Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Would the military intervene to save us ?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
steve2470 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:07 PM
Original message
Would the military intervene to save us ?
To you CIA/NSA spooks, I'm not advocating violence here, so just relax. Let's just say, theoretically, that nothing stops Bushco and Repugs and the fascism continues to grow. Would anyone with influence in the military try to organize a true coup and take back the country ? Or...would we really be SOL in that case ? I sure hope we never get to that point in reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SnoopDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. I have often wondered the same thing...
I think the military would fire on us in the beginning but after awhile, then would say 'what the fuck?" and would restore America back to Americans!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:10 PM
Response to Original message
2. i would oppose a military coup under almost any circumstances
the best thing the founders did was isolate the military from the government, and place it under civilian leadership. a military coup undoes all of that, and frankly, militaries don't have a good track record of giving up power once they have it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #2
38. Right after they started a revolution.
Except for that, it was the best thing the Founders did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #38
43. there is a significant difference between a revolution
and a coup. a revolution is civilian in nature (as the US revolution was, mostly, these were not trained soldiers who started it, althouth they learned fast, it was a civilian revolt) and a coup is purely military, without civilian leadership.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. So are you advocating a coup or a revolution?
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-09-06 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #44
57. touche
I guess that would be neither for 300, Alex.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HawkerHurricane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #2
40. Historically, there have been two military coups in the U.S.
The first, restive militia units in Massachusetts backed political hotheads... when a attempt to forcibly disarm them was made, they openly revolted. Thus began the American Revolution.

The second, political hotheads from Southern states convinced the state militias to back them in open revolt, leading to the Civil War.

Here is to hoping that such a thing will never be needed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-10-06 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #40
66. Those are NOT coups, but open revolts
A coup is when a Government is OVERTHROWN and replaced by another during a very short time period. Neither the Revolt of the Massachusetts Militia in 1775 nor the revolt the American South were Coups. The GOvernment in Both Massacres in 1775 and the American South in 1861 were the same before and after the start of the revolt.

Now the US has been threaten by coups, the First by the Pennsylvania Line in 1781 after NOT getting paid (Washington and Congress came up with the money AND also used force to suppress the strike for that what it was more than a Rebellion) and then the real first Coup attempt in 1782 when the Officer corp around Washington started a plan to take over the Government for Congress was NOT doing enough to pay the troops (Washington put this attempted Coup down by addressing his officers and saying he would NOT lead such a revolt against Congress).

The Second time a serious thought about a coup occurred was in 1862 when Lincoln replaced McClellan as Commander in Chief of the Union Army. McClellan had built the US Army from almost nothing to the effect fighting force it was in 1862 but unwilling to use the force he had made. When McClellan was replaced by Lincoln, the Troops and officers talked about a Military coup to replace Lincoln with McClellan. This did not go to far for McClellan was a Democrat and did not want to rule by Military might so the movement died (McClellan would wait till 1864 and be the Democratic Candidate that year against Lincoln, a year where Atlanta fell and Richmond was surrounded thus destroying the South from a military point of view).

The third Attempt was in about 1934 when General Butler was approached by some Wall Street people about leading a Coup against FDR. Butler reported this effort to Congress and FDR for like Washington and McClellan he liked representative Democracy. For this effort he was painted as some sort of Nut but the evidence of such a proposal did exist but FDR knew he had to deal with the same people who had proposed the coup to get his economic program started so FDR decided to down play the story.

More on the 1934 Coup:
http://www.webcom.com/ctka/pr399-fdr.html

The 1783 Newburgh Conspiracy:
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/prevents.htm
http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/washington.htm

Revolt of the Pennsylvania line:
http://www.libraries.psu.edu/digital/pahistory/folder_2/page_3.html
http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~bitting/PARevolt.htm

Not much about McClellan's coup for it seems to be more talk than any real planning given McClellan's reluctance to do such a coup.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rwenos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. Factions
Edited on Fri Apr-07-06 11:14 PM by rwenos
Were Bushco to try a putsch, the most likely thing would be the military would fight itself. One thing I always thought Tim McVeigh's favorite book, "The Turner Diaries," got right, was that the military would split into the federals and the fascists. Probably nowadays the fascists would win that fight, since RW Christian Dominionism has made such inroads into the professional military, from the service academies on up.

There would be a Constitutional crisis. Hard to predict how it would come out. Most probably there would be a move to secede by progressive states in the West and Upper Midwest.

Fascinating subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
steve2470 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Actually, I was "hoping" the military would do it without Bush nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rwenos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. Thought Your Hypothetical Was Bushco Made the Move
If Bushco made the move, don't you think progressive forces in the military (a minority, certainly) would move to check the putsch? I do. They might get crushed by the RW fascist sympathizers in the military, which I believe to be in the strong majority.

Of course, there have always been fascists in the U.S. military. (My favorite movie on the subject is "Seven Days in May.")

But if Bushco cancelled elections, there would be major rioting in the cities, and really would be hell to pay. For every person who, like my brother in law, LOVE Georgie Boy, there is at least one (and probably more) red-blooded Americans who hate Bush's guts.

If the timing were right, Bush could get away with it for awhile. I don't see it lasting more than one election cycle. There would be too much blood in the streets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nomen Tuum Donating Member (396 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
4. No because they are under control of the Fundamentalists
and here is the main organization that controls the American military:

http://www.forceministries.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northofdenali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #4
32. Wow - now THAT is a scary website.
:scared::hide::scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sawber1001 Donating Member (43 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #4
49. What?
I've been in the military for 19 years now and have never even heard of this organization.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-09-06 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #4
58. I spent 20 years in the military and have never heard of them ..
I am an atheist and never had an issue in my 20 years due to my beliefs. Due to it's overall youth, the military in general is both non-religious and apolitical - they are too busy doing what all 20 year olds do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-09-06 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
63. Here's another one
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
6. If we can't save ourselves, we aren't worth saving.
A military coup is a nightmare scenario.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
serryjw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
25. Even IF we won through the military coup
The question beckons What would we win? This country stands for TWO things. Peaceful transfer of Power(leadership) and the Rule of Law that when we DO have a problem with OUR leadership we deal with it in a peaceful/legal established way. Now I am Big on civil disobedience. I would be happy to participate in a 'Boston Tea Party' to take my country back. Even the fundie military can't kill 50 million people
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:16 PM
Response to Original message
7. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. wrote about a professional army
as opposed to a drafted army. In summary, my answer to your question is NO. If I can find what Schlesinger wrote, I'll post it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:16 PM
Response to Original message
8. Russian troopers refused to fire on their mothers & grannies.
There is probably a reason we are hearing about private contracted para military units policing America in the not too distant future. We have already had them in NOLA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
9. I hope we don't get to that point either, because that's the end of
democracy as we know it.

TURKEY does that, FWIW. And they do it REGULARLY. Any time the military thinks the Turkish government has gone too far off the reservation, the Turkish people wake up one morning and turn on their tee vees and radios to see and hear some general saying that the military has taken over the government "for the good of the nation and to ensure that we stay on the path dictated by our great founder, Kemal Ataturk." Then, after the crisis has passed, they "allow" the nation to hold elections and fade back into the shadows. But they're always there, breathing down the necks of the elected leadership.

The reason it can't happen is because we don't have the manpower to do it. Hell, we didn't even have enough troops to stage a halfassed little expo in Germany--they're all off a-fighting the BushWar. No, I am not joking: http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=35368&archive=true
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
10. Professional army vs. citizen army.
Edited on Fri Apr-07-06 11:22 PM by NYC
Otherwise known as enlisted vs. drafted.

The Imperial Presidency Editer Rpondre
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.
Copyright 1973
Page 198

...The Commander in Chief clause gave every President nominal command of the Army and Navy. But it could not guarantee him, as Johnson and Nixon discovered in Vietnam, the loyalty of the soldiers in the field, nor the support of their families back home. When a citizen army had a war it believed in, like the Second World War, it fought with unsurpassed courage; but, thrown into a war it could not understand, it could become sullen and disaffected. Nixon now tried to solve the problem of the undependable army, and thereby elliminate one more check on presidential war, by replacing the army made up of civilans by an army made up of professional soldiers.

Had such an army existed in the 1960s, public criticism of the Indochina War would have been much slower to emerge. Even as it was, so long as the Americans killing and dying in Vietnam were sons of poor whites and poor blacks, the American middle class remained generally uninvolved. It was only when the contraction of educational deferments in 1967 and 1968 exposed their own sons to the draft that they (and, in many cases, their sons too) first began to wonder whether the American interest was after all worth the sacrifice of American lives. It was then that opinion began to change. Had conscription been on an egalitarian basis, the middle class would undoubtedly have swung against the war much earlier.

A citizen army is a projection of a whole nation and therefore has the capacity to find means of resisting a President who wants to fight wars in which the nation does not believe. A professional army is by definition a much more compliant and reliable instrument of presidential war. Its members are in the army by their own free choice. Because they believe in their career, they do not have to believe in a particular war. This would not matter if the United States needed only a very small army -- say, the 189,839 of the Army of 1939. But Nixon planned a very large professional army -- 2,233,000 men. The establishment of a vast professional army could only liberate Presidents for a wider range of foreign adventure.

READ THIS:
A vast professional army, in addition, could provide dangerous temptations to the imperial Presidency at home. Tocqueville had long since pointed out the different consequences a citizen army and a professional army had for a democracy. When men were conscripted into an army, a few might acquire a taste for military life, "but the majority, being enlisted against their will and ever ready to go back to their homes," found military service not a chosen vocation but a vexatious duty. "They do not therefore imbibe the spirit of the army, or rather they infuse the spirit of the community at large into the army and retain it there." But a professional army "forms a small nation by itself, where the mind is less enlarged and habits are more rude than in the nation at large." Its officers in particular "contract tastes and wants wholly distinct from those of the nation." In consequence, "military revolutions, which are scarcely ever to be apprehended in aristocracies, are always to be dreaded among democratic nations."

It was not unkown for professional officers in the citizen army to complain about a want of discipline and patriotism in the nation. Nor was it inconceivable that the existence of an army professional in all its ranks might suggest things to a President who regarded dissent as a form of subversion or anarchy and wished to restore law and order in the name of national security.
Seven Days in May (an excellent movie*) might seem melodramatic fantasy, but President Kennedy, who knew the military, wanted it filmed as a warning to the nation. In any case, there seemed no advantage in compounding problems of an already volatile political society by introducing into it a "small nation by itself," united by professional prejudices, resentments and ambitions and possessing a monopoly of the weapons of war. Here, it would appear, was precisely the large and permanent military establishment which, as Hamilton had written in the Eighth Federalist, tended to destroy civil and political rights of the people and which, as Madison had said in 1812, was forbidden by the principles of our free government.

*It is I, NYC, who say it is an excellent movie, not Schlesinger.
Schlesinger also wrote about war against a non-nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rwenos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Great Argument for People's Army
The one thing that always protects against military coups in America is the dispersion of force -- i.e., the military has the big guns, but local police and (let's face it, Dem's) the local gun nuts have plenty of hardware too.

I'm reminded of a quote from the movie Casablanca, where Rick (Bogart) says wryly to the German colonel, "Colonel, there are parts of Harlem where even YOU would not be safe."

Frankly, I can't see the electorate of Cali, Oregon and Washington standing for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. But we don't have a citizen army.
We have the professional army, the people who are "removed" from the general population.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rwenos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. You're Right, But there ARE a lot of guns out there
The point of my quote from Casablanca is that one of the perverse benefits of the bizarre interpretation of the Second Amendment forced on us by the NRA is that there are guns EVERYWHERE. I assume from your initials you live in New York. Can you imagine the bad guys in Harlem or Oakland or South Central sitting still for storm troopers in the streets?

Those guys could end up the People's Army. All they'd need is the right leader.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #17
41. Before Bush, I favored gun control.
Then, I started wondering. I still favor gun control for NYC (and we have it), but I'm not sure I favor it for everywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-09-06 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #41
61. Chimperor is a walking advertisement for the 2nd Amendment
Edited on Sun Apr-09-06 09:34 AM by tom_paine
When the Founding Fathers wrote it, they were dreaming of HIM, they were foreseeing TODAY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ecumenist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #14
34. You have that right, Rwenos
We'd never stand for this and I'll venture to say that there aren't too many people anywhere who would sit by quietly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
steve2470 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #10
26. thanks for the info ! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #10
30. Yep. It's much of why I advocate Universal Service.
Everyone. No exceptions. Service in a wide variety of military and civilian forces from Public Health Service to Marine Corps. Everyone. Eighteen months to four years, depending on nature of service.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:23 PM
Response to Original message
12. throw out all the Diebold machines and have a decent election
if we have a clesn election in november the people will vote these crooks out. However, I did hear one general had some ideas but they 'done him in'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KyuzoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
13. You phrased it a lot better than I have in the past.
I've had several threads asking the same question deleted. I'm not advocating violence either, I just want to know what the military's protocol is for a government out of control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
steve2470 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
16. I guess I'm naiive to think a military coup could ever be good
Like I said, I simply hope we never get to a point where that is even a remote possibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mishanti Donating Member (8 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. I was in the Army
during VietNAm..there were many soldiers in because of the draft but there were many who stayed on after their tours were done. I stayed for 8 years until I broke my arm so bad that I couldn't stay. Many had no great "loyalty" to the White House or to the US Government at all. I think many officers who had gone to West Point have instilled in them that the United States of America is more important than any polititian. I do believe that many of the leadership would go against a government that turned against the Constitution and tried to take over in the form of a dictatorship. I know many soldiers who took the oath to defend the Constitution and the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic seriously..I know that I did and still do. I never took an oath to cancel that oath I took when I went in and when I reupped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northofdenali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #22
33. Your post reminds me a lot of what my ex, also a Viet Nam vet -
has to say. His main thrust is that he did NOT sign up to protect a person - that person being George W. Bush or any other person occupying the White House. He signed up to defend the Constitution and the country. Although the President is the "Commander in Chief" there are military regulations that can and very well might remove him from that command, including treason and insanity. Both of which the current occupant of Al Gore's White House shows strong signs of.

BTW, welcome to DU :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PublicWrath Donating Member (597 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
18. Is Christian fundamentalism a significant factor in the high
echelons of the military? Is "echelons" the right word?

Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything much scarier than Christian Dominionist types at command level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RagAss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. How's that "Domination" working out in Iraq?
...those barefoot insurgents don't seem too impressed......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PublicWrath Donating Member (597 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #21
28. You may have a point there......
You gave me a laughing fit and I feel a little better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-09-06 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #18
59. My experience is no ..
based on 20 years in the Navy. If put on the spot I would say that I knew more senior officers that were Catholic than any thing else. Just my personal observation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YouthInAsia Donating Member (806 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
19. i was discussing this with my mom yesterday and
Edited on Fri Apr-07-06 11:39 PM by YouthInAsia
I was saying how I dont think Bu$h is going anywhere in 2008. He's gonna suspend the constitution (probably after some catastrophic "torrirsit" attack) and the elections wont take place. These people are simply too cocky. They KNOW they're not going anywhere.

Anyway, my mom said that if something like that were to occur, the military would step in a put an end to it. I dont know whether they'd do this or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PublicWrath Donating Member (597 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #19
24.  I can conceive of situations Bushco could engineer that might make
it very tricky for the military to intercede in a timely, let alone surgical, fashion. It might take quite sometime for heads at the military to unite on a plan of action, even after, and assuming, they could agree that action needed taking. Meanwhile there might be a lot of pain here and around the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YouthInAsia Donating Member (806 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #24
29. yes, I agree. And I really dont see them leaving in
2008. Maybe I should be wearing my tinfoil hat, but these guys dont ACT like they're gonna go anywhere. They dont care what we think regarding their destruction of the constitution, etc. Its scary! And they also know that if they are ever thrown out, they're probably going to jail.

I dont think we're taking anything back in November either. The voting is totally fixed. These ppl are here to stay. And the american ppl have NO recourse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RagAss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
20. A military occupation of America...by the US military ?
....it would look like Iraq...only with 200,000,000 more insurgents...maybe more if the oppressed get international support...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
steve2470 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. Hypothetical: Troops take over White House, hand power to ...
a joint Dem/Repug. task force. Not the entire country. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PublicWrath Donating Member (597 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #23
42. I think your hypothetical scenario could only work.........
If action was taken absolutely immediately by a very limited number of very ballsy military leaders acting on their own initiative. But it would have to happen almost instantly after B* did something unequivocal in terms of seizing dictatorial power. I mean instantly. Over and done before anyone else could react or decide which side to take. Maybe they could render him to Syria.

And we have to consider that Bushco would make pretty sure of military loyalty before ever moving ahead with his coronation.

But I pray none of this comes up. And it probably won't.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 11:54 PM
Response to Original message
27. Yes They Would
We may actually see such a thing.


"Who knooowz...!?" - Donald Dumbsfailed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silverojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
31. Never in a million years.
They're predominantly Bush sheeple. 'Nuff said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PublicWrath Donating Member (597 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 12:30 AM
Response to Original message
35. Say, weren't some of the "gee-whiz" weapons under development
Edited on Sat Apr-08-06 12:31 AM by PublicWrath
particularly suitable for crowd control? Right before we invaded there was a lot of stuff on tv about devices we had on the drawing board. Some of it was for immobilizing people and dispersing crowds. It gave me an awful chill at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 12:40 AM
Response to Original message
36. The Issue is how will the PEOPLE react?
The Officer Corp of the US Military has moved further to the right since Vietnam than even the General Population (Which has also shifted to the Right). Once you start to have riots in the Streets, the Military will be stretched to the limit. Furthermore of the Three Major Services (Army, Air Force and Navy which includes the Marines) only the Army (and the Marines) are of the type of units one can use in Riot control Situations. Thus the power of the Army will Expand, as the cost of the Air Force and Navy. This will have severe problems for the budget of the Department of Defense since its formation in 1947 has been 1/3 to the Air Force, 1/3 to the Navy (including the Marines), 1/4 to the Army and the remaining to the Department of Defense for overhead and other items.

Thus a long series of Riots will force more money to the Army (and the Marines) at the Expense of the Air Force and Navy. This will also happen if the US has to fight a long Guerrillas war in Iraq and the rest of the Middle east. While at first this will be to the Army's (and Marines's) advantage, the fact that the Army has been trouble recruiting will restrict how much money will go to the Army. If you have co-current riots in the US, the Army will have to stop recruiting Blacks (and maybe even Hispanics) leaving only the Rural and Urban poor White population as its recruiting pool. As the Urban White Population begins to hate the Was, that leaves the Rural Whites and once that pool is lost, the Army has no one to Recruit.

At that point Congress will have to make a Choice, a Draft or reduction in size of the Army. A draft will give the Army the men it needs but of a group OPPOSES to its mission in Iraq. Bush will NOT want such an army for sooner or later it will reflect the will of the People instead of the Will of the Right Wing (Universal Military Service armies tend to do this and this percolates up to the Officer corp for its is better to serve as an officer than an enlisted). The only way to keep a far Right Officer Corp with a Draftee Military is to reduce the power of the Enlisted Ranks, if that is done all you have Officers have to do everything and you get a very poor army like most of the Arab armies which tend to this later Solution. Such Armies are regular defeated by smaller volunteer Armies and true Universal Military Armies when they fight. What Bush will need is A Universal Military Service Army which will empower its enlisted and leave them fight the war, but such an Army reflects the people it is drawn from and thus is NOT compatible with a Dictatorship. Now a dragooned draftee army is Compatible with a Dictatorship but by making sure it has complete control over its enlisted ranks. The problem with this type of army is it lack enthusiasm for fighting, the enlisted are just going through the motions because they have to NOT because they want to.

Bush will want a Universal Service Army, but end up with a dragooned draftee Army. The later is as useless as the Former is effective. The other option is just reduce the size of the Army to one he can get recruits for and restrict operation to that size army. The problem is Bush's ambitions is beyond the capability of today's Volunteer Army. We can NOT get the needed recruits. In a Universal Service Army, the people and the Army are one and the Same, thus can not be used in a war the people oppose (For example what happened to the US Army in Vietnam, where the closest thing to a Universal Service Army the US has ever fielded did well until the Country turned against the War, at which point the army self-destructed). The Vietnam Army was replaced by Today's Volunteer Army, but the Volunteer Army only work if the number of wars were kept to a Minimal, of Short Duration and Minimal US Loses. Once you lost all three of those, the US Army started its slow decline (Which it is still in the middle of).

I go into the above to give a backbone on the US Army and its Ability to resist a Tyrant. The US Army is a volunteer Army with its Officer corp far to the Right of the US Public. Its Enlisted ranks do retain power but as the quality of the Recruits continue to Decline, more and more jobs within the Military will have to be done by Officers. I just do NOT see the US Army Officer Corp opposing Bush in anything he does. On the other hand I do see the enlisting Rank opposing Bush BUT THE OFFICERS WILL NOT PERMIT THEM TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. To fulfill its mission the US Army will switch to a Dragooned Draftee Army for it will want and need the men to fight, but will NOT trust them. This will make the Army even less likely to fight Bush.

On the other hand as the US Army switch to a Dragooned Draftee Army, its effectiveness will decline. The Army will try to keep the NCO Corp loyal, but the NCO Corp will slowly deteriorate for it is drawn from the pool of people willing to enlist in such an army and will reflect that poor level of troops. Sooner or later the Army will decline so much that the Enlisted ranks ineffectiveness will make the whole Army ineffective and thus NOT capable of opposing any other group that wants Bush overthrown. At that point Bush and Company will be kicked out of Power (and some of the enlisted may join the people in overthrowing Bush like some Units did in the French and Russian Revolution.

The key is to keep the pressure on Bush so he has to maintain a Military to protect himself from being overthrown and watch that Military decline do to the lack of Support for Bush among the Enlisted ranks (Both Volute er and Drafted). Now Bush will say he wants a Universal Service Army, but will NOT be able to motivate the troops so it will be nothing but a Dragooned Draftee Army.

My point is when the Army becomes ineffective after a few years of Fighting wars the People do not want fought then Bush will be kicked out by the People. This may take years but the opposition has to be kept up so that the Army has to be kept by Bush and the problem has to be big enough that Bush has to draft to fill in the Army to protect himself from the People. That is the kiss of death for Dictators and will be for Bush or anyone else who makes himself a Dictator without the support of the majority of the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jose Diablo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #36
53. Recruit foreign nationals with promise of citizenship
there will be no lack of mercenaries from central and south america that would function to maintain riot control here, domestically.

In an empire, the soldiers used to suppress dissent never come from the same provence. That is, in the middle east, the soldiers would be American. In the USA the soldiers would be from central or south America or even the middle east.

The point is, in a empire, there are any number places to obtain soldiers. When the time comes, if it comes, there are always soldiers to provide the muscle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-09-06 02:41 AM
Response to Reply #53
56. Yes, but does NOT solve the problem of the TYPE of Army.
The most effective Army is an Army that is Motivated. In a mercenary army that is pay with minimal possibility of suffering injury. Once you have either, that army is gone (and most people will NOT enlist in an army fighting a cause they do NOT believe in if the possibility of injury is high).

A foreign mercenary Army will only work if the recruits fell they will suffer less injuries if they join the Military than if they stay out of the Military. Once you show that is NOT true, enlistments tend to drop like a rock (For example what is happening to the US Army do to Iraq). Even people in Central America (Where most immigrants are coming from) will not enlist do to high losses. Furthermore the immigrants who would enlist do not speak English which mean the US Army will have to change its fighting doctrine to the one used in the Middle East (i.e. Enlisted personnel have no say and rigidly controlled). To control the Enlisted ranks, independent thought by the NCO corp will have to be curtailed and with it the ability of the Army to do its job. The problem with that type of Army is it tends to break up when it runs across an army that is Motivated. The best armies give the maximum amount of authority as far down the chain of command as it can, with un underpaid unmotivated Army you can NOT do that, thus the Army loses flexibility.

When Rome conquered the World it took over 300 years. Rome refused to stay in any provence that fought a long term guerrilla war with Rome. Rome pulled out and then started to undermine the Resistance by giving the local rulers Roman Citizenship and giving even the peasants rights within the Empire. Thus the people who opposed Rome was denied leadership and that with the use of non-local troops to suppress the Natives kept Rome on top from the Time of the First Punic War till the near collapse in the Third Century AD. Afterward the Roman Empire ceased to be an Empire and started to refer to itself as the "Country of Rome" i.e "Romania". By this time almost everyone in the Empire thought of themselves as Romans and Romania was their Country. This Collapsed during the Fifth Century (only in the West) when Rome ran out of Money to pay the Troops and then started to use Barbarian mercenaries to maintain controlled. From 450 AD onward these Barbarians started to rule the Western portion of the Empire but people in the West still considered themselves Romans (and in many aspects would still call themselves Romans till the Crowning of Charlemagne as Emperor of the Germans in 800 AD (and one of the reasons the Roman Catholic Church stayed so powerful till the rise of the Nation State in the late 1700s was it was viewed as the continuance of the Roman Republic in the West and people wanted to be a member of this LARGER Multi-State organization more than they wanted to be Citizens of their own Country).

I go into the above for to look at the Roman Empire as an Empire you have to look at the period between the First Punic War till the near collapse of the Roman Empire in the mid 200s AD. Afterward it is NOT an Empire but a Country with three equal and balanced parts, The Latin West (About 40% of the Country), the Greek speaking area of the Balkans, Modern Greece and Turkey (About 30% of the Country) and the Proto-Arab speakers of Syria, Palestine and Egypt (another 30% of the Country). These three balanced each other from the mid-200s till the Lombard Invasion of 570 AD. The Latin West was weaken by the Abolishment of the Western Emperorship in 476 AD, but was still part of the Romania long after that event. Justinian's Wars to retake the West help bring divisions between the Latin West and the Greek East, but you had unity of thought till the Lombard's invaded Northern Italy in 570 and made everything North of Rome Non-Roman Territory and for all practical purposes separated the Latin West from the Rest of Romania. Without the Latin West to balance the Greek and Arab Speaking parts of Romania these two areas fought within the Empire for control of the Empire until the Arab Conquest of the early 620-650 which finally separated the Greek Speaking part of the Romania from the Arab Speaking part. The Eastern Roman Empire would still call itself the Roman Republic till 1453 (When the Turks took Constantinople) but after 650 it was a Greek Country and acted as a Greek Country NOT as an Empire.

Except for Rome, no Empire has survived more than 150 years (And you can see from above this may even be true for the Roman Empire). The First British Empire died At Yorktown in 1783. Britain did save parts of its Empire and expanded its control of India but this Second British Empire ended in 1947 with Indian Independence. The Mongol Empire lasted no more than 150 years before it broke up into the Mongol Hordes of the late Middle Ages. The Russian Empire, while called an Empire, was more the Country of Russia expanding Eastward till the mid 1800s when Russia expanded into the area now consisting of the Central Asia Republics between Iran and Modern Russia. Russia barely held onto them for 150 years (and lost Central Europe after only 45 years of occupation). The Manchu Empire of China did last from about 1600 to almost 1900, but unlike the Earlier Mongols who occupied parts of the empire with troops from other parts of the Empire, The Manchus keep all local forces local, in effect the Manchu Empire was less an Empire and more just China reaching to its outermost limits.

The reason for this limit is that an Empire expands till the costs to expand exceeds the benefit of expanding. One of the cost of an Empire is that the Army, if it is on the Frontier, can NOT be near the capital where the levers of power of the Empire is. At the same time if the Army is near the Capital, it can not defend the Frontiers. The politicians in charge of the Army wants it near them, and wants it near the Capital. Thus sooner or later the Army is to far away from either the levels of government OR the Frontier and the Empire starts to Collapse. This gets worse as the original generation dies out and the Second and third generations takes over. These cousins tend to fight among themselves for their part of the Empire as the Empire as a whole collapse around them.

Example of the later is the infighting among the Mongols Hordes as the Mongol Empire Fell, the infighting among the Russian leadership as Russia collapsed during WWI, and the infighting among the Arabs as their Empire Collapsed after 750 AD (and even the lost of Egypt around 640 AD by the Eastern Roman Empire do to the continuing infighting between the Egyptian elites and the Greek elites of the Roman Empire of that time period). You can add to this the Austria Empire that lasted from roughly 1690 (when Austria took Hungary from Turkey) to 1867 when Austria became the Austria-Hungary Empire (which collapse in 1918).

As to the other extreme, i.e. can not longer hold the frontiers of the Empire, you have the lost of India to the British after World War II (Britain was no longer strong enough to keep India in the British Empire), The lost of the US to Britain in 1783 do to British Weakness, and more modern example is the collapse of the Soviet Empire in the last 1980s do to Weakness of Moscow. Even the lost the Western Roman Empire can be seen as this type of collapse of an Empire (through as stated about Rome is complicated by the fact at its collapse the vast majority of its Citizens viewed themselves as "Romans" as opposed to a nationality of the part of the Empire they were living in). The Austria Empire collapse in 1918 seems to follow this pattern, after dealing with the political collapse that lead to the Austria-Hungary Empire of 1867-1918.

I go into the above for Empire do try Foreign Mercenaries as they are collapsing but these do NOT last long for the reason for the Collapse is the lost of control of the Empire. Once lost the ability to PAY the mercenaries disappears, mercenaries disappear. In the late Western Roman Empire, the Western Empire tried to use Foreign Mercenaries, but when they ran out of money the mercenaries wanted land and when the Empire refused to give them land, the Barbarians just abolished the Empire and the Empire could not do anything about it for it had no money. The same will happen to the US, any attempt to use Foreign Mercenaries will be short lived. Such Mercenaries have NO interest in the long term health of the US they will want paid and get their Citizenship AND SUFFER NO INJURIES. Once the injuries start the Mercenaries will STOP enlisting and you can NOT draft foreigners. If the Government tries to Draft Citizens the government will have to motivate them. The only Motivation will be an improved future which the present economy can NOT provide. Thus the army will NOT be a universal Military Service Army that is Motivated to protect the US, but a Dragooned Draftee Army whose only Motivation is NOT to get injured. Those are lousy troops.

Remember the assumption in this Thread is a Military Dictatorship to keep the present leadership in charge. Sooner or later the fact that the Median Income (the point where 1/2 of the population earns less than and 1/2 earns more) has FALLEN since 2001 has to be addressed. The only solution will be to increase taxes on those people who can afford to pay the Taxes (i.e. the Rich) but the Rich do NOT want to pay the Taxes, but what the Government to protect them. These taxes will pay the Salaries of the Troops needed to keep the elites in power. This will mean additional revenue to the working class. The problem for the GOP is they do NOT want to raise the taxes on the people who can pay the taxes but raise the money elsewhere. Such taxes will just make the problem of the working class worse which will lead to the need for more troops which means more taxes. Unless someone decides to tax the rich, the system is doomed. In many ways the fall of the Roman Empire in the West followed this basic Outline, the Rich refused to pay Taxes to pay the troops, with no troops Rome opt to use German with the promise of land, the Germans took the land and then realized they had all the real power for they controlled the arms and slowly replaced the old Roman Elites with themselves AND paid off the peasants by giving them land. The Roman Peasants liked being given land and thus supported the Germans over their own Roman elites when Justinian tried to retake the Western Empire in the early 500s. Justinian bankrupted his Eastern Empire to retake Tunisian and Italy and so weaken his country that by 640 the Eastern Empire not only lost Italy and North Africa but also Syria and Egypt. The Eastern Empire just ran out of money and had to drop the old Roman Mercenary Army and replaced it with an Army raised within the Empire upon the promise they will get land at the end of their enlistment (which required taking land away from the old Roman Elites). The Eastern Empire could only do this in Greece for unlike both Egypt and the Western Empire Greece was still small farmers. The rest of the old Roman Empire was large estates owned by the Roman Elites who did not want their land taxed nor their peasants drafted into the army. This was another reason the Eastern Empire survived the Fall of both the Western Empire and Egypt.

In many ways how the Roman Empire Fell shows the problem facing the US. The Roman Empire Survived in the only part of the Empire that did not have most of its wealth controlled by a small elite. The Empire could raise taxes and troops in the area where the Roman Elite had the least controlled. In areas where the Old Roman Elite still controlled the land, reform was impossible and things went from bad to worse. It is only with the adoption of proper feudalism (and the Concept that you owned DUTIES to people below you) in the 900s that Western Europe was able to start to Expand. The old Roman elites were told by the Holy Roman Emperors (and than the Kings of France and England) that if you did NOT protect their peasants from the raiding Viking and Magyars, the Emperor would replace them with someone who could. The Old Roman Elites could not and their were replaced (and some times by the people doing the Raiding such as the Normans in Normandy, England and Southern Italy). While true land ownership was NOT returned to the Peasants under Feudalism, the Peasants were given under Feudalism rights to the land. The "Owners" of the land became the barons and Counts of the time period. They had certain rights from the peasants (i.e. not only part of the peasant's crop but military duties from the peasants) but this was given in exchange that the Baron or Count would fight off anyone invading the area of his control. Areas of Europe that adopted Feudalism quickly saw the end of raids by the Northmen, Magyars and their Neighbors. The Barons and Counts knew if they did not stop such raids, they would be replaced by someone that could. The Barons and Counts to be able to do their job needed the support of the peasants, so they gave the peasants rights, rights and power most of them had not had since pre-Roman Times. Today the modern equivalent would be to increase taxes on the Rich while reducing the taxes on the poor AND demanding that the Rich recognize the rights of the working class in the product of their work. This is what the US needs to do to solve its present problem, but instead it wants to protect the wealthy who has the most influence over the Government. Like the Roman Empire sooner or later this reform will occur, but like the Roman empire it may take 500 years to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jose Diablo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-09-06 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #56
62. I was thinking more of the Chinese model of empire
Edited on Sun Apr-09-06 03:09 PM by Jose Diablo
Not the Roman model. The Roman model has many 'outsiders' raiding the empire, the Chinese is a more closed system.

Although the Chinese had raiders, the mongols and the Japanese, by and large it was somewhat isolated and it's empire encompassed the 'whole' world as they knew it. Everything was 'internal' to the empire. As long as the empire had the whole world, the military was actually a 'police', used to maintain internal stability. Each of the military units was composed of members from different province. Each of the provincial generals families were held by the imperial class in splendor, but hostages nonetheless thus keeping the generals in line. This was my point, that subjugation of people is more effective if the subjugators are not recruited from within the province.

In this model of shall we call it the American empire, each country becomes a province or state if you will that is policed by 'outsiders' to that province, avoiding the "Sir, no sir" problems these guys encountered in Vietnam with the civilian army.

What to do? Our military should be draftees composed of mostly civilians, and the military denied the use of pro's or mercenaries. The military should not be allowed to become an internal police force by law and that law strictly enforced by the civilian police. The federal police should be investigative only and all weapons they may posses be confiscated. Edgar, may you rot in hell. If they need to use force, then they must go to the local/state police to apply that force.

In this way, the politicians and powerful should be held hostage to the people and the laws the people force on the government agents. In this way, the people have the most freedom.

Edit:BTW, excellent write-up on the history and workings of the Roman empire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-09-06 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. Watch the time period, HOW a county is ruled changes over time.
The Mongols when they ruled China (1279-1368 AD) did have troops raised in one area, guard another, the Manchu (Who ruled China from 1644 to 1911 AD) did the opposite (i.e. troops were raised and used in the same area). The reflected the fact the Manchus were more Chinese than the Mongols had been (Through NOT as Chinese as the intervening Ming Dynasty, 1368-1644 AD).

More on the Manchus:
http://www.ksafe.com/profiles/p_code/383.html
http://www.uglychinese.org/manchu.htm
http://www.britishbornchinese.org.uk/pages/culture/history/manchu.html

History of China:
http://www.britishbornchinese.org.uk/pages/culture/history/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 12:42 AM
Response to Original message
37. See Kent State for previous efforts.
The military "save us"? You've got to be kidding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChristianLibrul Donating Member (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 12:57 AM
Response to Original message
39. Brainwashed GIs
Most in the military hate libruls and the media. Most watch only FAUXNEWZ and listen only to Der Ruschkopf. We wouldn't stand a chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w8liftinglady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #39
46. not my son's unit
according to him,they HATE *.None are re-enlisting.they aren't as easily manipulated as you may think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rocknrule Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #39
51. "Der Ruschkopf" love it!
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
45. Hahhahaah... oh my, no
With people like the "my god is bigger than your god" guy, and the 90% of military personel who believe Iraq was behind 9/11... They'd follow Commander Cookoobananas straight into hell.

We'd be SOL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
47. they are too cowardly to defend the constitution
That's why they've not defended it from bush
when he crossed obvious constitutional controls.
They are incompetent to their sworn purpose,
what good is an army like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
48. A military coup? You're WISHING for a military coup?
Go re-read Julius Caesar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
50. I bet this guy would be all for the idea
http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2006/04/01/news/state/40-supremacist-leg.txt

Candidate has ties to white supremacist group

BUTTE - The only Republican running for the state Legislature here has ties to a white supremacist group.

Shawn Stuart, 24, told The Montana Standard on Friday he is Montana's contact point for the National Socialist Movement, a group that describes itself as "America's Nazi Party" on its Web site. Stewart is running for Butte's House District 76, along with Democrats Kevin Lowney and incumbent Jon Sesso. snip

A Bozeman native, Stuart said he believes his views align with the Republican Party. He joined the Marine Corps after graduating high school and served two combat tours in Iraq in 2003 and 2004, attaining the rank of corporal. snip

He initially denied knowing anything about the National Socialist Movement, based in Minneapolis, but later admitted his affiliation to The Standard, saying he had to talk with his superiors before confirming it.

John Edye, head of Butte's Republican central committee, had no comment Friday when told of Stuart's affiliation. Earlier in the week, he said the committee was "familiar with him" but had not endorsed Stuart or recruited him to run.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
52. They would have to fight Blackwater and Titan
and CACI ("for those in the know" - thanks Randi)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SPKrazy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
54. Yes, There Are Plans In Place
Don't ask me about them though.

Let's just say,

the eagle is ready to leave the nest
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-10-06 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #54
65. I hope you're right.
Tell us. What's the plan?

I just hope they give THE PEOPLE their country back!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprehensor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
55. Once established...
Edited on Sat Apr-08-06 10:46 PM by reprehensor
...why would a military Junta bother ever holding another election in this country again? Who's gonna "make them"?

The fake ones we've been having are bad enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-09-06 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
60. Look to the Wehrmacht of the 1930s for your answer
Oh, some may have compunctions, but they'll keep them to themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-10-06 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #60
67. That is a Complex answer
For the common member of the German Wehrmacht supported Hitler (and Hitler made sure the Troops were given daily propaganda messages to keep them loyal) the Officer Corp was split. Most of the Officer Corp liked that fact Hitler wanted to build up the Army and thus supported Hitler, but the group most concerned with MILITARY POLICY saw nothing but disaster where Hitler was taking Germany. Thus it was this group that lead the attempts to overthrow Hitler in the late 1930s (But ended all attempts with Hitler Victories over Poland and France for "you can NOT overthrow a hero"). The planning re-started with the disaster of the Russian Campaign (Which lead to the July 20, 1944 Plot).

Mote the common soldier was NOT the issue int he above, nor are we talking about company or field grade officers (almost all of whom stayed loyal to Hitler) but the General Staff. The reason for this is the General Staff KNEW where the war was going, even as Hitler said otherwise. Thus something had to give and they knew it.

Now why did the General Staff think about overthrowing Hitler? While the German military had a strange setup, to be a General you had to be a Colonel of the Regiment. You could not be a Colonel of the Regiment if the majority of the Commissioned Officers of that Regiment Opposed you. Thus all General Officers kept close tabs with their Regiments. During WWI this lead the German General Staff to support replacing the Kaiser with a Republic, the lower ranked officers were telling their Generals how bad the situation was and that the men were about ready to just give up.

Given Hitler's superior propaganda program, the German Soldier of WWII was NOT ready to give up in 1944, but the General Staff knew something had to be done. Thus the attempted coup of July 20th, 1944, which failed do to the fact the Officer corp were still backing Hitler even as the General Staff wanted him gone (and the enlisted men were still backing Hitler in this time period thus unlike 1918, no one wanted a change in leadership).

This is the same situation we have today, the common soldier in Iraq is slowly accepting the fact we are done. The General Staff also knows we are done, but the Officer Corp still want to "win" this war, thus no coup.

A military coup can only occur when all three (The Enlisted, Company/Field Grade Officers and General Officers) agree to a coup. This is easier in a Mercenary Army for all three main concern is pay. In Universal Military Service (UMS) army you have a large group of Soldier who ARE not concern with pay AND THIS Percolates up through the Officer corp (if you have a choice would you prefer to serve your UMS time as an enlisted or an officer?). Thus it is hard for a UMS (Like the WWII German Wehrmacht) to do a coup against its leadership. The only time it does so is when the people are also in revolt (as in October 1918 Germany, which did NOT occur in Germany in 1944-1945).

My point here is the US Military will NOT support a coup against Bush and company even if Bush and Company dissolved Congress and the Constitution. It may even protect the Commander-in-chief (Bush) against a popular revolt but for how long I do not know. Sooner or later the Army has to make a choice the People or Bush. If it opts for Bush the Enlisted rank will desert (or at least not reenlist) causing a huge troops shortage. A dragooned Draftee army may be attempted but as I said in other responses in this thread, such Dragooned Draftee Armies tend to have an inability to fight. The best choice for the Military would be to be neutral or if it has to do anything back the people but also the Military will NOT do a coup against the Government, it just can not and still be the US Military which at least on paper is the Military of the PEOPLE of the United States.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jan 26th 2022, 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC