing to combat citizen violence with military violence then maybe the trick is to work out how to achieve change in a non-violent manner…
So many people accept the two-party system of government instead of joining with others to form a new and viable political party (the Common Sense party perhaps?) and inviting citizens who are disillusioned with both of the main parties to join it and support it with small contributions.
The existing parties are supported by a small number of individuals who give them a lot of money each. Why not use the internet to get a large number of people to give a small amount each?
There are so many intelligent people who could stand for election once enough people had been persuaded to join a new political movement… You could start by creating a website about the idea, promoting it through the socual networks and asking for pledges of a regular amount, however small (no payments to be made until the party is ready to be formed and legalized) and see what happens. If more than one person starts up and their ideas match, they can simply link up with each other and, regardless of what the websites are called, agree on a name for the party and so forth… it wouldn’t hurt to try rather than waiting passively for the ghastly scenario envisaged for 2016… Just a thought from abroad… 🙂
George Zimmerman used hollow-point bullets I believe. I think he told either Serino or the guy who did the Voice-Stress Test.
You’re only 75.
ANOTHER VISION OF THE FUTURE
I am thankful for living in a peaceful country. Where use of firearms by criminals or police is rare.
My visiting niece and her husband remarked on the lack of police sirens. I was glad for them. Also that they tried on their own in town to make contacts with Swedes as needed. They brought up later that they had and were very pleased with the results. I had demonstrated this several times for them on their first day.
To end on a positive note: the international acceptance of English as de rigeur working language has made it easier for all. We can also thank the open culture so visible from American sources on TV and film. All have adopted in, even the tourists who visit (shy japanese, etc.); even the muslim youth here imitate it.
The youth are our only hope now.
When and if a collision will occur is hard to say.
Use a .22 with hollow points. That’s what certain secret services do.
Darren,
We would all agree that the use of crisscrossed tip bullets is humane as described by you. I do also.
It is the appropriate one combatting the enraged or doped.
The international convention assumes that a wound results in the intended and approved results; ie the retirement of the wounded from effective combat, not his death necessarily.
ID707,
Make all the booze you want. Stay out of Saudi. Fresh water is worth more than oil over there.
The news Jill bears scares me.
Little did I know, when in Saudi in th 80’s I was told of our products capability to tap any individual’s phone anytime without preparation of physical sort, that this would result. All thanks to digital as opposed to the old wire borne technique.
That they now can tap whole nations, snalysing some of it in almost real time and all of it over time is only a natural result of digital tech.
The symbol of the “thigh bone weapon” used by an “enlightened” human predecessor in “2001” has new significances. Disturbing ones,
I repeat what has been said before. The era of the great experiment in democracy is over.
One can discuss if the termination process began after WW ONE or in 1840 fifty years after it started.
For myself, I believe it began before the ink was dry on the signatures.
Matt,
Good point!
Idealist,
Schmognitive or smognitive.
Smognitive is perfect. Websters should accept it as an antonym to cognitive.
The smognitvity of propaganda. LOL.
Jill,
Pissing on the dead is unacceptable. You have to be decent.
This isn’t Rome.
seamus,
You forgot the severed body parts and pissing on the dead!
while grinning hillbillies hover over them.
================================
Forget about the grinning hillbillies. They’ll kill you, but they won’t bother to take your picture.