With our military's support like this....

[CG6468]

Army colonel ignites firestorm with article on crushing a 'tea party insurgency'

August 5, 2012
By: Anthony Martin
 
A retired U.S. Army colonel who now teaches modern warfare to soldiers at the University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. has co-written an article with a Civil War expert that has ignited a firestorm today among those increasingly concerned about what some say is a distinct anti-civilian tone that has infected much of the military and Homeland Security since 2009.
 
Retired Col. Kevin Benson and Jennifer Weber, Associate Professor of History at the University of Kansas, co-wrote an article for Small Wars Journal on a 2010 Army report titled, "U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, The Army Operating Concept 2016 - 2028."
 
The report describes how the Army will respond to threats "at home and abroad" in the coming two decades and in doing so has made clear that a monumental cultural shift has occurred in the thinking of those at the top levels of military command. This shift has some government watchdogs worried, particularly given that Benson is using the platform provided at Fort Leavenworth to educate military personnel in his vision of the nature of modern warfare in America. According to the vision articulated by Benson, future warfare will be conducted on our own soil. The military will use its full force against our own citizens. The enemy will be average citizens whose values resonate with those articulated by the tea party.
 
The fictitious scenario used in the Army report as a teaching tool is a future insurrection of "tea party activists" in South Carolina. As the scenario goes, the tea party group stages a takeover of the town of Darlington, S.C. The mayor is placed under house arrest and prevented from exercising his duties. The police chief, the county sheriff, and other law enforcement officials are removed from office and told not to interfere. The city council is dissolved. The governor of the state, who had previously expressed solidarity with tea party goals, does little to address the situation.

Here it comes.....

[Eupher]

Half of the Pentagon in Barry's corner? Sharing his "world view?"

In a pig's ass.

[CG6468]

Half of the Pentagon in Barry's corner? Sharing his "world view?"

In a pig's ass.

I generally agree, but think about today's military forces. Many high school dropouts, druggies, other felons, illegal aliens, muzzies, and other gimmethemoney people (accepted by today's standards). I haven't seen much in today's pentagon heirarchy to show support for this country.

Many of them are in his pocket.

[Eupher]

I generally agree, but think about today's military forces. Many high school dropouts, druggies, other felons, illegal aliens, muzzies, and other gimmethemoney people (accepted by today's standards). I haven't seen much in today's pentagon heirarchy to show support for this country.

Many of them are in his pocket.

I don't understand your post at all.

Are you calling today's military forces "high school dropouts, druggies, other felons,..."?

That's the way that reads.

And who in the Pentagon's hierarchy besides the bureaucrats and civilian pukes (not necessarily the same people) is in Barry's pocket?

[JohnnyReb]

Darlington, S.C., where there is a monument to a black Confederate soldier, Dad Brown, in the town square.

Darlington, S.C., the area where The Gamecock and The Swamp Fox recruited a lot of their Revolutionary War volunteers.

Darlington, S.C., home of the first NASCAR super speedway.

Darlington, S.C., one of the many towns that suffered Shermans revenge.

South Carolina, the state that fought more Revolutionary War battles than any other colony.

Bring it on turkeys, South Carolina, home of a bunch of hard headed, freedom loving,  rednecks that love a good fight.

[CG6468]

I don't understand your post at all.

Are you calling today's military forces "high school dropouts, druggies, other felons,..."?

That's the way that reads.

And who in the Pentagon's hierarchy besides the bureaucrats and civilian pukes (not necessarily the same people) is in Barry's pocket?

A lot of them are, Eupher. Not all of them, but many of them.

I've heard some of the top brass spouting blammo's BS, even those in the pentagon.

[Eupher]

A lot of them are, Eupher. Not all of them, but many of them.

I've heard some of the top brass spouting blammo's BS, even those in the pentagon.

I take exception to your statement about druggies, felons, etc. The services have become much more picky about who they're accepting than they've ever been.

As to the politics, there's no doubt there are those wearing a helluva lot of stars who look at Barry and just melt. I don't know if it's a career-saving mentality (groupthink is pretty rife in the Pentagon), but I distinctly remember when Rumsfeld was SecDec -- those under him were not all happy campers with his leadership style. But they soldiered on -- most of them.

But you're painting with a very, very broad brush about those who are currently serving. You'd do well by honoring their service, as you usually do, rather than make disparaging comments about the vast majority who are serving.

[CG6468]

I never said they were the vast majority. But some are there - like the idiot who committed the Ft. Hood Massacre.

Today's military may be more choosy, but those from the previous years when any warm body was accepted still inhabit our forces.

[txradioguy]

I take exception to your statement about druggies, felons, etc. The services have become much more picky about who they're accepting than they've ever been.

As to the politics, there's no doubt there are those wearing a helluva lot of stars who look at Barry and just melt. I don't know if it's a career-saving mentality (groupthink is pretty rife in the Pentagon), but I distinctly remember when Rumsfeld was SecDec -- those under him were not all happy campers with his leadership style. But they soldiered on -- most of them.

But you're painting with a very, very broad brush about those who are currently serving. You'd do well by honoring their service, as you usually do, rather than make disparaging comments about the vast majority who are serving.

^^ This...QFT

[docstew]

I never said they were the vast majority. But some are there - like the idiot who committed the Ft. Hood Massacre.

Today's military may be more choosy, but those from the previous years when any warm body was accepted still inhabit our forces.

That maybe true, but only because it takes, on average, 6 months to separate them involuntarily.

And BS for calling people in the military "high school dropouts, druggies, other felons, illegal aliens, muzzies, and other gimmethemoney people". You can't stay in as a dropout, drugs are a one way ticket out, same with felonies. As far as your comment about illegals and muslims, I detect a sense that you think they don't belong because they aren't 'Merican enough for your tastes.

Finally, I'd be hard pressed to find a Soldier who would fire on American citizens just cuz the Commander told em to. So the whole premise of the article is BS anyway.

[Eupher]

I never said they were the vast majority. But some are there - like the idiot who committed the Ft. Hood Massacre.

Today's military may be more choosy, but those from the previous years when any warm body was accepted still inhabit our forces.

Bottom line, Jeff, you're ****ing up.

And you're a Coastie vet.

Very disappointing.

[CG6468]

How so?

[Eupher]

How so?

Your words:

...think about today's military forces. Many high school dropouts, druggies, other felons, illegal aliens, muzzies, and other gimmethemoney people (accepted by today's standards).

These are not supportive, complimentary comments. You're taking a broad brush and painting the entire force with this kind of rhetoric.

There's no doubt the military has a scant few of these type of people. Any organization will have a few schmucks in it.

But I'd stack up today's force against ANY from my era AND your era.

When I enlisted in 1975, I distinctly remember some loser in my basic training unit that was proud of the fact a judge had told him that he'd either go in the Army for 3 years or spend 3 years in prison.

That kind of thing doesn't happen today, or at least doesn't happen without waivers.

The services can afford to be very, very picky about who they're getting these days -- not so much in my day, and likely in your day as well.

If you can't see my point at this stage, I can't say much more about it other than I think you're ****ing up. You're letting the MSM and its relentless attack on the military cloud your judgment, thereby playing right into their hands.

In short, you're being a tool for the MSM by espousing that kind of viewpoint. I expected better from you, Jeff.

[EagleKeeper]

For what its worth, after having read the OP, I'm not sure that I find anything wrong.

The military games everything out, they are supposed to have a plan for every contingency right?

Col. Benson is working in theory and the results of that are applicable all over the world.


Just as an aside, if you had to fight someone who would you rather fight?

A) A well armed and cohesive group of patriots.

B) A well armed and cohesive group of academics and OWSies.

Me? I'd rather have to fight (B) but thats just me.

Any way, they are probably just updating plans that have already existed for years.

[NHSparky]

A lot of them are, Eupher. Not all of them, but many of them.

I've heard some of the top brass spouting blammo's BS, even those in the pentagon.

Same here.  Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the 21st century military before you go flapping your gums.

[CG6468]

Your words:

These are not supportive, complimentary comments. You're taking a broad brush and painting the entire force with this kind of rhetoric.

One more time: I never said that our entire military force was bad.

[Eupher]

One more time: I never said that our entire military force was bad.

One more time: You inferred it. You don't have to make grandiose statements to infer a point. That's what the "broad brush" is for.

When you can't see that you're maligning those who are currently serving by the words you're using, I can't help you. Be stubborn and stick to your story, but I see your words as being harmful, inaccurate, and disparaging.

Stop it. Among other things, you're making yourself look like a fool.

[docstew]

One more time: You inferred it. You don't have to make grandiose statements to infer a point. That's what the "broad brush" is for.

When you can't see that you're maligning those who are currently serving by the words you're using, I can't help you. Be stubborn and stick to your story, but I see your words as being harmful, inaccurate, and disparaging.

Stop it. Among other things, you're making yourself look like a fool.

And on the bolded part, everyone else who has read it agrees with Eupher. You got a little over-righteous about current service members.

[DumbAss Tanker]

I generally agree, but think about today's military forces. Many high school dropouts, druggies, other felons, illegal aliens, muzzies, and other gimmethemoney people (accepted by today's standards). I haven't seen much in today's pentagon heirarchy to show support for this country.

Many of them are in his pocket.

This isn't 1972.  I don't want to be mean or rude, but you really, really don't know what you're talking about on this one.