Is Martial Law a possibility?

[Pete]

While not the US.....

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Fixing this will cost us (US) lots of resources or lots of money - that we don't have.

[Blitzzz (RIP)]

There are obviously serveral different sets of views here on the real threats are and to think only 12 years of the last 92 were liberial is a false impression based on some contribed ideas that those years were probably encompassed by Roosevelt alone not to mention the likes of CLinton. That arguement can go back to that classroom. Any President acting against the Constitution and Ammendments is to be considered such, and not limited to Fiscal Preference.

Sigaba,your vast knowledge of history should avail to you that the intelligencia of a free society are the targeted enemy of the proletariat. Totally wiped out in many leftist take overs, oops..that would be you. Yes I agree that "We differ on how we should engage the "issues" and our Political opponents.".
You, I assume, would prefere to "engage" intellectually. Thus far that has never stopped a war in the end. Most of us here would prefere to Identify the Opponent's Agenda, their tactics, breakdown their short term goal, interrupt their recruitment of menions, but in the end probably ...warfare. we need to study , act with quick counters, break the chain of of short term goals.

while your posts are informative I quess I would respect your posts more if they were "yours" and not a list of other people's work. What "you think may be more informative to us than a litany of others. At least they would be more reader friendly add more to the point of your thoughts. Blitzzz

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

This post answers your question in relation to Mahan.

One has to wonder:

How much of Mahan’s popularity through most of the 20th Century was not only supported - but enhanced - by the fact that both Churchill and the Roosevelts (Teddy and Franklin) were navalists, and that world events seemingly dictated the necessity of such forces among the great competing industrial powers of the time?

In October of 1929, Churchill, who had served previously as First Lord of the Admiralty, was on a multi-city speaking tour in the US praising big navies, large weapons programs, and Anglo-American cooperation.*

In 1934, President Roosevelt was using money from the National Recovery Act - part of the New Deal - to build thirty-two warships.**

On 28 Jul 1934 Roosevelt visited Pearl Harbor and praised the efficiency and spirit of the military forces stationed there. This event was accompanied by the Navy League’s lobbying in favor of vast American fleets.***

On 3 Apr 1938, the Sunday Magazine section of the NYT published a long article on Roosevelt’s fascination with the navy. “The navy is being run from the White House these days,” wrote Hanson Baldwin, the Times’ military affairs correspondent. Roosevelt, said Baldwin, was “the power behind the gradual extension of our naval strength across the Pacific.” He took a personal interest in questions of ship design, armament, and officer promotion; he was more enthusiastically and knowledgeably “big navy” than the admirals themselves.

In the president’s office, according to Baldwin, were an ashtray with a ship on it, a cigarette lighter in the shape of a ship’s wheel, a barometer, a ship’s clock, paintings of sea scenes and battles, and a model of the four-smokestack flush-deck destroyer - a craft produced under Roosevelt’s supervision during the Great War. In nearly every room of the White House were paintings and lithographs of boats and naval engagements, and there were many ship models on display, too - so many that the White House chief usher was, said Baldwin, “almost at his wit’s end to know how to dispose of all this fleet.”****

Technology and the ability to quickly project power globally though a myriad of methods has changed this focus - somewhat - but on-going events occurring on the 'high seas' today may yet preclude our dismissing all of Mahan's ideas on sea power. I personally think the Mahan debate will go on for a very long time and, because it is so situationally interactive, will have a difficult time finding that singularly conclusive, 'bottom-line' answer (When all else fails, mark 'C') we Americans tend to want for such questions.

Richard’s $.02
_____
*Baker, Human Smoke, p.18
**ibid, p.51
***ibid
****ibid, p.82
NOTE: Mahan and Teddy were also close personal friends.

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Blitzzz

while your posts are informative I quess I would respect your posts more if they were "your" and not a list of other people's work.

Sir, if I may be permitted to offer an opinion...

In academia, there is an enormous emphasis on "the literature". My strong impression is that one can hardly get away with writing "The Sun comes up in the East" without at least two references.

As an example, I am in the middle of the comprehensive exams for my latest effort. One question has already required 26 references - and that was for just 16 pages.

Perhaps Academia trains people strongly to do their writings in this particular way.

No offense meant to anyone.

[Blitzzz (RIP)]

"Perhaps Academia trains people strongly to do their writings in this particular way."
No offense taken.
This is very true, but this is not Academia. Post a Bibliography and then state your mind.
wouldn't hurt to be more personable. Blitzzz

[Richard]

Originally Posted by nmap

In academia, there is an enormous emphasis on "the literature". My strong impression is that one can hardly get away with writing "The Sun comes up in the East" without at least two references.

We commonly refer to it simply as tactical vs strategic thinking...and find it unnecessary to consistently qualify a 'given' such as your example. Remember that although many here do consider the strategic implications of matters, QPs are - by nature - pragmatically inclined towards tactical action rather than passive strategic observation.

Here is an oft used phrase instilled in SF soldiers:

Do something. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way...but do something.

BTW - no offense taken.

Richard's $.02

[Surf n Turf]

Originally Posted by armymom1228

I honestly believe no American soldier will not defend our Constitution.
I also believe that the vast majority of our military have a sense of honor and duty to this country that will require them to not take or obey orders that would have them harm fellow Americans on the soil they are oath bound to defend. I just refuse to believe otherwise.

Armymom,
I will try and answer your assumption, and address the overall post
This post started out with Penn’s Question of “will there be martial Law”, and has devolved into discussion of political parties, patriotism, and knowledge of history.

On the original question, I am a strong Maybe – leaning towards absolutely. I have had a queasy stomach about this for a long time. Here is my rational.
We have an “all volunteer” military, led by GO’s who appear to be more interested in pleasing the sitting SecDef, Senator, or POTUS than standing on strong moral principal. Starting with Jimmy Carter, and continuing to 0Bama, there have been (to my knowledge) NO General Officer that has said this is wrong (slashing Budgets, ill-equipping troops / missions, dangerous ROE, public humilitation), and in protest, offered their resignation.
After they leave AD, there is a whole bunch that say “I never really agreed with that” (whether it’s Waco, Bosnia, or Iraq). Well fella, you had the rank and responsibility to vote with your feet, and you didn’t.
Now imagine an ever-grasping Federal Government that finally commits to some legislation, tax, or treaty that a segment of the populace finds intolerable. They rise up and resist, and we have a set of Joint Chief’s that really want the Military to be relative with the POTUS, and congress, and presto, Federal Troops are dispatched.
Forget “Posse Comitatus”, like the constitution, it’s an outdated concept.
Now the question becomes, will the American Federal Troops, in an all-volunteer American Army, fire on American Citizens.
I cite a 1994 survey that was undertaken by Navy Lt Cmdr. Ernest G Cunningham, for his masters thesis. - “Question 46
This is how the question was posed to the Marines:

"The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizens groups refuse to turn over their firearms.
Consider the following statement: `I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government'."
Of the 264 who responded, 26.34 percent, or 79 Marines, indicated they would be willing to "fire upon U.S. citizens."
Of that total, 18.67 percent, or 56 Marines, indicated they "agree" with the statement, and 7.67 percent, or 23 Marines, indicated that they "strongly agree."
A total of 61.66 percent, or 185, indicated that they were opposed to firing at citizens.”
Also of concern is the fact, as reported by Cunningham in his thesis, that 97.67 percent of the Marines responded to a question an overwhelming 85.33 percent in the affirmative-that they would be willing to "participate in missions under a U.S. National Emergency Police Force..."
http://www.ssrsi.org/Onsite/BBStext/shootus.htm
Survey Questions - http://www.israelect.com/reference/W...rtin/FIRE-1%20[A].htm

SnT

[Richard]

Well - I think we can all pretty much agree that martial law is always a possibility - but whether or not it is a probability is another matter.

As far as citing a generation old survey of some Marines done by a naval officer regarding a volunteer Army's potential actions - well, I see some issues with that one if nobody else does.

I also think there is an erroneous trend to undersell our officer corps, too, our GOs included, who - for the most part - actively go about their business while purposefully shying away from the political spotlight and striving to make the system work from the inside. Victor Davis Hanson recently wrote:

Soldiers. We are protected by the most competent, judicious — and lethal — military in the history of civilization. The great tragedy of Iraq is that no one really credits our soldiers for doing the near impossible: they went into the heart of the ancient caliphate, took out a genocidal monster, stayed on to foster consensual government, endured often poisonous attacks from critics at home (Cf. Harry Reid’s the war is “lost”, the slurs from Durbin, Kennedy, Kerry, and Murtha that our boys were terrorists or analogous to Baathists, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.), and triumphed at a cost less than during a major campaign in World War II (e.g., far less than say Iwo Jima, the Bulge, Okinawa, etc).

Today Obama was boasting that he could redirect soldiers to Afghanistan now that Iraq was quiet — as if in his mere 70 days he had anything to do with the bravery and skill that brought Iraq to its improving state, as if we’ve forgotten that he wanted all troops gone by March 2008, declared the surge a failure, and voted to cut off funding for the war. Iraq was won despite the politicians, contrary to the conventional wisdom, and largely due to the ingenuity of our soldiers.

What is the key to the success of our military, other than the traditional civic militarism as outlined in the Constitution and honed over two centuries of fighting? I can think of five reasons why the 21st-century American military is so successful.

1) There is an officer corps whose members are, to be frank, relics of an American past. They are ossified in amber as it were, and really do believe in passé things like honor, duty, country, God, sacrifice, and the continuation of the American experiment. Meet a Marine colonel, an Army major, an Air Force one-star, or a Navy captain and it is often as if you are talking to a younger version of your grandfather, as if we packed thousands of our best in ice around 1945, and then thawed them out in the 21st century. These odd men and women of the old breed will do almost anything as outlined in the Constitution to ensure that their country — you and I — is safe and continues on in perpetuity.

2) Our enlisted men have a rambunctious, upbeat attitude, if you will. This generation of youth seems unafraid, reckless even, and — despite the demonization in popular culture of the military, the male, physicality, etc. — seems to pride in being on the cutting edge of danger. They are superb fighters. Few would wish to test the U.S. Marines; the Marines or Rangers I had met in two visits to Iraq seemed to me far scarier than a masked al-Qaeda terrorist rambling on videos waving his scimitar. Indeed, they were scarier. Talking to a 20-year old Marine in Ramadi with bulging biceps, loaded down with 70 pounds of gear and weaponry, smiling as he lets on that he’s been up for 30 straight hours is a surreal experience.

3) The military has married intellectual life with command. Some of the brightest PhDs I have encountered are Army officers at the LTC and colonel level. The service’s recent efforts to send its best and brightest to graduate history and political science programs are paying real dividends. During the Anbar awakening, I watched a number of presentations by Army colonels on the Iraqi tribal system; they were often more sophisticated and astute talks than what I had usually heard as an academic at scholarly symposia. In short, we have some brilliantly educated and inquisitive — and outspoken — officers who do not see “book” learning at odds at all with Pattonesque audacity. (Now let us hope we can promote this new generation of colonels to generals.)

4) Technology. Something is changing with military technology. New applications and tools seem to be evolving at warp speed. The easily caricatured, clumsy massive industrial complex seems to be outmatched by near instantly created decentralized efforts involving innovative new drones, body armor, and munitions. The soldier adapts to battlefield electronics as he does video games and the internet. For all the slander directed at Donald Rumsfeld, few realize very early on he tried to articulate how new high-tech weaponry had added enormous lethality to military units, without a commensurate increase in manpower. When 90% rather than 10% of bombs and artillery shells hit the intended target it really does mean that in some situations (tragically not always in boots-on-the-ground counterinsurgency), technology can substitute for mere numbers. Technology has not redefined war — itself a human enterprise that stays constant as long as human nature remains the same — but it has surely accelerated its processes, and so far Americans have mastered it like none other.

5) The sinews of war. Someone at Wal-Mart must have taken over the logistics of the U.S. military. Our troops are drowning in “stuff”. Mountain-high pallets of bottled water in the desert. Cat scanners in a tent city. On-line “cafes” amid the IEDs. 3,000-calorie dinners in the middle of nowhere. Bar-codes on everything from ammo boxes to boxes of plastic forks. We joke about this surfeit of things, and how it makes our military slow and plodding. In truth, they can go almost anywhere in the world, and in hours clone almost any landscape in America, from the sewage and power systems to the communications and food. There has never been any logistics remotely comparable to that of the present-day American military.

The real story of the last eight years is not really the political blunders in Iraq, but the ability of the military to adapt, change, and find victory when all said it was lost. In the dark days ahead, I suspect President Obama, once his soft-power initiatives to find peace with Iran, Venezuela, Russia, radical Islam, and Syria, begin to falter (I hope they do not, but suspect they will), will thank god he is commander-in-chief of the military we have. In his accustomed Novus ordo seclorum fashion, he talks always of the “mess” he inherited, never of the rare military he also inherited.

Bottom line for me - my angst is not to the Xanex prescribing stage - yet - so I'll just continue to watch, wait and see - and keep my powder dry and within arm's reach.

Richard's $.02

[ZonieDiver]

Bottom line for me - my angst is not to the Xanex prescribing stage - yet - so I'll just continue to watch, wait and see - and keep my powder dry and within arm's reach.

And, just maybe, I'll get more powder while I can... just in case.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Blitzzz

Sigaba,your vast knowledge of history should avail to you that the intelligentsia of a free society are the targeted enemy of the proletariat. totally wiped out in many leftist take overs. oops..that would be you. Yes I agree that "We differ on how we should engage the "issues" and our Political opponents.".
You ,I assume would prefer to "engage" intellectually. Thus far that has never stopped a war in the end. Most of us here would prefer to Identify the Opponent's Agenda, their tactics, breakdown their short term goal, interrupt their recruitment of minions, but in the end probably ...warfare. we need to study , act with quick counters, break to chain of of short term goals.

while your posts are informative I quess I would respect your posts more if they were "your" and not a list of other people's work. What "you think may be more informative to us than a litany of others. At least they would be more reader friendly add more to the point of your thoughts. Blitzzz

Blitzzz, I thank you for your suggestions. In all candor, I'm trying to find my voice on this BB--a way in which I can communicate my views in a way that aren't jarring to the culture here. (I've read the rules and stickies and visited some of the threads where guests ended their stay by drifting from their lanes.)

I can be quite blunt and that is at times a liability. Last fall, during a discussion of politics with a person IRL over coffee, I offered my view of the Democratic Party. An edited version of the response I received follows.

SHUT UP! SHUT THE F--- UP! SHUT YOUR MOTHERF------ MOUTH!!! SHUT YOUR MOTHERF------ MOUTH!!!! NOT ONE MORE F------ WORD OUT OF YOUR MOTHERF------ MOUTH!!!!

After that 'discussion', I've been emphasizing a lower key approach. (A reason I joined ps.com is to practice that lower key approach.)

Originally Posted by Richard

One has to wonder:

How much of Mahan’s popularity through most of the 20th Century was not only supported - but enhanced - by the fact that both Churchill and the Roosevelts (Teddy and Franklin) were navalists, and that world events seemingly dictated the necessity of such forces among the great competing industrial powers of the time?

Richard, that is my view as well. What he did was to gather together and synthesize various streams of thought into a package that people could point to and say "That's what I'm talking about." The question though, is when people say "That" what do they mean? And from there, just because we agree on the "That", does that necessarily mean we need battleships? Why not cruisers bristling with torpedoes screened by destroyers bristling with torpedoes? Put the opposition in the position where they can't hold their formation long enough to aim their guns without getting hit?

Originally Posted by nmap

Sir, if I may be permitted to offer an opinion...

In academia, there is an enormous emphasis on "the literature". My strong impression is that one can hardly get away with writing "The Sun comes up in the East" without at least two references.

As an example, I am in the middle of the comprehensive exams for my latest effort. One question has already required 26 references - and that was for just 16 pages.

Perhaps Academia trains people strongly to do their writings in this particular way.

No offense meant to anyone.

nmap-- this is part of what is going on with me. I may have mentioned an anecdote in which a history professor came to a dorm in the early morning hours to demand from a student his notes and his sources. The student he came to visit was a classmate of mine. From that point forward, I've been of the better safe than sorry school of documentation: I made a commitment not to offer a historical interpretation without a road map of how I got there.

Twenty years later, a different professor suggested that I didn't really need to have multiple footnotes per sentence and multiple sources per footnote. I laughed nervously, thinking "Don't I?" We reached a compromise in which I didn't have more than one note for a sentence.

To an extent, my approach has been vindicated. Some historians, in their eagerness to achieve popular acclaim, fell into bad documentation practices. Some of their works are hugely important and now the legitimacy of those works is suspect.

Originally Posted by Blitzzz

"Perhaps Academia trains people strongly to do their writings in this particular way."
No offense taken.
This is very true, but this is not Academia. Post a Bibliography and then state your mind.
wouldn't hurt to be more personable. Blitzzz

An irony here is that my posts of late are the short, personable versions. Most of what I draft gets cut before I hit 'submit reply.'

Originally Posted by Richard

We commonly refer to it simply as tactical vs strategic thinking...and find it unnecessary to consistently qualify a 'given' such as your example. Remember that although many here do consider the strategic implications of matters, QPs are - by nature - pragmatically inclined towards tactical action rather than passive strategic observation.

And here's the rub. I read, think, and write about military affairs but I'm a civilian--high drag, no speed. You BTDT guys have credibility because of where you've been and what you've done. My credibility I must earn every time I step in your house. How do I do that? By doing what I do best--I sure as heck can't come close to doing what you guys do or have done.

One last point, I don't agree that we're at war with our fellow Americans. Things are tense but it isn't war. Doom is not at hand. I am patient not simply because I have an academic background but also because I'm a descendant of African slaves. The president likes to talk about the dreams of his father? Well, if that guy thought about the dreams of his mother's father he'd have a different set of tools. What are those tools? The aforementioned patience; a tireless indefatigable will to resist; a hunger born of rage to defeat your opponent. (If it comes to 'by any means necessary'....)

But before things get to that point--no need to play 'burn, baby, burn'---I'll stick with the tried and true. That includes: learning the opponent's rules, how he thinks, how he feels, what he fears. (They fear Sarah Palin and, based upon their repeated refusals of my invitations to come here and to see the diversity of American thought, they fear you.)

I say, let's lure these self satisfied, self described intellectuals into the parts of the libraries that they should know like the backs of their hands. Let's get in their heads and talk about the meanings of their words. Ask them what they think of this book and that book. Chances are, many won't know. They were playing "Puff puff pass" with a joint over a bag of nacho cheese Doritos.

If they say, "Hey, I'm not as familiar with this as I should be," they may learn a little humility. Then, they'll be ready to have an actual conversation. The conversation will continue over cans of double shot. At the end of the day, we'll go our separate ways. Someone will be thinking "You know, I never really thought of the Second Amendment as a civil right" or "Yeah, I can see why many Americans see us as being in a war...those jihadists write and say some scary shit." And maybe we'll have something to think about as well.

If they stone wall? Drop the library on them, flush their joint down the toilet, take the bag of Doritos.

[afchic]

Richard, thanks for that post. As a loggie, I was pleasantly surprised to see someone refer to the "Sinews of War". Great book if you ever get the chance to read it.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by afchic

Richard, thanks for that post. As a loggie, I was pleasantly surprised to see someone refer to the "Sinews of War". Great book if you ever get the chance to read it.

AFChic - I have. Did I ever tell you that I was with the DAO AmEmbassy-Bonn during GW1 and worked for LTG Gus Pagonis as a FAO in his Civil-Mil Ops section (ACSCMO) following that? There were two of us SF types on his staff and life was seldom dull for us in the 21st TAACOM. Have you read Moving Mountains?

Richard's $.02

[Blitzzz (RIP)]

For those of you who don't feel activated because there's not enough to awaken those feelings try this one.
The President of the United States wants a 7 million person civilian volunteer service "army" planned to have training in weapons and policing work and be given "block warden" orders. It should by noted that a "service" this large would vastly out number the active combat forces., and be in parity with the Militia. They will of course have some other oath to pledge allegiance to the POTUS. That should remove the dilemma of deciding weather to defend the constitution or not.
This won't take full force until most of the guns are secured.
"Disarm the Militia and develop a youth army to do his bidding.

Oh boy, I must be a Loon...
certainly don't research Obama's volunteer service proposals. Blitzzz

Addendum: The plan also calls for a 4 year undergraduate school for "future public sector Leaders for national Service." Basically a achool for "Cadre". Scared yet?

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

And yet the services still use their works as solid historical references.

Are you referring to their professional rep among their peers, their critics, or their students?

TR

TR--

This abbreviated post addresses the historical reputation of Liddell Hart.

He is, in a way, in the same boat as CSM Haney. Like Haney, he overstated his influence. Like Haney, he stretched the margins in describing his own experiences as a soldier. Like Haney, he disappointed members of his brotherhood.

In Liddell-Hart's case, the brotherhood he let down were his academic colleagues and students, in particular Sir Michael Howard, and his former student, Brian Bond.

Like Haney, Liddell Hart places his readers in a tricky situation. "Did this happen this way?" "Is this interpretation reliable?" "Can I used this to support a critically important recommendation?"

In Liddell Hart's case, these questions came to a head in the 1980s. At that time, the big debates centered around the efficacy of AirLand Battle, various notions of "deep battle," the maritime strategy, and escalation dominance. A group of political scientists sought to derail these discussions. (Their counter points can be found in most issues of International Security published during the Reagan years and in many of the books in the Cornell Studies in Security Affairs series.)

One effort focused on discrediting Liddell-Hart. The inconsistencies of his scholarship had received attention at least as early as 1970 (once again, Michael Howard beat everyone to the punch). But in 1989, John J. Mearsheimer--yeah, that guy --went to town. He cataloged every sin of omission and commission he could find on Liddell-Hart, up to the point where the reader is watching Liddell-Hart serve his students tea as he bends them to his will. (If he could, one senses that Mearsheimer would have exhumed Liddell-Hart's corpse, taken the body to the pet cemetery, reanimated it, given it an eight hour oral exam, and then killed and dismembered the zombie, burnt the remains, and scattered the ashes to the sea.)

The argument went like this: Liddell-Hart is regarded as the father of blitzkrieg, AirLand Battle and deep attack are presented as updates to blitzkrieg. But, if Liddell-Hart is a fraud, how do we really know what blitzkrieg is about and can we trust it as a model for how we plan to fight our next war?

(The conclusion of these political scientists: you can't trust Reagan or the professional judgment of the American armed services, so let's stick with detente, please.)

Historians are still trying to figure out Liddell-Hart. In the January 2009 issue of the Journal of Military History, Brian Holden Reid looks at Liddell-Hart and J.F.C. Fuller as military reformers. The essay points out:

Liddell Hart (like Fuller) exposed himself to condemnation on the grounds of arrogance and sophistry, but above all, for immature and erratic judgment. As a result in later life, he became desperate for credit. (164-165)

HTH.

[olddoc]

I would agree with Blitzzz that things are getting a little freaky. The populace can develop some strange ideas especially when they are enjoying the entitlement programs. I think that, in ways, academia is another form of entitlement program( kind of joking on that one.) I was subjected to for almost 22 years but managed to retain by identity. A lot of people would support whoever and whatever to keep the free stuff coming.

I think HR-1444 is what Blitzzz is referring to in his last post. Is there an attorney online who could give an opinion on whether or not this would violate the 13th amendment?