Political Fail Blog: The Pentagon to add 20,000 troops to US streets in the event of Civil unrest All those guys are going to be shooting are the looters (i.e., their paid-for, shipped in, voting base).
According to RT News (Russian TV News). They quote the "Pentagon". Anyone have a reference from the Pentagon? Was this publicly announced or did Russian News have an interview (doubt it)? If you google it: 20,000 troops for civil unrest pentagon - Google Search All you find is reference to the same RT report. I would consider the source. The US does have one BCT (~4,000 troops) always on call for Civil Support emergencies in CONUS. There are many rules for CS Operations which I have mentioned in similar posts. I'll give you the biggie- there is only one Emergency Support Function that DOD can take lead on. It's public works through USACE. DOD could never lead law enforcement CONUS. They would always support a civilian agency. Law enforcement isn't even one of the 3 biggies that Federal troops provide in such an emergency- they are logistics, communications, and manpower (think filling sandbags, not stomping teeth). We get these sort of rumors from time to time. Most the time, they make no sense at all. Like "Obama calls up 500,000 US Troops for Civil Insurrection". That is literally every single Active Duty person in the Army. Uh... wouldn't you think someone would notice that? This one isn't as ludicrous. But kind of. For instance "20,000 troops bound for Afghanistan or Iraq". I think this is the base for growing the theory. That could be true. For instance a BCT is about 4,000. Over the next couple years we probably will curtail 20,000 from AFG. All you have to do from there is throw in a hint that they won't be deploying and its for "civil unrest" (which is a partial truth from my comment ^- one of those BCTs might be on CS duty during that time). Now you have something real to report. Motive? Does a Russian satellite TV channel gain anything from spreading rumor about the possible collapse of the US? Russian owned and operated. That is for you to decide.
Well they did it back during the Civil War and the Bonus Marchers were run over by Army ,so yeah it can happen again . In both of these the people were just asking to be heard . So are we next,probable .
Exactly. Link for those who don't know about the Bonus Marchers (if you have read Unintended Consequences, you already know about this). Bonus Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia President Herbert Hoover then ordered the army to clear the veterans' campsite. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded the infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks.
somebody check northcom and see if anything is there. i know there was a agreement signed 2-3 years ago between the U.S. and Canada allowing each nations military to inntervene in the other's country due to internal emergencies......
Arraigned for crimes of mass inanity??? Consider the source of the article....Political Fail Blog....and look at their manifestos...and you might wish to evaluate the claims with a healthy degree of skepticism....though the site is not completely bereft of good ideas.... I'd dearly like to see prisoner #03202003 and his cronies arraigned before an international warcrimes tribunal for crimes against common sense and sanity. Political Fail Blog: George W Bush should be prosecuted over torture, says human rights group
If the Government shutdown/collapse causes civil unrest, then that is assuming that the Government has no $$ to pay its federal employees either. The troops are paid by federal money, and if there is no federal money to pay them with, why in God's green earth would they want to go to work for free just to disrupt a nation of citizens that are fed up with the federal government wanting more of your and my tax dollars so they can spend it all on BS?
I too think the article/link is bogus and propaganda. However, the reason I posted it was to get you thinking about civil unrest and the govt's response. I don't think that if the debt ceiling isn't raised the govt will stop paying the military in some form. Yes, they will stop mailing SS cheques and stop funding Medicaid/Medicare and furlough non-essential personnel. But, don't think they don't have "money" to continue paying for certain things. When that day hits, to think that govt. paid employees in the military will just "go home" is a little naive. Some will go AWOL--sure, but others won't. They will probably have a secure place to stay, food, and weapons. In return for this security, they will do their master's bidding. On to him: he has shown over and over again his disdain for rules and the Constitution. What's to stop him from declaring martial law and confiscating XYZ for redistribution. Yeah, I may sound like a kook, but this guy is an unknown variable...you don't know how he's going to respond because he doesn't have a past.
If I remember right, and well I may not, the Articles of Enlistment promise one meal a day and one hour's rest, no more, to go with training and pay. The Articles are nothing more than an agreement to indentured servitude, the only place in US law where that is sanctioned. Moreover, if the soldier refuses to carry out his orders, it can be construed as mutiny if he stays in place, and is desertion if he leaves. Either way, WHEN, not if, charges are brought, he goes down; jury nullification can't happen at a Courts Martial even tho' the members have a lot of leeway. (Even in Leavenworth, he gets one and one minimum to go with making little ones of big ones.) Even so, zero is an unknown, but many of his sycophants are known well. It isn't beyond thinking that he might try to wiggle around the Posse Comitatus Act and put the military on the streets with law enforcement power. Dunno exactly how Petraeus or McMillan (or their successors) would respond, but I've a notion that they take their oaths of office a bit more seriously than zero does. I still think the article is a bogus misrepresentation of reality.
Agreed ! They would be with their families if things were that bad. Everybody seems to forget that they have loved ones at home and just think they will shut out the fact that they are in trouble as well.
Yeah, but I remember being told that if I needed a family, it would have been issued with my seabag. (Case was, even then, overstated for emphasis.) You are not now, nor then, your own man when in the service, and you can't be until relieved by discharge.
Well I guess it depends on the man. I took my punishment back in 1971 when ordered to go to the Capital and stand in front of other vets that wanted no more than to voice their opinion. I got out that year with an Honorable Discharge.