Violent, Strategic Dislocation Inside the United States

From KNOWN UNKNOWNS: UNCONVENTIONAL “STRATEGIC SHOCKS” IN DEFENSE STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT

Violent, Strategic Dislocation Inside the United States

As a community, the defense establishment swears to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. DoD’s role in combating “domestic enemies” has never been thoughtfully examined. Thus, there is perhaps no greater source of strategic shock for DoD than operationalizing that component of the oath of service in a widespread domestic emergency that entails rapid dissolution of public order in all or significant parts of the United States.

While likely not an immediate prospect, this is clearly a “Black Swan” that merits some visibility inside DoD and the Department of Homeland Security. To the extent events like this involve organized violence against local, state, and national authorities and exceed the capacity of the former two to restore public order and protect vulnerable populations, DoD would be required to fill the gap. This is largely uncharted strategic territory.

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. Deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction or other catastrophic capabilities, unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters are all paths to disruptive domestic shock.

An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long-secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home. Already predisposed to defer to the primacy of civilian authorities in instances of domestic security and divest all but the most extreme demands in areas like civil support and consequence management, DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States. Further, DoD would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance.

A whole host of long-standing defense conventions would be severely tested. Under these conditions and at their most violent extreme, civilian authorities, on advice of the defense establishment, would need to rapidly determine the parameters defining the legitimate use of military force inside the United States. Further still, the whole concept of conflict termination and/or transition to the primacy of civilian security institutions would be uncharted ground. DoD is already challenged by stabilization abroad. Imagine the challenges associated with doing so on a massive scale at home. 

Most Americans are too squeamish to admit the validity or legitimacy of ever hitting the reset button on the Constitution. Most, but not all.

These sentences just jump out of the screen at me:

DoD’s role in combating “domestic enemies” has never been thoughtfully examined.  —  Who in DoD has the political immunity to thoughtfully examine such a taboo subject?  Our nonpartisan military has a cherished tradition of faithfully serving the whole Republic, under whatever political leadership We The People choose to saddle them.  They have no authority or desire to identify, designate and engage domestic enemies.  As individual citizens, the three percent of us fit to serve as Soldiers,  Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen can see who the domestic enemies of their missions, their leaders, and their claim upon the public treasury are as well as anybody.  As military professionals, they cannot treat domestic enemies as such until set loose upon them by higher authority.   As individual citizens, they may harbor doubts about the illegitimate, unpatriotic nature of duly designated domestic enemies, perhaps even secretly sympathize with them.  As military professionals, they will carry out lawful orders or leave the profession.  The Regulars don’t have the stomach for recognizing that they even have domestic enemies, because that would force them to do something about it.  American irregular, nonstate actor, Hybrid Warriors could very well be the duly designated domestic enemies.

Deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction or other catastrophic capabilities, unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters are all paths to disruptive domestic shock.  —  The aftermath of a nuclear 9/11 would likely include all of the above.  Politically incorrect as my opinion may be, I think the politicians who have the power to prevent mass casualty events and fail to exercise due diligence because they’re owned by the House of Saud or beholden to the Nation of Islam or ate up with multiculturalism should suffer for their failures with their lives, or at the very least fear that probable outcome, and act accordingly.  Let the fates of Mussolini and  Ceausescu encourager les autres.  It has been too long since the elites have feared the wrath of  The People.   

Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States.  — I hope that their sight picture will be as blurry as mine.  Brother has fought brother before.  There are counties an hour’s drive north of me that haven’t recovered from the last time after 144 years.  War is Hell, and Civil War is worse than Hell, and few Americans are capable of clear-eyed, unemotional, objective reasoning about it.   How we got that way was a massive psychological operation.

H/T:  angkor

Advertisements

14 Comments

Filed under IW, PSYOP, Resisters

14 responses to “Violent, Strategic Dislocation Inside the United States

  1. Um, has no one heard of Garden Plot?

    Heh.

  2. Only CONUS homesteaders in units tasked with CONPLAN 2502 missions.

    Most of what’s googlable is moonbattery.

  3. Section VI
    DSCA Mission Category: Restore Public Health and Services and Civil Order
    22–21. Support to Law Enforcement:
    a. The use of military force to enforce U.S. laws inside the homeland is an appropriately sensitive topic and
    restrictions apply to such use. In addition to the restrictions that follow, military forces, when armed, will adhere to the
    standing rules for the use of force (SRUF) unless the Secretary of Defense has approved mission-specific RUF.
    (1) The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (PCA), subsequent amendments and policy decisions prohibits the use of
    federal military forces (to include Reserve forces) to perform internal police functions. PCA thus restricts the type of
    support DoD can provide domestic law enforcement organizations.
    (2) There are a wide variety of exceptions to the PCA and we teach at the US Army War College that the law
    essentially gives the President all the authority he needs to employ DoD forces inside the U.S. although there may
    appropriately be political consequence that would inhibit such employment. The PCA law itself makes provision for
    the President’s Article II Constitutional authority. The Act does not pertain to the National Guard when in State status,
    nor does it apply to the U.S. Coast Guard. There are also a variety of statutory exceptions such as the Protection of
    Nuclear Materials Act (18 USC 831), Chemical-Biological Terrorism (10 USC 382) and Secret Service Assistance (10
    USC 3056). The most renowned statutory exception has been traditionally referred to as The Insurrection Acts (10
    USC 331–334) that were modified and renamed to Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order by the 2007
    National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The new language clarifies Presidential authority to invoke the acts for
    situations resulting from natural disasters and other emergencies.
    b. Civil Disturbance Operations (CDO): The President is authorized by the Constitution and Title 10 (10 USC
    331–334) to suppress insurrections, rebellions, and domestic violence. After issuing a Cease and Desist Order, the
    President issues an executive order that directs the Attorney General and the SECDEF to take appropriate steps to
    disperse insurgents and restore law and order. The Attorney General is then responsible to coordinate the federal response to domestic civil disturbances. The restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act no longer apply to federal troops
    executing the orders of the President to quell the disturbance in accordance with Rules of the Use of Force (RUF)
    approved by the DoD General Counsel and the Attorney General.
    (1) USNORTHCOM Concept Plan (CONPLAN) 2502 (Civil Disturbance Operations), is the plan for supporting
    state and local authorities during civil disturbances. This plan serves as the foundation for any CDO operation and
    standardizes most activities and command relationships. Tasks performed by military forces may include joint patrolling
    with law enforcement officers; securing key buildings, memorials, intersections and bridges; and acting as a quick
    reaction force.
    (2) The JTF commander, a general officer, coordinates all DoD support with the Senior Civilian Representative of
    the Attorney General (SCRAG), see Figure 23–5. DoD will usually establish a JTF headquarters near where the
    Attorney General’s local representative is based.
    c. Combating Terrorism: Predominantly a civilian law enforcement function, DOJ and specifically the FBI has
    primary Federal responsibility for combating and countering terrorism. Responsibilities include measures to anticipate,
    prevent, and/or resolve a threat or act of terrorism.
    (1) The FBI continually assesses intelligence and reports of terrorist activity. When there is a credible threat, the
    FBI is responsible to disrupt it and prevent an attack. Should there be an incident, the FBI is responsible to neutralize
    any on-scene threat and for criminal investigation. The FBI Special Agent in Charge (SAC) supervises the law
    enforcement activities at the incident scene. The FBI will establish a Joint Operations Center (JOC) to orchestrate the
    interagency law enforcement and investigative efforts. The NRP directs the JOC be located with the Joint Field Office
    (JFO). Other FBI actions can include deploying a domestic emergency support team (DEST), a rapidly deployable
    special interagency team that provides advice to the FBI on-scene coordinator. The SAC may also request the FBI
    Hostage Rescue Team (HRT).
    (2) If necessary, the FBI may request specialized DoD support that could include a joint special operations task
    force (JSOTF). The FBI on-scene coordinator notifies the FBI Director and the Attorney General. The FBI also informs
    the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict (ASD (SO/LIC)) of the pending
    request and provides details of the incident. The ASD (SO/LIC) advises the SECDEF and the Attorney General confers
    with SECDEF on the deployment request. They, in turn, confer with the President. The President must approve all
    requests that may potentially lead to DoD use of lethal force in support of law enforcement.
    (3) After Presidential approval of DoD support, the SECDEF personally approves deployment orders. Normally
    DoD provides a JSOTF and special mission units (SMU) with unique capabilities, such as those to render safe WMD.
    The JSOTF deploys to the site and coordinates proposed actions with the FBI SAC. At the appropriate time, the FBI
    employs the JSOTF to execute those operations approved by the President. DoD assets deployed in support of law
    enforcement operations do not normally remain to support response and recovery.

    http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/dclm/linkedtextchapters/htar2008Ch22.pdf

  4. suek

    My question is which side will the army find itself on? You can talk about “the military” as if it’s a disembodied force, but within the miitary is a strong commitment to refusing to obey unlawful orders. The military is taken from the population – will it oppose them?

    Probably depends upon how the matter is presented, I think. And whether there has been adequate preparation…one side or the other.

  5. The Army will follow orders.

    If the Commander-in-Chief issues unlawful orders, the 4-star Combatant Commander will have to decide whether to obey or fall on his sword. If he fights the program he will be replaced with somebody who will do what he is told. Similar dramas will play out all the way down the chain of command.

    No Seven Days in May. No coups d’etat. A few minor mutinies, perhaps, that will be ruthlessly suppressed.

    The Army will follow their declared Rules Of Engagement and Rules for the Use of Force and capture or kill whoever the duly constituted authorities tell them to. Most soldiers will believe what they have been told about the heinous crimes of the Enemies of the State they are fighting, as well as the legality and righteousness of what they’re doing. Even the ones that don’t believe will still do what they are told.

    The Marine Corps and Navy will do the same, unencumbered by the Posse Comitatus Act, which doesn’t apply to them.

  6. suek

    >>Most soldiers will believe what they have been told about the heinous crimes of the Enemies of the State they are fighting, as well as the legality and righteousness of what they’re doing. Even the ones that don’t believe will still do what they are told.>>

    You certainly may be correct. I’m not sure you are, but then maybe I’m just a cockeyed optimist…!

  7. Hoping our military will depose The People’s Choice is optimistic?

    General George Washington could have set himself up as Dictator for Life, just like every other victorious revolutionary general in the Western Hemisphere did. He declined, and we’re NOT a Banana Republic because coups and mutinies are unacceptable to the Officer Corps, no matter how bad things get.

    You The People have made your beds. Your Army is not going to save you from the consequences of poor decisions. They are going to carry out the orders of whatever asshats the voters put over them, and if the country goes to Hell in a hand basket, sin loi, baby. Maybe the survivors will pay more attention next time, if there is a next time.

    What they don’t get is… we don’t belong to either party. We’re not the Sturm Abteilungen of the National Socialists nor are we the Red Guards of the Weimar Communists. We’re a creature of the Constitution, and we serve that above the individuals who occupy the positions of authority from day-to-day.

  8. suek

    >>Hoping our military will depose The People’s Choice is optimistic?>>

    Follow another train of thought…not that the military will depose “The People’s Choice”, but that they will simply refuse to carry out orders that are basically attacking the people. If “The People’s Choice” want to pick up weapons and carry out their own illegal (I’m presuming) orders, then let them take their chances. If the military refuses to attack the citizenry, “The People’s Choice” will have to find another means to despotism. Although I think you’re right in one thing – there’s always a cad willing to do what others consider unthinkable.

    >>You The People have made your beds. Your Army is not going to save you from the consequences of poor decisions.>>

    But our Army is also _us_.

    Still you have a point – as you sow, so shall you reap. We deserve the government we get – etc.

    “We’re a creature of the Constitution, and we serve that above the individuals who occupy the positions of authority from day-to-day.”

    And this is the basis of my optimism. That the Army will know the Constitution even if the People do not.

  9. they will simply refuse to carry out orders that are basically attacking the people.

    Mission refusal is mutiny. Breaks Armies. The Army I entered in 1978 was still broken. Took a long time to fix. By 1989’s Urgent Fury in Panama I reckon the Army had fully recovered. Twenty years of recovery from Vietnam. A whole military career.

  10. But our Army is also _us_.

    The demographics are not representative of the population as a whole. Red States over-represented. South over-represented. Northeast under-represented. Combat Arms units mostly white, now. Hispanics over-represented. Blacks used to be over-represented but not anymore. Lots of immigrants and non-citizens.

    Only people who think America is worth defending sign up to defend it. A lot of “us” (not including me) don’t think it is.

  11. suek

    >>Mission refusal is mutiny.>>

    Not if the orders are illegal in the first place…

    >>A lot of “us” (not including me) don’t think it is.>>

    Options?

  12. Who gets to decide if the orders are illegal?

    “There are no mitigating circumstances
    when it comes to rebellion against a sovereign lord.”
    Unless you win.

  13. As for options, those who think their country deserves to survive must continue to struggle against those who think their country is the focus of evil in the modern world. Ideological war between Patriots, Nationalists, and American Exceptionalists against multiculturalists, transnational progressivists, wannabe Euros, Guilty White Liberals, Black Liberation Theologists, Zinnites, Chomskyites.

  14. Pingback: H. R. 645: National Emergency Centers Establishment Act (Introduced in House) « Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group