Posted on 08/05/2012 7:30:25 AM PDT by Travis McGee
The comments at the site are interesting, are they not? What is so disturbing about the article is the mindset on display. The authors remain unapologetic.
Must be a picture of some Right Wing Wacko’s house.
Cut your grass, Chode! LOL
The original is flawed and wrong-headed on many levels. So it is not surprising coming from .fed is these days. In fact the base assumptions are in part why there is a Tea Party.
Oops
Bad scenario. The rebels in it are acting too simplistically and making things too easy.
Right there is where the separation from reality occurs.
Funding dedicated to boosting the economy or towards relief is the gasoline being thrown on the fire of national debit and multi-generational poverty.
IF such action occurred, i.e. government cutting off the welfare and knocking off the idiotic TARP's, TWIST's, QEx's, AFDC, food stamps, industry bailouts, stimulus packages, Keynesian pump priming, etc, the u.S. economy would actually recover, not stagnate.
Of course that would mean hundreds of thousands of absolutely worthless federal and some State government workers would have to obtain real employment. On the reality side of such action, the most likely "rebel" will be the second to third generation welfare supported urban dweller that has been cut off from the taxpayer funded feeding trough.
They would go absolutely nuts and start burning down their own neighborhoods. We have example after example of this and in the current race-based identity politics practiced by the communist agenda "liberal and progressive" democrat party a result of cuts off all funding that had been dedicated to boosting the economy or toward relief is NOT going to occur in Darlington, South Carolina.
It will be in Detroit, MI
Buffalo, NY
Cincinnati, OH
Cleveland, OH
Miami, FL
St. Louis, MO
El Paso, TX
Milwaukee, WI
Philadelphia, PA
Newark, NJ
COL Kevin Benson describing such an uneducated economic scenario as we find in the second sentence of this post, putting it in such an unlikely location and then laying the resulting fairy tale of action at the feet of "TEA Party motivation" is stretching the art of describing such possibilities to the extreme limit of understanding.
However, the other author, Jennifer Weber, seems to be a more likely influence on the content of the "analysis."
Jennifer Weber is an Associate Professor of History (Ph.D. Princeton, 2003) at the University of Kansas. Jennifer Weber specializes in the Civil War, especially the seams where political, social, and military history meet. She has active interests as well in Abraham Lincoln, the 19th century U.S., war and society, and the American presidency. Her first book, Copperheads (Oxford University Press, 2006), about the antiwar movement in the Civil War North, was widely reviewed and has become a highly regarded study of Civil War politics and society. Professor Weber is committed to reaching out to the general public and to young people in her work. Summer's Bloodiest Days (National Geographic), is a children's book about the Battle of Gettysburg and its aftermath. The National Council for Social Studies in 2011 named Bloodiest Days a Notable Social Studies Trade Book for Young People. Dr. Weber is very active in the field of Lincoln studies. She has spoken extensively around the country on Lincoln, politics, and other aspects of the Civil War.
.
COL (Ret) Kevin Benson (US Army) is a 1977 graduate of the United States Military Academy. He attended the Armor Officer Basic Course, U.S. Marine Corps Amphibious Warfare School, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, and the School of Advanced Military Studies. He attended Massachusetts Institute of Technology Security Studies Program as a War College Fellow in 2001. He completed the oral defense of his dissertation in March 2010. Kevin currently works for McNeil Technologies, Inc. as a seminar leader at the U.S. Army University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies. Kevin served the Republic in uniform for 30 years. His last two positions were: the Assistant Chief of Staff, C5 (Plans), Combined Forces Land Component Command and Third US Army from June 2002 to July 2003 during Operation IRAQI FREEDOM /Operation COBRA II, where he led the planning effort for the invasion of Iraq and subsequent post-hostilities operations and the Director, School of Advanced Military Studies, SAMS, at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. His awards and decorations include the Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Armed Forces Service Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, the Army Superior Unit Award, the Joint Meritorious Unit Award, and the United Nations Medal.
He appears to be a career staff officer. Tin soldiers such as this man are unfortunately only too common in the officer corps.
I haven't even read the full article yet, but even after the first two paragraphs this is obvious. The rhetoric is thick, and echoes what this administration has been saying since they took over regarding whom they perceive to be the enemy.
...change in control of the White House and Congress in 2012, the governing party cuts off all funding ... dedicated to boosting the economy or toward relief.
See what will happen when we get thrown out? Those greedy Republicans want it all for themselves!
...extremist militia motivated ... tea party movement
Oh no! Those extremists will be in charge! (Let's ignore the extremists that are currently in charge.)
...taxes on the middle class remain relatively high ...vocal minority has directed the publics fear and frustration at nonwhites and immigrants.
Reinforcing the evil, greedy, bigoted depiction of the "enemy".
...race-baiting and immigrant-bashing by right-wing demagogues.
Again, we are to ignore that which has already been occurring, perpetrated and encouraged by this administration and its sycophants, and ignored or deliberately mischaracterized by the useful idiots in the so-called mainstream media.
...nonwhites have become occasional targets for mobs of angry whites
Uh huh. This is getting tedious.
Telegraphing, are they?
Unfortunately, narrow thinking is our specialty. Were I reviewing this, I'd send it back and have them rewrite the scenario (a) minus the racism angle and (b) taking into consideration the political constraints of fighting a popular movement, not a fringe one. The problem is, our planners are notorious for avoiding awkward truths, and building scenarios out of wishful thinking.
For example, a long time ago, when a certain insurgency was a fairly new thing, I got shanghai'd into a counterterrorism VTC looking at a certain aspect of said insurgency. Military and civil organizations from all corners chimed in very dismissively of the insurgents political staying power. They felt that extremists would invariably be unpopular and unable to sustain any kind of public support or prolonged operational presence.
The State department reps (who I normally am inclined to dislike) made a very simple but terrifying observation. They basically said that extremist terror was not at all unpopular; in fact, on a lot of levels, our 'allies' in the region and their citizens enjoyed seeing the insurgents stick it to us. Not only would the insurgents not be socially ostracized, but they'd likely be viewed as heroes by a significant majority of region. They advised that we take the inherent social approval of the resistance into consideration.
The reaction was like the sun rising in the North. For a few moments, no one knew what to do or how to react. After a bit of cross talk the officers running the VTC pivoted to the next topic, and we moved on, as though nothing had been said. The officers refused to consider that State may have had a point. Not because they were wrong, but because the implications of them being right were politically unthinkable.
.
Travis, thank you for finding and posting the article. I have gone to the site, followed the lead there to the full posting, downloaded and saved it. Well worth the read in it’s entirety.
Steel, your summary/analytical comments are excellent. Thank you for sharing. I have added you comments to the downloaded article.
So, the authors are suggesting that the DHS be called into crush a right-wing insurgency when the right controls congress and the President is a squishy center-right moderate? Mitt Romney is a lot of things, but Abe Lincoln ain't one of them.
Although if Mitt really did cut spending to the level the article suggests, the Tea Party wouldn't be in armed revolt; they'd be out campaigning for his reelection and looking to add him to Mount Rushmore. Even if the taxes rates remained high (which is somewhat hard to fathom assuming the right controlled the legislative and executive branches), the benefits of reduced government spending would hurt the progressives and their special interests, not the middle class Tea Party types. It's the middle class Tea Party section of America that winds up paying for programs they don't use. Conversely, it would be left who'd be ready to fight back and draw blood if those programs were cut.
But people who work for government think tanks don't get paid to consider a left wing / statist revolt in protest of lower spending, now do they? In reality, this scenario only makes sense under Democratic rule, which makes me wonder why they'd avoid the obvious 'Obama is reelected and everything goes to hell' storyline, which fits their overall narrative much more neatly. Unless they find it politically unthinkable to admit that Obama + reality = failure. That's possible. Ideology often trumps honesty in government. When you maneuver around 'unthinkable obstacles' because you don't like the implication, it invariably leads to cartoonish analysis. And here we are.
bfl
Not suggesting anything, but securing Charleston, and Columbia would yield huge benefits. Besides cutting SC in half, you would effectively control Interstates 95,20 and 26. Ft. Jackson, and the governor's mansion would give clout and increase stores. A boomer would be an added benefit too.
Pay no attention to this post, I'm just arm chair quarterbacking...
5.56mm
With a well thought out plan, assemble 10,000 highly trained, heavily armed, lightly armored "patriots," with 33% of the population sympathetic to the "cause," and you would have SC in 8-10 days.
Just say'n...
5.56mm
“Congratulations to COL (Ret) Benson. You have just hit the national political scene via Free Republic. The headlines will read: “US ARMY PLANNING TO QUELL TEA PARTY INSURRECTIONS.” This article should be a thoughtful discussion on the process of suppressing potential insurrections and Military/Defense Support to Civil Authorities. However, your scenario using the TEA Party, combined with your credentials as a Seminar Leader at Ft Leavenworth, has a high potential of causing a major political firestorm on the national level. Your scenario could easily give the President, the SECDEF, the CJCS, the SECARMY, and the CoS a political black eye. You have given credibility to the conspiracy theorists who believe the President is preparing to implement martial law to stay in power, and have undermined the faith which so many of the TEA Party members place in the United States Military to support and defend the Constitution. For an author who discusses the importance of information operations your article, you have demonstrated your utter incompetence in this area.
by gfmucci | August 4, 2012 - 11:39pm”
Terrific response. It sounds to me like you should be teaching the class, and the COL (ret) should be wearing a dunce cap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.