How the U.S. Military Would Crush a Tea Party Rebellion
A
right-wing militia inspired by the Tea Party movement has taken over
the city of Darlington, South Carolina, arrested the local government,
and declared that the federal government should be overthrown. As the
militia establishes checkpoints across I-95, other extremist groups
across the nation rush to declare their support. South Carolina’s
governor – a Tea Party supporter – declines to send in law enforcement
to quash the militia, but quietly asks for federal intervention. The
President invokes the Insurrection Act to authorize the use of federal
troops, as the Pentagon prepares for war at home….
This is a drill, repeat, this is a drill. Actually, it’s a thought
exercise by two authors exploring just how the U.S. military would
respond to domestic insurrection. It sounds almost paranoid, except that
nine days after Obama’s reelection, petitions for
secession have sprouted in all 50 states, gun sales have soared for fear of what a second term means for gun owners, and white
nationalist
groups are elated over Obama’s victory. Add in a stagnant economy, a
polarized electorate, and perhaps some disgruntled Afghanistan and Iraq
veterans, and domestic strife seems improbable but not impossible.
The scenario appeared last July – before Obama’s reelection – in the respected Small Wars Journal. The
article,
titled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the
Future”, was written by Kevin Benson, a retired Army colonel who teaches
at University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and Jennifer Weber, a history professor at
University of Kansas and a Civil War historian.
Benson and Weber (the team sounds like a cigarette brand) explored
how the military might domestically apply its concept of full spectrum
operations, which cover everything from all-out war to counterinsurgency
and nation-building. In fact, the Army’s operating
concept
for 2016 to 2028 considers highly likely a future where the U.S. is
threatened by “radical U.S. citizens operating domestically and abroad”.
The Pentagon was probably thinking of Al Qaeda sympathizers in the
U.S., but radicals come in all flavors.
Benson and Weber boldly argue that “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.” They also argue that
preparations for such a scenario must begin now, including proper
equipment for the U.S. military as well as liaison between federal and
state authorities. Actually, the issue is really the conduct of
operations against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, but Benson and Weber (who
declined to speak with the
War Games
blog) depict a convoluted situation where the military intervenes in
South Carolina using techniques honed by hunting Taliban, while still
trying to remain within the law.
Make no mistake, this isn’t the Pentagon providing military support
to hurricane victims, or even sending troops to support local
authorities as during the 1992
Los Angeles
riots. This is a war. There will be casualties. Refugees from the
fighting must be housed and fed. But it’s a strange kind of war. Thus
U.S. forces begin, as any combat forces would, by attempting to collect
intelligence on enemy forces – but then have to erase the intel within
90 days after operations are completed, in order not to run afoul of
federal privacy laws. They will be eavesdropping on “enemy”
communications, but only with a court order. They must depend on local
law enforcement for information on the rebels, but the local cops may be
rebel sympathizers. There will be “information/influence operations
designed to present a picture of the federal response and the inevitable
defeat of the insurrection.”
Curiously, the authors don’t really delve the fundamental issue of
American soldiers firing on American civilians, except to note that
troops would have to comply with standing rules on force, which require
graduated levels of violence. Civil support in South Carolina makes
counterinsurgency in Kabul look like a picnic.
Predictably, the Small Wars Journal article drew fire from outraged conservative
newspapers and
protestors.
The critics missed the point. This wasn’t really aimed at the far
right, except that insofar as there are heavily armed groups in America
that dispute the authority of the federal government, they do tend be
right-wing. Yet this scenario could just as easily be applied to radical
left violence like the 1999 Battle of
Seattle riots.
Benson and Weber present a scenario that is somewhat artificial. For
example, American law enforcement has become militarized after 9/11. Who
needs to call in Army troops when your local police force has
armored vehicles,
grenade launchers and automatic weapons? One has to wonder if a militia
would be so formidable that the state National Guard couldn’t handle
it. But then the premise of Benson and Weber’s scenario is that local
authorities might not be able to trust local forces to fight rebels, or
that local voters might punish politicians who try to do so.
The old gun lobby line that a pack of civilians with hunting rifles
will stop a tyrannical federal government is silly. This isn’t 1776, the
U.S. military is a tad better equipped than King George’s redcoats, and
if the U.S. Army decides to crush an insurrection, it will do so. But
it is also true that the nature of warfare is changing, as the
spread
of high-tech weapons has the Pentagon worried that even weak states can
field missiles that make sending in the Marines a bloody operation. If
Hamas and Hezbollah can obtain anti-tank missiles, why not a Michigan
militia or a Los Angeles street gang? If drug cartels deploy heavy
weapons on the Mexico-U.S. border, then perhaps only the U.S. military
has the firepower to stop them.
However, the real question is this: under what circumstances should
federal troops conduct military operations against American citizens on
American soil? Is this scenario likely enough that the U.S. military
prepare for such operations, or should we worry that preparation will
inevitably lead to action? Note the part about American soil, because
American
supporters
of Al Qaeda are already being killed on foreign soil. Laws like the
Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus are designed to tightly restrict
using the military against the American people. But if there were a
rebellion, I wonder if the President would stand on legalities. Lincoln
is remembered for winning the Civil War, not suspending habeus corpus.
11/15/2012 @ 11:33AM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2012/11/15/how-the-u-s-military-would-crush-a-tea-party-rebellion/
More States Added to ‘Jade Helm’ Military Exercise
'Realistic Military Training' exercise expands to as many as ten states
by Adan Salazar & Mikael Thalen | Infowars.com |
March 24, 2015
The US military has quietly added more states to its eight-week Jade
Helm joint training drill, originally designated to take place in seven
southwestern states.
Speaking of the exercise at the
Brazos County Commissioners Court
in Texas last month, Jade Helm Operations Planner and retired Green
Beret Thomas Mead told an audience that the drill, which will run from
July 15 to September 15, will now include the states Mississippi and
Florida.
“The exercise is actually an eight-week exercise taking place across seven states,”
Mead explains. “As you can see right there, it spans the whole southwest of the United States. We’ve also
added Mississippi and we have a group also working out of Florida.”
“We’ll have Navy Seals that’ll be conducting targets and training down in the Mississippi area,” Mead also says.
The interagency, unconventional warfare exercise, lasting eight
weeks, will utilize 1,200 special forces personnel from multiple
branches of the US military, including Army Green Berets, Navy Seals,
Marine Special Operations Command and the 82nd Airborne Division,
according to a
Powerpoint presentation regarding the exercise.
Operations Planner Francisco Oquendo Jr. also says “specific apparatuses” in the Brazos County area will be targeted for
“surgical strikes” during a special extraction mission involving helicopters flying in from Louisiana.
A local
Standard-Times report also lists “Louisiana” as one of the participating states.
The exercise serves to hone troops’ advanced skills in “large areas
of undeveloped land with low population densities,” and will allow them
to work alongside “civilians to gain their trust and an understanding of
the issues.”
“This allows our soldiers to get a better training environment,” Mead said in an interview with news outlet
MySouTex.com last year.
“We’re getting these guys back into the woods,” said Mead. “We’re getting them back into the field to make it hard for them.”
Additionally, two states – Texas and Utah – appear highlighted as
“hostile” territory, according to the slideshow, leading to fears that
traditionally conservative areas may be a simulated target for future
domestic operations.
The U.S. Army has even built a
mock American city in Virginia, complete with
subway carriages carrying the exact same logo as those seen in Washington DC, to practice occupying urban areas.
U.S. Army Special Operations Command spokesman Lt. Col. Mark Lastoria has
attempted to tamp down concerns
over the drills, claiming they are “Just a regular training exercise,”
and adding that more information on the drills would be released later
today.
Although similar drills have been carried out domestically in the
past, such exercises are increasingly being conducted among civilian
populations, suggesting an attempt to acclimate and condition the public
to a persistent military presence.
In the past few years alone, the US Army has carried out numerous
drills in American cities, with low flying “black helicopters”
disturbing residents of
Minnesota, buzzing residents of
Dallas and frightening
Miami residents with simulated gunfire.
As domestic drills intensify in frequency, military scholars have
begun publicly laying out scenarios in which troops would be used to
target political groups such as the Tea Party.
A 2012 report from the Small Wars Journal entitled, “
Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future,” even conceptualizes “
How the U.S. Military would crush a Tea Party rebellion.”
The increasing shift towards targeting domestic political
movements should be troublesome not only to the American public, but to
military personnel who have been
labeled a major terror threat by the Department of Homeland Security as well.
Although the vast majority of U.S. military members would
undoubtedly reject orders to target their fellow Americans, incidents
such as Hurricane Katrina – which saw
law abiding citizens disarmed at gunpoint under a military gun confiscation directive – point to the growing need for vigilance against a domestic mission creep.
