Posted on 12/17/2008 3:34:33 PM PST by Sammy67
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.
Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security, said the War College report.
The study says economic collapse, terrorism and loss of legal order are among possible domestic shocks that might require military action within the U.S.
International Monetary Fund Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn warned Wednesday of economy-related riots and unrest in various global markets if the financial crisis is not addressed and lower-income households are hurt by credit constraints and rising unemployment.
U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., both said U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson brought up a worst-case scenario as he pushed for the Wall Street bailout in September. Paulson, former Goldman Sachs CEO, said that might even require a declaration of martial law, the two noted.
State and local police in Arizona say they have broad plans to deal with social unrest, including trouble resulting from economic distress. The security and police agencies declined to give specifics, but said they would employ existing and generalized emergency responses to
(Excerpt) Read more at phoenix.bizjournals.com ...
“Osama has already proposed a National Police Force to “help” our local police.”
IMO, the first ones to be bracketed ....
Violate Posse Commitatus. On top of everything else the FedGov has been doing, this is a relatively small drop in an overflowing sh*t bucket.
IOW... using military assets domestically during civil unrest or terrorist attack. Pretty much exactly what the lead article states. Couching the language in softer terms does not change the meaning.
They’ve heard. They don’t care. Constitution? It’s just a G*dd*mn piece of paper... Remember?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7B4laX1E70
Yeah, Pelosi declared it a while back. I don’t think she has revoked it yet.
One thing is for certain. The next Bonus Army will not be unarmed like those gentlemen heroes were.
>>>>prudent strategic hedging<<<<
>>IOW... using military assets domestically during civil unrest or terrorist attack. Pretty much exactly what the lead article states<<
You’re not going to understand the article by reading only the summary and then ignoring the remaining 44 pages. That’s what MSM reporters do. That’s why this article is so consistently and brazenly misrepresented to the press, and apparently why you agree with the MSM hysteria-mongers.
In fact, “prudent strategic hedging” refers to the following, which you’ll fully comprehend only if you actually read the article from the beginning to the end:
“Thus, prudent net and risk assessment of (1) the myriad waypoints along dangerous trend lines; (2) the sudden or unanticipated arrival at the end of the same trends; and finally, (3) rapid onset of the rarer Black Swan are increasingly important to DoD. Under this administration, valuable work has begun in this regard. This work should continue to mature uninterrupted. Preemptive examination of the most plausible known unknowns represents a reasoned down payment on strategic preparedness and an essential defense investment in strategic hedging against an uncertain and dangerous future.”
"Prudent strategic planning" boils down to having a Plan. Utilizing military assets in a domestic attack via expertise involvement under FEMA is one thing, this study actually suggests using hard military assets for terror attack response. Pg 17 goes into civil unrest.
No thanks.
>>>>>this study actually suggests using hard military assets for terror attack response. Pg 17 goes into civil unrest.<<<<<
The National Guard was deployed in the 1968 MLK riots in DC and and other cities, and given the widespread looting, arson, violence, and general mayhem, that was a sound response at the time (I grew up in DC Metro and recall that weekend vividly).
But that’s merely an aside because I completely and totally disagree with you that this paper is “about” domestic use of the military.
It’s as if you stopped reading when you found the paragraph or sentence you sought.
If anyone else is following this discussion, just click on one of the links in posts #14 or #19 above and read the paper to decide for yourself whether it’s a 50,000 foot academic view of DoD strategy, or whether it’s “about” using the military to quell domestic riots in the U.S.A.
It’s about shifting the DoD focus to encompass the new terror threat. INCLUDING domestic use of the military. Expressly forbidden by Posse Comitatus.
>>>Its about shifting the DoD focus to encompass the new terror threat. INCLUDING domestic use of the military. <<<<
OK, whatever.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2150671/posts
Nothing to see here... Move along...
Sorry you can't read past the garbage to the substance.
>>>Page 32 has even more. <<<<<
Really? Even more you say?
wow.
Keep your head in the sand. It makes your arse easier to kick.
That only applies to using the military for law enforcement purposes. Using the military to put down riots, insurrection and other types of civil unrest is perfectly legitimate.
Sure... mission creep looks logical from this end of History.
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.