ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, May 20, 2013

US military unilaterally overturns Posse Comitatus.

"In essence, this policy change seeks to supersede Posse Comitatus, the 1878 law which forbids the military from being involved in domestic law enforcement “except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.” Under the Insurrection Act of 1807, the President may deploy armed forces domestically under extreme circumstances but Congress has to review the action every 14 days.

Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the President cannot commit troops to an armed conflict for a period longer than 60 days without an authorization from Congress of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

Under no circumstances in current US law is it legal for the military to deploy itself domestically without authorization from either the President, Congress or both."

 It looks as if the U.S. military are actively expecting some sort of trouble in which authorization for the military's use by the command-in-chief isn't possible.  I wonder why they are anticipating that?  Especially when the organization most capable of arranging a situation where that authorization isn't possible is the U.S. military.

The Ciceronian historical cycle anticipates the development of an aristocracy at this point.  It's interesting to consider from what that aristocracy might develop, as the areas of corporate and military power appear to be the two aspects of society that are increasingly immune to government regulation.  If the Ciceronian model is still relevant, the aristocracy would likely develop out of that corporate-military intersection.

Labels: ,

89 Comments:

Blogger duane oldsen May 20, 2013 2:31 AM  

Ciceronian historical cycle

Do you mean the kyklos?

Blogger duane oldsen May 20, 2013 2:32 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous dh May 20, 2013 2:48 AM  

The Ciceronian historical cycle anticipates the development of an aristocracy at this point.

Can you recommend further reading on this topic? I am not familiar with the proposed cycle.

Anonymous meh May 20, 2013 3:16 AM  

***It looks as if the U.S. military are actively expecting some sort of trouble in which authorization for the military's use by the command-in-chief isn't possible. I wonder why they are anticipating that? Especially when the organization most capable of arranging a situation where that authorization isn't possible is the U.S. military.***

Operation Northwoods?

A military aristocracy would probably be preferable to a corporate aristocracy, as the current corporate aristocracy is hopelessly corrupt, globalist, and delusional; also the military contains some traditional values that are necessary for it to function. But how much of any kind of healthy instincts are left in the upper reaches of today's PC military? Traditionalists in the military must be lying low; not sure they can plot a coup and get away with it.

A new aristocracy might even be an improvement if it purged what Mencius Moldbug calls The Cathedral (the think tank/university/academic/corporate/bureaucratic/government complex) and instituted some kind of Stalinist/Bonapartist/Caesarist reactionary programs that turned back a lot of the current leftist oriented maladies we are currently suffering from. Not likely to happen but one can always fantasize.

Anonymous dh May 20, 2013 3:29 AM  

Not likely to happen but one can always fantasize.

Once you unleash the dog you never can tell which leg it will hump.

Anonymous meh May 20, 2013 3:48 AM  

***Once you unleash the dog you never can tell which leg it will hump.***

"He who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount."

"Be careful what you wish for".

Etc.

Paging Abbé Sieyès. Abbé Sieyès to the white courtesy phone.

Anonymous Daybreaker May 20, 2013 4:02 AM  

The military isn't immune to regulation, as soldiers strangled by rules of engagement can testify.

And it doesn't effectively regulate itself, as do the super-wealthy who fund the political system.

Anonymous Anonymous May 20, 2013 4:08 AM  

or maybe there's word of a plot to detonate a nuke in D.C. - resulting in no President or Congress.

Which is another reason we need to decentralized the Federal gov and distribute it about the country. There's just no need for all these people to live and work in D.C.

Anonymous scoobius dubious May 20, 2013 4:28 AM  

"Abbé Sieyès to the white courtesy phone."

That would be the same Sieyes who voted to execute Louis XVI with the dismissive, "La mort, sans phrases." ("Death, no speeches please.")

Nice guy.

Anonymous meh May 20, 2013 4:44 AM  

***Nice guy.***

History seems to be a bit short on influential "nice guys" of late.

Anonymous Orville May 20, 2013 5:47 AM  

Being a military outsider it's really hard to gauge, but I keep reading articles on purported purges of officers not friendly to the administration. Adding that to the mix of DHS ammo purchases and MRAP fleet causes me to doubt that the military is planning a coup against the administration.

Until I see something to contradict it, I'm assuming that the administration and certain top military are planning a ruse to take power from Congress.

Anonymous Nah May 20, 2013 6:39 AM  

A military aristocracy would probably be preferable to a corporate aristocracy, as the current corporate aristocracy is hopelessly corrupt, globalist, and delusional; also the military contains some traditional values that are necessary for it to function. But how much of any kind of healthy instincts are left in the upper reaches of today's PC military? Traditionalists in the military must be lying low; not sure they can plot a coup and get away with it.

A new aristocracy might even be an improvement if it purged what Mencius Moldbug calls The Cathedral (the think tank/university/academic/corporate/bureaucratic/government complex) and instituted some kind of Stalinist/Bonapartist/Caesarist reactionary programs that turned back a lot of the current leftist oriented maladies we are currently suffering from.


It's nice to dream about, but it's not gonna happen.

Outsiders like to imagine that the high-ranking military and big corporations are bastions of reaction, but that is totally false. They are PC liberals in good standing.

Also, Stalin, Bonaparte, and Caesar were not reactionaries. They were revolutionaries.

Blogger tz May 20, 2013 6:47 AM  

Ciceroan - I hear hummus is now very popular.

The difficulty with it is we have no aristocrats. It would be more like he Goths or Vandals. Romans could at least have a magnificent corruption, Obama seems like the model.

Unless you mean what is also possible given the feminism - wealthy young women in an heirisstocracy.

At least the militaryncan't take power from congress - they ceded it all to the courts, executive, and lobbyists, many of the latter are retired generals. I know it isn't a fair comparison, but the military hasn't been able to win Afghanistan in a decade, so with congress it would be a toss-up.

Anonymous Nah May 20, 2013 6:51 AM  

Here's the whole thing.

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302521p.pdf

The snippet has been taken out of context.

Note how it says "When permitted under emergency authority in accordance with Reference (c),"

Reference (c) says, "Investigations and other actions related to a commander’s inherent authority to maintain law and order on a DoD installation or facility."

Seems to me what the paragraph permits is for the military commander to maintain order on a military installation or facility if the civil authorities can't do it and the President can't be reached.

Doesn't sound like a blueprint for a coup to me.

Anonymous TJIC May 20, 2013 6:55 AM  

> US military unilaterally overturns Posse Comitatus.

Did you read the entire document?

Begining on page 15 are the restrictions.

------------------------------ snip! ------------------------------


http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302521p.pdf

PARTICIPATION OF DoD PERSONNEL IN CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

1. GUIDING STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPORTING POLICIES

a. Statutory Restrictions

(1) The primary restriction on DoD participation in civilian law enforcement activities is
the Posse Comitatus Act. It provides that whoever willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air
Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute U.S. laws, except in cases and under
circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, shall be fined under
Reference (n), or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both

Blogger IM2L844 May 20, 2013 7:08 AM  

or maybe there's word of a plot to detonate a nuke in D.C. - resulting in no President or Congress.

Who knows? Maybe comet ISon will be followed by asteroid IAm.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler May 20, 2013 7:11 AM  

"Ciceronian historical cycle" where is this? What book? I have never heard of this. It is not on Wikipedia and googling it came up with ONLY your single entry.

The ONLY reference to political cycles is Plato. Cicero is copying Plato! Democracy descends into Dictatorship. So what is the definition of a "Ciceronian Historical cycle"?

Anonymous VryeDenker May 20, 2013 7:19 AM  

The ONLY reference to political cycles is Plato. Cicero is copying Plato! Democracy descends into Dictatorship. So what is the definition of a "Ciceronian Historical cycle"?

It would help if you searched using the unmodified (I don't know a better word, sorry) words "cicero historic cycle", which leads one to the theory of historic recurrence

Anonymous joe doakes May 20, 2013 7:31 AM  

Mere warnings aren't helpful. We need leaks from insiders to tell us where all that DHS ammo is stored so it can be 'liberated' to resist the coup and restore civilian government.

After the AP scandal, this seems like the sort of helpful service a wise news media ought to be providing, instead of publishing the addresses of civilian gun owners who will be doing the resisting.

Blogger Nate May 20, 2013 7:42 AM  

kids... if this doesn't tell you its time to dust of your go plans... you're just not paying attention.

You should have a few plans of how to handle things if you stay.

And you should have a few plans in case you need to leave.

You should be extremely agile in switching between these plans.

Blogger Nate May 20, 2013 7:45 AM  

"The ONLY reference to political cycles is Plato. Cicero is copying Plato! Democracy descends into Dictatorship. So what is the definition of a "Ciceronian Historical cycle"?"

Wheeler... dammit... don't you pay attention at all? De Re Republica was written by Cicero in 53BC or so.

Blogger Nate May 20, 2013 7:47 AM  

"Can you recommend further reading on this topic? I am not familiar with the proposed cycle."

de Re publica by Cicero.

http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam032/98049660.pdf

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 7:59 AM  

Wheeler... dammit... don't you pay attention at all? De Re Republica was written by Cicero in 53BC or so.

Cicero wasn't Greek, so it's likely Wheeler never paid any attention to him.

Anonymous paradox May 20, 2013 8:00 AM  

The 2nd Amendment... becoming more relevant every day.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler May 20, 2013 8:02 AM  

Our military is a bunch of Politically Correct, Masonic glory hounds. They are as evil and leftist as Obama.

If we are going to be ruled by an "aristocracy", the aristocracy of America are the Jews. They already run this country and pick its leaders. They control the media and most importantly all the financial levers in this country. So we are already ruled by an aristocracy with a puppet figurehead, Clinton/Bush/Obamanation.

Our military is no hope.

Anonymous Porky May 20, 2013 8:06 AM  

This gives Chuck Hagel the authority to call up the military in the event of a domestic event, provided there are "compelling and extraordinary circumstances".

Interesting that this document was published the day he was sworn in.

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 8:08 AM  

If we are going to be ruled by an "aristocracy", the aristocracy of America are the Jews. They already run this country and pick its leaders. They control the media and most importantly all the financial levers in this country. So we are already ruled by an aristocracy with a puppet figurehead, Clinton/Bush/Obamanation.

Given your endorsement of aristocracy as the best form of government, wouldn't this make you happy?

Hell, the current aristocracy is almost as friendly to buggery as your beloved Spartans.

Anonymous RedJack May 20, 2013 8:18 AM  

I would bet that the military will be used against civilians, not a coup.

The boys in uniform will follow orders. That is what they do. Pretending that they won't is maddness.

Blogger Nate May 20, 2013 8:37 AM  

"The boys in uniform will follow orders. That is what they do. Pretending that they won't is maddness."

Some will. Some won't. Many of the commanders won't... so the whole "just following orders" thing will be irrelevant. They'll be following orders either way.

Anonymous BillB May 20, 2013 8:45 AM  

Once more, Constitutionally speaking, which is a truly dead horse, no army can ever be used within the US. The Constitution provides for the Militia to be used to suppress insurrection. DOD v Perpich not withstanding, the national guard is NOT the militia. A select militia, i.e. national guard, was proposed and killed at the 1787 Convention. AND no militia can be called up to suppress insurrections until the legislature or the executive of the state requests help. Any other action is outside the Constitution.

What does this mean? Nada. Nuthin.

We haven't ever had a government that followed the Constitution in the US.

And Congress never had nor do they have the authority to allow the President to act without their approval even for 60 days in military situations. The Framers kept the power to act out of the hands of the President ON PURPOSE.

Delegata potestes non potest delegari. We the People gave each power to the governmmental branch where We the People wanted that power lodged. No power can legitimately transferred once given.

We R SCRUUED.(sic)

Anonymous Retrenched May 20, 2013 8:46 AM  

Well, you just never know when the president might disappear from existence for a few hours, like Obama did during the Benghazi attacks, so maybe this makes sense...

Anonymous Steveo May 20, 2013 9:06 AM  

Nate's right:

You should have a few plans of how to handle things if you stay.

And you should have a few plans in case you need to leave.

You should be extremely agile in switching between these plans.


The number one chip on the table you want in your pile is FLEXIBILITY.
Move to become more flexible, more responsive, more adaptive... there's still time. If you want to keep blinders on and watch, remember to close your door quietly after pointing out your neighbor to the new & improved military-wannabe police.

Anonymous meh May 20, 2013 9:18 AM  

***Also, Stalin, Bonaparte, and Caesar were not reactionaries. They were revolutionaries.***

That was the point. Reactionaries never got anywhere for long. But revolutionaries in power have a vested interest in not destroying the societies they have captured, which is why eventually you get a relatively shrewd dictator who stops the endless slide to the left (ie the constant cycle of leftist one-upmanship which constantly pushes a society to the left) and institutes reactionary policies for allegedly revolutionary reasons (but really for reasons of self-interest). Stalin, Bonaparte and Caesar have been criticized from the left (yes I know I'm speaking anachronistically in respect to Caesar) for precisely this reason.

Anonymous Vidad May 20, 2013 9:33 AM  

Pinochet... where art thou?

Now THAT was a guy that knew how to fix a nation.

Anonymous paradox May 20, 2013 9:36 AM  

Don't for get Franciso Franco. He put the commies in their place.

Anonymous wcu May 20, 2013 9:47 AM  

Aren't they coming out with another movie with ANOTHER black potus where some sort of disaster is striking our country?

Blogger Nate May 20, 2013 9:50 AM  

I think the movie is based on some kind of destruction of the White House... and well... its difficult to see how that could be a disaster.

Anonymous 11B May 20, 2013 9:50 AM  

Too bad the military won't take it upon themselves to guard our border where federal, state and local "authorities are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property," etc, etc.

Anonymous RedJack May 20, 2013 9:51 AM  

Nate,
The command structure will follow Obama. At the unit level, it is anyone's guess, but with the last few decades of PC at the military acadamies, I wouldn't bet on them standing firm against illegal orders.

Blogger Nate May 20, 2013 9:56 AM  

"The command structure will follow Obama."

No. They would follow a republican... but they will likely not follow Obama. It has nothing to do with their morality, and everything to do with the fact that they have no respect for him, because he is so oblivious to their rites and institutions.

Anonymous Mr. Rational May 20, 2013 10:21 AM  

If the Ciceronian model is still relevant, the aristocracy would likely develop out of that corporate-military intersection.

Eisenhower warned us about "the military-industrial complex".  How right he was.

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 10:25 AM  

If the Ciceronian model is still relevant, the aristocracy would likely develop out of that corporate-military intersection.

I, for one, welcome our new Blackwater-Goldman-GE overlords.

The only problem with that prediction is that both groups are entirely dependent on government spending or central bank spending.

So unless you're suggesting that they'll be taking over the Fed and congressional appropriations...

Anonymous Hyperphrenius May 20, 2013 10:32 AM  

There's already an aristocracy in the US. The banksters and the billionaires, the men who have the money to lobby the government to do their bidding, are the aristocracy. It's the same way in every diffuse democracy. It's inevitable. Wealthy families, whether banksters or industrialists, make alliances, toss money around in secret or the open, reward their underlings for behaving the way they want, and demote those who don't. A culture has been built up in the government and the media, that compels people to do the bidding of the aristocracy, though most are oblivious that that is what they're doing.

The wealthiest families in this nation are largely anonymous to the general public - who can name more than a few of their members? Their predecessors learned that you gain the most success in a democracy by lying in public and keeping your true aims secret; or at least by maintaining plausible deniability for your true actions.

This is one of the reason scams like AGW get promoted: it allows a group of rich men to try and set up an international regulatory body that will answer to them, do their bidding, promote their interests - and they can do it all with the excuse of "saving the planet". We can always pass off more cronyist regulations to the masses, just by saying they promote "safety". The average peasant can't read legalize, has no time to puzzle through the thousands of pages of bills up for debate every year, and lacks the technical knowledge to know whether or not a proposed regulation is going to make things safer or not. The American aristocracy know this. Most people trust other people, the media and its pundits, to tell them what bills to support, what causes to push. And behind the media and its pundits are, again, the wealth and influence of the aristocracy, manipulating, controlling, buying out.

But this is not an honest aristocracy, with given titles, public rites and prostrations. No, I'm certain the average American aristocrat would be horrified if people began prostrating themselves before them. That would be honest, after all; it would end the lie. But ours in an aristocracy of lies - truth, even the simple truth than in America not all men are equal, that we do in fact have an aristocracy, is not something said aristocracy can abide.

The children of the ruling families in our democracy are raised to carry on this illusion. This is their culture, and like the majority of men few if any of them are capable of surpassing their culture. They'll go on following the cultural mandate given them by their parents, ruling over the current system until the system collapses, and the century's long web of lies they've spun unravels with it.

I think in the future the US will probably end up with a military dictatorship of some sort, surrounded by wealthy families that form a new and more blatant aristocracy. The trust in the power of a controlled media to manipulate people has been eroded by the internet; in the absence of that, honest authoritarianism backed by the threat of coercive violence is the best way to control the masses. Though the extent of that control is far more limited is scope - historically, people are much more willing to rebel against a blatantly abusive aristocracy or dictatorship than they are a diffuse democracy. In fact most if not all diffuse democracies seem to get away with abuse that would have had a monarch lynched. Which is the major reason everyone should oppose diffuse democracy.

Anonymous RedJack May 20, 2013 10:33 AM  

Nate,
I hope you are right. Rumblings I have heard suggest otherwise, but they are not on a high level.

Anonymous 11B May 20, 2013 10:34 AM  

No. They would follow a republican... but they will likely not follow Obama.

I wouldn't make book on that.

Blogger Galt-in-Da-Box May 20, 2013 10:48 AM  

Never discard the possibility that the military may well have grown weary of BanKhazar's/Burn-bank-e's bullshit via various sock-puppet bleating shepherds in the White House, and be preparing to march ON Washington with Kokesh, not AGAINST him.

Anonymous rycamor May 20, 2013 11:04 AM  

Nate May 20, 2013 9:56 AM

"The command structure will follow Obama."

No. They would follow a republican... but they will likely not follow Obama. It has nothing to do with their morality, and everything to do with the fact that they have no respect for him, because he is so oblivious to their rites and institutions.


In the end, personality always trumps policy or philosophy.

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 11:06 AM  

Never discard the possibility that the military may well have grown weary of BanKhazar's/Burn-bank-e's bullshit via various sock-puppet bleating shepherds in the White House, and be preparing to march ON Washington with Kokesh, not AGAINST him.

Bernanke is going to be arrested!

Anonymous TJIC May 20, 2013 11:34 AM  

> or maybe there's word of a plot to detonate a nuke in D.C. - resulting in no President or Congress.

Fingers crossed!

Anonymous patrick kelly May 20, 2013 11:50 AM  

@Nate:"You should have a few plans of how to handle things if you stay.

And you should have a few plans in case you need to leave.

You should be extremely agile in switching between these plans."

I'm screwed, buying more whiskey to numb the pain....that's my plan, otherwise, I got nuthin'...

Blogger Nate May 20, 2013 11:57 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Nate May 20, 2013 12:05 PM  

"Nate,
I hope you are right. Rumblings I have heard suggest otherwise, but they are not on a high level"

I would have to go find the clip... but one of Glenn Beck's Come to Jesus moments was when he was still at Fox News and he was interviewing an active General. He was trying to prove his point that no armed surrection could ever work in the US becuase the US military is to powerful.

He was left stuttering like an idiot when the general refuted his claim and said the military was sworn to defend the constitution and the people, not the government.

now how many generals feel the same way? Unknown. Could this guy have just been playing to the audience? unknown. It is evidence to support my claim however that the military will not simply be mindless automatons for whoever is in charge.

Again the most likely scenario is a fractured military.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera May 20, 2013 12:26 PM  

It's interesting to consider from what that aristocracy might develop, as the areas of corporate and military power appear to be the two aspects of society that are increasingly immune to government regulation.

It's interesting that you consider this undecided. From brief observation, it would seem that financial and corporate heavyweights are already de facto aristocrats acting without regard for the written law. It cannot be reasonably argued that this is similarly true for military generals, either in scope or in kind. Instead, high-level generals are routinely deposed quickly and easily.

Now, it can be shown that the military regularly acts outside of the law. But it seems more likely that it does so at the behest of the lawless elites. This would also account for the common observation that military officers are, by and large, Beta schmucks (though lightly salted with Alphas). On the other hand, the lawless elites are typically quite Alpha and/or ALPHA.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera May 20, 2013 12:32 PM  

Vox,

The post's title has a period at the end. Please delete this comment once you've fixed it.

Anonymous rycamor May 20, 2013 1:02 PM  

Nate May 20, 2013 12:05 PM

I would have to go find the clip... but one of Glenn Beck's Come to Jesus moments was when he was still at Fox News and he was interviewing an active General. He was trying to prove his point that no armed surrection could ever work in the US becuase the US military is to powerful.

He was left stuttering like an idiot when the general refuted his claim and said the military was sworn to defend the constitution and the people, not the government.


Yes, I believe I posted that clip somewhere in Vox's comments or on your blog a few years back. Glenn Beck said something about Americans revolting against the government and what the military would to do stop it, and they both replied with something like "would we even want to?", and explained the Constitutional right of the citizen to replace government. Beck just stares at them a moment and goes "you guys are blowing my mind right now."

Anonymous rycamor May 20, 2013 1:03 PM  

By "both" I meant the army general and a former CIA officer who was also being interviewed.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 20, 2013 1:19 PM  

Some will. Some won't. Many of the commanders won't... so the whole "just following orders" thing will be irrelevant. They'll be following orders either way.

It is funny, isn't it, that people seem confused about this. Both Grant and Lee, and all the men fighting under them, were "following orders."

Since we seem to be going Full Banana Republic these days, we might as well consider the Junta Cycle - President deposed by the Generals, the Generals deposed by the Colonels, the Colonels deposed by the Captains (seems Majors always get skipped, not sure why), and then a Staff Sargeant finally ends up in charge if things go on long enough.

Though I seem to recall a Flight Leiutenant making it to the top of the heap somewhere in Africa a while back.

Bottom line, if things get bad enough that the Military is involved, then it's not going to be our Grandfather's Military that's involved. We can't expect the likes of Marshall, Ike and Patton. I'm not really even sure we can expect Grant and Lee. We could get Cromwell, or Stalin.

Blogger James Dixon May 20, 2013 1:32 PM  

> I'm screwed, buying more whiskey to numb the pain....that's my plan, otherwise, I got nuthin'...

You're not kidding. You should at least have plans to be able to make your own. :)

Anonymous scoobius dubious May 20, 2013 1:57 PM  

"then it's not going to be our Grandfather's Military that's involved."

Hell, it's not even going to be an American military, in any meaningful sense. Certainly not a White one, which is sort of the same thing.

"I'm not really even sure we can expect Grant and Lee. We could get Cromwell, or Stalin."

I think a better bet would be Trujillo, or Chavez. Oh, wait, we have Chavez right now.

Blogger Jack Hanson May 20, 2013 2:05 PM  

What was wrong with Cromwell?

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler May 20, 2013 2:06 PM  

Hyperphrenius puts it thus:
There's already an aristocracy in the US. The banksters and the billionaires,

Yes, WHO ARE THE BANKSTERS?

Jews.

And Josh, they are NOT a true aristocracy. It is a PSUEDO-aristocracy. For they are nihilists and care not one wit about the country or the WASPs. At least the King and the old and true aristocracy had a connection and duty to their state.

But this psuedo-aristocracy has none of this but robbing us blind and sending us all to multi-culti-hell.
Who are the Billionaires?

Jews.

Anonymous Porky May 20, 2013 2:12 PM  

We could get Cromwell, or Stalin.

Count on it. There's a buttload of money on the table and a lot of pissed off people. There's only two ways to deal with that and option 2 is the only one the military knows.

Anonymous Hunsdon May 20, 2013 2:16 PM  

I've been reading a lot of George Henty books in my spare time. Think "The Hardy Boys meet Cromwell" followed by "The Hardy Boys march with Gustavus Augustus." A line from Prince Rupert leapt out at me in one of the books: "The British jack tar will always fight well, so long as the aristocrats are there to show them courage and leadership."

By that standard, we have no aristocrats. The Brits, at least, still had people like James Blount, whose wikipedia entry contains what may be my favorite sentence: The Blount family has a long history of military service, supposedly dating from the 10th century. (Last time I checked, the "supposedly" wasn't there.)

Blogger ajw308 May 20, 2013 2:17 PM  

What was wrong with Cromwell?
Go watch The Tudors, season 3 (or is it season 4). It's on Netflix.

Blogger redlegben May 20, 2013 2:19 PM  

The vast majority of the combat troops in the military are conservative white men. Like 80-90%. The LTCs are the actual movers of troops. The generals get promoted by politics, but they wouldn't be able to organize pissed off LTCs.

Anonymous Pete May 20, 2013 2:28 PM  

"Don't for get Franciso Franco. He put the commies in their place."

Only because Hitler sent active aid to Franco and the Nationalists - including air lifting him from North Africa to Spain.

Anonymous Pete May 20, 2013 2:30 PM  

"The command structure will follow Obama."

Yes, they may well do so. The Generals are usually political. It is the Colonels who make the revolutions for the good of the nation.

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 2:33 PM  

And Josh, they are NOT a true aristocracy. It is a PSUEDO-aristocracy. For they are nihilists and care not one wit about the country or the WASPs. At least the King and the old and true aristocracy had a connection and duty to their state.

So to be a true aristocrat one must be a Scotsman?

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 2:35 PM  

The vast majority of the combat troops in the military are conservative white men. Like 80-90%. The LTCs are the actual movers of troops. The generals get promoted by politics, but they wouldn't be able to organize pissed off LTCs.

So when so the LTCs get pissed off? Mentioning that the overwhelming majority of combat troops are white conservatives actually helps the "they'll just follow orders" argument. Because so far, they have just followed orders.

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 2:36 PM  

I've been reading a lot of George Henty books in my spare time.

Henty freaking rocks.

Blogger redlegben May 20, 2013 2:37 PM  

The LTCs are already pissed off. The combat types are anyway.

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 2:47 PM  

Apparently not pissed off enough.

Anonymous patrick kelly May 20, 2013 2:56 PM  

"Apparently not pissed off enough."

They haven't been ordered to stop killing poor brown people in 3rd world countries and start killing middle-class white people in the US...... yet.....

Blogger redlegben May 20, 2013 2:57 PM  

When you have spent the last ten years involved with civil wars, you tend to not want to bring the same thing home. Last option only.

Blogger James Dixon May 20, 2013 3:13 PM  

> Last option only.

You're preaching to the choir, but it's looking more and more like someone is intent on starting one.

Blogger JohnG May 20, 2013 4:30 PM  

There was that paper out of Leavenworth (Small Wars Journal) that proposed using the military to smash a Tea Party revolt - but it met with overwhelming negative reaction, not only by civilians, but also military people. Other than that, if there's plans for using the military to put down civilians, it's not making it down to the troopers (not that it would directly) - and there's not been any scuttlebut by troops conducting exercises to put down US domestic disturbances. They still teach about honoring Posse Comitatus at the CPTs Career Courses.

On the other hand, I see the articles about 1.6 billion rounds and 3000 MRAPs and think that that is the direction they're thinking about as far as civil disturbances. Though as far as I know, DHS is staffed primarily by bureacratic and administrative pogs.

Anonymous Polybius May 20, 2013 5:21 PM  

Ciceronian? The idea is most famously laid out by me! (See Histories, Book Six, secs. 6-9).

Anonymous Jack Amok May 20, 2013 5:54 PM  

What was wrong with Cromwell?

I suppose nothing, as long as he was massacring, dispossessing and executing the other side, and so long as you don't mind a Dictator dividing the country up into military districts and appointing military governors to rule them.

Anonymous patrick kelly May 20, 2013 6:19 PM  

"I suppose nothing, as long as he was massacring, dispossessing and executing the other side, and so long as you don't mind a Dictator dividing the country up into military districts and appointing military governors to rule them."


Sounds like the evil crazy guy in that Revolution TV show....

Anonymous Jack Amok May 20, 2013 9:08 PM  

Sounds like the evil crazy guy in that Revolution TV show....

Yeah, though a lot of people who watch shows like that assume the evil crazy bad guy is always, naturally, going to be from the other party. Their own, caring, enlightened party would never produce such a monster.

Anonymous nick digger May 20, 2013 9:45 PM  

"it's not going to be our Grandfather's Military that's involved. We can't expect the likes of Marshall, Ike and Patton."

MacArthur, Patton and Eisenhower -- under orders -- used cavalry, bayonets and chemical weapons against impoverished WWI vets, who were camped out on public land in Wash DC while awaiting their combat bonus pay.

The best thing about all these modern martial law scenarios is that any civil disturbances requiring military intervention will be caused by groids. If a genie offered to send them all back to Africa, with the caveat that we'd instantly lose all benefits gained from having them here, does anyone love peanut butter or jazz music enough to say "no, thanks"?

Anonymous A Visitor May 20, 2013 10:57 PM  

Again the most likely scenario is a fractured military. I remember reading several years ago a post on a blog by an Iraq War vet about his thoughts (he was a mid-level officer, major I believe) regarding the military being ordered to be used against U.S. citizens. He called it the 3rd rule: 1/3rd would go home and protect their families, 1/3rd would deploy against the population (follow orders), and 1/3rd would join the population in fighting the government.

I personally am of the opinion that most of the military just wants to be left alone at this point. With sequester in full swing and mid level officers (in the Air Force, at least) being bought out for early retirement and the fact that the Army is on the verge of losing its ability to perform armored warfare (there was an article a couple of years ago in Small Wars Journal from an LTC. complaining about how many Abrams tank crews deployed to Afghanistan have never qualified on an Abrams and that institutional knowledge was disappearing), plus the fact that the military is made up of diverse (in the truest sense of the word) political opinions, the military probably couldn't even conduct such a mission if tasked with it.

Even as another commenter pointed out that DHS is staffed by pogs. They might talk a good game but most would probably flee if they ever had to see combat. All bark and no bite in other words.

Anonymous The One May 21, 2013 12:21 AM  

Those who defend authority can never rebel against it. ~Tolkein

Anonymous realmatt May 21, 2013 12:56 AM  

I love you, Wheeler.

Blogger redlegben May 21, 2013 2:26 AM  

Those who defend authority can never rebel against it. ~Tolkein

Tell that to George Washington.

Anonymous DonReynolds May 21, 2013 3:54 PM  

Interesting question actually. While the US military has been prohibited (1878) from engaging in domestic law enforcement since the worst abuses of the Reconstruction period, the Indian wars lasted until 1924. (Geronimo did not surrender until 1886, in fact, US Army General Wilson insisted that Geronimo was captured as a "dangerous outlaw" while others insisted that he was a prisoner of war, who surrendered with conditions.) The Indians who warred against the United States have been variously treated as prisoners of war and as pirates/criminals. Pancho Villa and his men conducted cross border raids from 1915-20, with the US Army in hot pursuit. Since Villa was at that time an outlaw to the Mexican government, clearly the US was not at war with Mexico. Pancho Villa and his men were brigands, responsible for all manner of misconduct on the US side of the border. Villa's men were not treated as criminals but were executed when captured without trial. Probably a confused mix of "enemy combatant", terrorist, bandito, foreign invader, pirate, and partisan. The law on this subject remains somewhat confused.

The point of course, is that the US military has not always seen themselves as constrained by Posse Comitatus simply because it is not altogether clear when the military are used to stop criminals and when they are used to defend the nation.

Anonymous Anonymous May 21, 2013 6:39 PM  

The idea of the "cycle of regimes" originates in Plato's Republic (Books 8&9; 543a-576b) and is then picked up by Aristotle (Politics Book V) in a truncated account in Cicero, Re Publica I 68, and, indeed in Polybius VI. The latter is the longest account of the idea by far and the one Machiavelli chose to represent all of classical political philosophy (Discourses I 2).

However, the cycle would not predict that the next stage for us is aristocracy. Aristocracy comes much earlier in the cycle and we are well past that. The classical theory would predict that what is next for us is tyranny, or to be more precise, Caesarism.

Anonymous Escoffier May 21, 2013 6:41 PM  

The idea of the "cycle of regimes" originates in Plato's Republic (Books 8&9; 543a-576b) and is then picked up by Aristotle (Politics Book V) in a truncated account in Cicero, Re Publica I 68, and, indeed in Polybius VI. The latter is the longest account of the idea by far and the one Machiavelli chose to represent all of classical political philosophy (Discourses I 2).

However, the cycle would not predict that the next stage for us is aristocracy. Aristocracy comes much earlier in the cycle and we are well past that. The classical theory would predict that what is next for us is tyranny, or to be more precise, Caesarism.

Anonymous sprach von Teufelhunden May 21, 2013 10:19 PM  

Nate, you were speaking of a fractured military. It is already fractured.. (long been fractured) The USMC was the first to fracture from the larger whole of the DoD, going back to Vietnam. We saw this all through the 80s. The real "tailspin" began in 1991, at an event called -- Tailhook...

This has been going on, underground (since at least the end of WWII) for some time. It is about to come to the surface, for ALL to see...

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts