War College warns military must prep for unrest

[TwixVoy]

IMF is involved. Very interesting article.

"A new report by the U.S. Army War College talks about the possibility of Pentagon resources and troops being used should the economic crisis lead to civil unrest, such as protests against businesses and government or runs on beleaguered banks."

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/12/15/daily34.html

[yurbud]

1. If someone tries to use military to protect the rich, they are in for an unpleasant surprise...

as we have seen during the Bush years, there is a limit to blind obedience from the military. Most people in uniform actually believe the stuff about protecting the constitution that politicians only pay lip service to.

If the military were ordered to turn their guns on American citizens, we might see something like the siege of the White Palace in Russia. The coup plotters who had temporarily ousted Gorbachev ordered the troops to fire on demonstrators, and instead they joined them and their coup dissolved.

The financial elite now seem to have only one of two plans for America: to pull us down to a Third World standard of living and government or to simply starve us to death as they did Russia with their epically bad advice after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Those within the military figured out that Iraq and Iran were not the problems--the civilians giving orders to invade and provoke those countries were. There response was to drag their feet, refuse to pursue some policies, and resign rather than obey an illegal order.

If that happened when the target was a foreign country, how much more likely would that be if the target is their own country?

[TwixVoy]

2. I suspect they will pull us down to 3rd world living

It is my view of the situation that the top 1% have no desire to place us under military rule. HOWEVER - I believe they do want to obtain as much wealth as possible and are greatly out of touch with the common person.

They are bleeding us dry right now. Should they do this too much the common person will have trouble keeping/finding shelter and paying for every day items needed for life.

When this happens common people will go for pitch forks, so to speak. At this point the top 1% will panic and seek to use police/military to protect themselves. At that point, rather or not the police/military do so, we are completely fu**ed either way.

[nosmokes]

4. Well we've never used martial power to protect the rights of the working

man and woman and there's no reason to be especially optimistic anything would be different this time.Rather foolish to think so,in my book.

[Golden Raisin]

6. The rise to prominence and use of

Blackwater in recent years was not without reason or motive, both symbolic and actual.

[NMDemDist2]

9. is Blackwater the new Pinkertons?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkertons

During the labor unrest of the late 19th century, businessmen hired Pinkerton agents to infiltrate unions, and guards to keep strikers and suspected unionists out of factories. The most well known such confrontation was the Homestead Strike of 1892, in which Pinkerton agents were called in to enforce the strikebreaking measures of Henry Clay Frick, acting on behalf of Andrew Carnegie, who was abroad; the ensuing conflicts between Pinkerton agents and striking workers led to several deaths on both sides. The Pinkertons were also used as guards in coal, iron, and lumber disputes in Illinois, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania, as well as the railroad strikes of 1877.

[Enthusiast]

13. Very perceptive of you, AZDem.

I agree completely. I come from the coal fields of S.E. Ohio where in the late 19th century labor disputes were very ugly and full of violence. At the time the mines had an actual requirement that the coal miners had to dig more than a ton of coal to equal a ton. Of course this was fully politically supported during the robber baron era. We can be right back there in a flash.

[yurbud]

20. then we need a national ''shooting in self-defense against mercenaries" law--wouldn't back us?

[Smith_3]

12. I hope you are right. But I'm way not as optimistic about the military.

Do you really think the people who tortured prisoners to death would hesitate to fire upon americans?

[elehhhhna]

21. The guys who enlisted after 9/11 aren't gonna want to protect Citi and Chase. Just sayin'.

[WCGreen]

3. Above all else, we must protect the economic assets of the rich...

NOT!!!

[Downtown Hound]

5. Sure glad our country has the military it does

to protect us. :eyes:

[Selatius]

7. There is a reason why the Founding Fathers did not like the idea of standing armies.

The facts as they saw them said that if the nation had a standing army, that army could be used to oppress the masses just as easily as it could be used to liberate them. They wanted a citizen army loyal to freedom, not to whoever runs Congress and the White House, be it the wealthy aristocracy or someone else.

When the time came, the British Army was more than willing to turn its firepower on the people they were originally charged to protect, the people of the Thirteen Colonies.

[Indenturedebtor]

8. Modern warfare got in the way of that... unfortunately

[Selatius]

10. Sadly true. My mind was made up when I learned that troops gunned downed students at Kent State.

When that happened, I realized that the original purpose of the "civilian militia" had been destroyed. We had replaced what the Founders had wanted with something the Founders had originally fought, bled, and died against. It was a dark day for all freedom loving people in America. We had become an empire. Our armies were scattered across the world in garrisons over other people who neither wanted us nor cared for the presence of our armies. We now occupy a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, a country that was basically innocent of that attack. This is something the Founders would never have supported.

[Indenturedebtor]

17. This is something that no one of conscious or a sense of history would support n/t

[cabluedem]

15. Good points and even the police can be considered an ARMY since they are militarised. nt

[starroute]

18. True -- and the British also thought they had good reasons

King William's War, Queen Anne's War, King George's War, the French and Indian War -- the French and British fought all through the 18th century, and every one of their European wars had its colonial equivalent.

They British thought they were protecting the colonists from the French (and their Indian allies) by establishing standing armies in the colonies -- and wondered why the colonists were so ungrateful as to complain when they were asked to pay additional taxes for the privilege.

It was only once things started getting out of hand that the British forces were turned against the colonists.

[no_hypocrisy]

11. The Big Proviso:

President Obama will be the commander in chief. What if he chooses not to exercise such military authority, or better, commands that it not happen at all? Forbids it. Then this prediction will not become a reality.

[TwixVoy]

14. Technically....

Technically during a national disaster FEMA and/or the military high command could take over.... even from Obama.

[chrisa]

16. That's assuming...

That there's not a Neo-Con coup. I could see it now - "The Democrats have not sufficiently protected the economy / Obama lied about improving America."

The Neo-Cons are a dangerous force that should not be underestimated.

[starroute]

19. A good reason to avoid regional or urban-rural resentments

As I recall, when the Chinese government first sent troops to put down the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989, the troops wouldn't fire on the protesters. It was only when they brought in units of peasant boys from the provinces -- who were glad of the opportunity to get in a few shots against those uppity city kids -- that the protests were put down.

We don't have anything quite like Chinese peasant farmers in this country -- but we do have all those people Sarah Palin and company were trying to turn against the "urban elites."

There was an interesting map posted here about a month back showing that the Democrats' share of the presidential vote had increased over their share in 2004 almost everywhere in the country -- even in the South -- except for a band running down the spine of the Appalachians and across to Oklahoma.

It might also be noted that Lynndie England, of Abu Ghraib fame, was from West Virginia.

It does seem possible that the poorest states in the nation produce people who are more willing to be brutal in their country's name -- but I'm not looking to call names. The real issue is that we need to attend to those pockets of extreme poverty and the resentments they breed.

I don't want to see the West Virginia National Guard called in some day to shoot down striking Detroit auto workers -- but the mechanisms for just that are already in place.


http://www.arng.army.mil/federalmission.aspx

During peacetime each state National Guard answers to the leadership in the 50 states, three territories and the District of Columbia. During national emergencies, however, the President reserves the right to mobilize the National Guard, putting them in federal duty status. While federalized, the units answer to the Combatant Commander of the theatre in which they are operating and, ultimately, to the President.


http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=2175&issue_id=67

The 2007 Defense Authorization Act did contain language to broaden the president’s powers to federalize National Guard units and to use federal troops in domestic situations. When the Defense Authorization Act went to a House-Senate conference, the Senate version included a section that was intended to strengthen the independence of the National Guard by raising its bureaucratic profile, requiring the Pentagon to provide more and better equipment, and emphasizing the Guard’s role in responding to domestic disasters. When the conference ended, these proposals had been stripped from the bill, and in their place were revisions “making it easier to usurp the governors’ control and making it more likely that the President will take control of the Guard and the active military operating in the states,” according to a statement by Senator Leahy on the Senate floor, just before the Senate approved the conference report. . . .

The new language loosens up the circumstances under which the President may federalize National Guard units or bring in federal troops. The president may use such troops to “restore public order” in times of major disasters, public health emergencies, terrorist attacks or incidents, or “other condition” or to “suppress any insurrection, violation, combination or conspiracy” if the triggering event (the disaster, attack, insurrection, violation, etc.) deprives part of the states’ population of the Constitutional or statutory rights, or “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.”