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

TEA Party
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 indoctrinate soldiers 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.

A news conference is called by the new town leaders, all tea party activists, who tell the media that due to the failure of central government to address the concerns of the citizens, the Declaration of Independence has been re-imposed and the local government has been declared null and void. From the report:

When the leaders of the group hold a press conference to announce their goals, they invoke the Declaration of Independence and argue that the current form of the federal government is not deriving its “just powers from the consent of the governed” but is actually “destructive to these ends.” Therefore, they say, the people can alter or abolish the existing government and replace it with another that, in the words of the Declaration, “shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” While mainstream politicians and citizens react with alarm, the “tea party” insurrectionists in South Carolina enjoy a groundswell of support from other tea party groups, militias, racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan, anti-immigrant associations such as the Minutemen, and other right-wing groups.

Several items of interest are to be noted in the scenario the Army uses to describe the tea party activists -- "right wing," "extremists," "insurrectionists," all of whom are lumped together with militias and organizations that are considered "racist" and "anti-immigration."

By contrast, those who oppose the tea party are referred to as "mainstream."

The obvious question that arises is why would this sort of scenario, with its obviously biased and skewed portrayals, be presented as a teaching tool to young soldiers? Why would the U.S. military consider the tea party to be "extremist" or "insurrectionist?" And why would the tea party be classified together with groups that are "racist, "anti-immigration," and "extremist right wing?"

In the numerous tea party rallies that have occurred across the nation no racism was noted by any observer. Speakers included persons of all races and ethnic backgrounds. No sentiment was expressed against legal immigration but outrage was directed toward those break the law and enter the country by illegal means. And the charge that the tea party is extremist right wing is difficult to justify given that the main thrust of the movement is the protest against runaway government spending that has placed the nation on the brink of economic ruin due to its enormous and unsustainable debt.

Yet repeatedly since the election of Barack Obama in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has referred to the tea party as "potential homegrown terrorists."

Why? Not a shred of evidence remotely suggests that the tea party has any connection whatsoever with terrorists. Yet some of President Obama's closet longtime friends have not only been associated with terrorism but actively participated in it, such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, who as members of the Weathermen from the 1960s and 70s bombed federal buildings that resulted in the deaths of police officers.

But if one listens to the rhetoric emanating from the White House, DHS, and now the U.S. military, one gets the impression that none of the president's friends ever posed a threat to the country but hundreds of thousands of tea party activists are ticking time bombs lying in wait to unleash a nuke on an American city at the drop of a hat.

The brainwashing against conservatives by this administration has had a definite impact on the military. One analyst who works for retired U.S. Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely told this reporter that now over half of Pentagon personnel are solidly in Obama's corner and share his values and world view.

And with the publication of the Benson and Weber article, it is now clear that the U.S. Army considers it a valid proposition to assume that a future civil war will be sparked not by extremist Islamists with dirty bombs or left wing insurrectionists inspired by Alinsky or Ayers but by the tea party and the conservatives who participate in it.


www.examiner.com . . .

sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com . . .

chevy wrote:

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

the U.S. Army considers it a valid proposition to assume that a future civil war will be sparked not by extremist Islamists with dirty bombs or left wing insurrectionists inspired by Alinsky or Ayers but by the tea party and the conservatives who participate in it.

It is the job of any Army to work on its preparedness and readiness.

Can't blame the US Army for keeping an eye on the Tea Party lunatics.

.

jeanv wrote:

chevy wrote:

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

the U.S. Army considers it a valid proposition to assume that a future civil war will be sparked not by extremist Islamists with dirty bombs or left wing insurrectionists inspired by Alinsky or Ayers but by the tea party and the conservatives who participate in it.

It is the job of any Army to work on its preparedness and readiness.

Can't blame the US Army for keeping an eye on the Tea Party lunatics.

.

Notice the "OWS" are never mentioned in such "civil disturbance" planning

Arty told me that one of your dupes was PP. Is that true?

I tell you one thing though, many have said they are sure the Army would never enforce a government crack down etc.. hmm.. I don't know. .that has yet to be seen.

If these clowns enjoyed watching IEDS taking out their personel in shitcanistan they have no idea about the level of mayhem they will confront here. Frontal attacks hardly. More like what happened in India last week.

NOZZLE wrote:

If these clowns enjoyed watching IEDS taking out their personel in shitcanistan they have no idea about the level of mayhem they will confront here. Frontal attacks hardly. More like what happened in India last week.

I think NOLA was a dry run.

NOZZLE wrote:

If these clowns enjoyed watching IEDS taking out their personel in shitcanistan they have no idea about the level of mayhem they will confront here. Frontal attacks hardly. More like what happened in India last week.

If nothing else, the level of technical expertise among the civilian population here would make things.. interesting.

geebart wrote:

I tell you one thing though, many have said they are sure the Army would never enforce a government crack down etc.. hmm.. I don't know. .that has yet to be seen.

They will do exactly what they are told by the central government.

VAVD wrote:

geebart wrote:

I tell you one thing though, many have said they are sure the Army would never enforce a government crack down etc.. hmm.. I don't know. .that has yet to be seen.

They will do exactly what they are told by the central government.

Baltic asserted there would be a revolt among the officer core, but I found that claim doubtful regardless of the men's personal beliefs. All armies do as they are told.

VAVD wrote:

geebart wrote:

I tell you one thing though, many have said they are sure the Army would never enforce a government crack down etc.. hmm.. I don't know. .that has yet to be seen.

They will do exactly what they are told by the central government.

It typically takes ten cops to get some out of control nigger into a cage. There are what 100K active combat troops abd they are planning on taking on on Americans on a nationwide basis. Some Jap Admiral whose name I forget onew better in 1941.

The forget they are dealing with people who think the same way and self ignite

geebart wrote:

VAVD wrote:

geebart wrote:

I tell you one thing though, many have said they are sure the Army would never enforce a government crack down etc.. hmm.. I don't know. .that has yet to be seen.

They will do exactly what they are told by the central government.

Baltic asserted there would be a revolt among the officer core, but I found that claim doubtful regardless of the men's personal beliefs. All armies do as they are told.

I strongly disagree with him on that, particularly among the upper-echelon. The army will stick with the regime.

And the same is true of most of the citizenry. Few people are going to risk their comfortable existence, or their government check, to fight a side that is vastly better armed. We're too soft and lazy. We aren't the generation of 1776.

America will go quietly into the night, with few exceptions.

No whatever the generals command the troops to do, they will never fire upon Americans. In fact, there's nothing stopping those same troops from taking events into their own hands and fragging the officers.

syscom3 wrote:

No whatever the generals command the troops to do, they will never fire upon Americans. In fact, there's nothing stopping those same troops from taking events into their own hands and fragging the officers.

There was a revolt in NYC against the draft during the Civil War. That was taken care of with a naval bombardment.

Moreover, if you think about it, although they had a rival army, the war with the confederates was an example of the central government using force to maintain power.

There are a couple of million troops. Will some object? Sure. But most will be afraid to, or not care to, and most will accept their orders. After all, they aren't exactly going to be told "we're going out to crush some people who are for limited government". They'll be given a situation briefing that will put them in the proper mood. They'll have no other source of information after the alert to tell them different.

The Army will comply with its orders.

VAVD wrote:

There are a couple of million troops. Will some object? Sure. But most will be afraid to, or not care to, and most will accept their orders. After all, they aren't exactly going to be told "we're going out to crush some people who are for limited government". They'll be given a situation briefing that will put them in the proper mood. They'll have no other source of information after the alert to tell them different.

The Army will comply with its orders.

I have this Orwellian vision of a fanaticized U.S. Army obeying blindly a tyrannical and blood thirsty dictator

If they did try an insurrection they would not survive more than an hour. so yes it is a work of fiction.

jeanv wrote:


I have this Orwellian vision of a fanaticized U.S. Army obeying blindly a tyrannical and blood thirsty dictator

I loath dictatorships or even the idea of "political power". The entire civilian workforce of the Federal government should be able to be comfortably seated in a high school gym, with seats to spare. The United States Code should be the size of a small paperback.

VAVD wrote:

The United States Code should be the size of a small paperback.

That 'small paperback' would come to be know as the little Red Bayou book.

Or some totalitarian equivalent.

Nightmarish

This article isn't really a surprise. It's the job of a country's armed forces to have contingency plans for threats, so the army would be failing in its duty if it didn't devise scenarios for dealing with domestic enemies as well as foreign ones.

And for once I agree with some of the FFers here: the US armed forces will stamp out any armed rising against the legitimate and democratically elected government. No doubt they'll try to reduce fatalities among their own citizens more than they do against the Taliban.

The govt. has spent literally trillions of dollars (the money of you the taxpayers!) over the past few decades on new weapons and tactics to defeat insurgencies and popular uprisings. The Patriot Act has also given the govt. powers to move swiftly against suspected or potential terrorists - i.e. you.

The only reason all this has only been deployed against foreigners - so far! - is because Wankistani "patriots" aren't a threat: despite all the hilarious bluster of FFers and other RW blowhards, at the end of the day they're just dim and useless popgun-armed pussies whose only reaction to an Obama victory will to scream and throw beer cans at their TV sets. He can live (and govern) with that.

If these deluded dimwits ever do pose a threat, Obama's DHS will have them trussed up blindfolded (in orange jumpsuits and nappies) before they have time to say "Second Amendment"!

The US army has a mixed record against insurgencies. Mostly they lose or draw as in Iraq which was a "victory" kind of.

If there is an insurgent city yes they can destroy that city, and watch the insurgency grow. The first time a black us leader kills a few 1000 whites even the liberals will rebel.

Wulfon wrote:


The only reason all this has only been deployed against foreigners - so far! - is because Wankistani "patriots" aren't a threat: despite all the hilarious bluster of FFers and other RW blowhards, at the end of the day they're just dim and useless popgun-armed pussies whose only reaction to an Obama victory will to scream and throw beer cans at their TV sets. He can live (and govern) with that.

If these deluded dimwits ever do pose a threat, Obama's DHS will have them trussed up blindfolded (in orange jumpsuits and nappies) before they have time to say "Second Amendment"!


Of course they're a possible threat. You only have to visit their websites or FF come to that It's all Second Amendment solution this, second revolution that. If Obama should be re-elected expect at least a few to try terrorism. Not the whole movement though. they'll just let them carry on yapping. No threat to anyone. The Tea Party is no threat at all. The idea of the Tea Party taking over a town is laughable; it'll never happen. But it only needs a few dozens to turn to terrorism to create havoc.

You only have to visit their websites or FF come to that It's all Second Amendment solution this, second revolution that.
---
You're forgetting their obsessive references to male homosexuality and sodomy, and their conviction that any American who believes the government should check the excesses of rapacious private corporations is a communist.

Could this possibly be taught to the soldiers, maybe....

Do I think this colonel is serious about the threat? No. He was prolly asked by some twerp in DOD, who was asked by another twerp in the government, if there was some contingency plan on file for domestic terrorism?

The colonel, being the opportunist most officers are at this level, sees the chance for stars and his own divisional command by kissing the ass of the current administration.

The idea will be kicked around a bit, other flag officers will see it, call him, email him, and literally ask him if he is insane! Then the plan will be shelved, if it hasn't been already!

I can see Vox's POV, but I just don't see the lock step motion of the military following orders against the US population. The military is not as insulated as it was before and information is at everyone's fingertips.

This guy wants some stars and will prolly get them as long as bam stays in office.

WineandCoke wrote:

You only have to visit their websites or FF come to that It's all Second Amendment solution this, second revolution that.
---
You're forgetting their obsessive references to male homosexuality and sodomy, and their conviction that any American who believes the government should check the excesses of rapacious private corporations is a communist.

Very true. They do seem a bit obsessive now that you mention it. I wonder why?