This is pretty intresting!

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by Sapper John, Oct 13, 2012.

  1. Sapper John

    Sapper John Analog Monkey in a Digital World

  2. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    OMG! OMG! OMG! Tea party terrorists are on the US army kill list!!!!.........I read it in an internet it must be true!!!

    I checked out the coachisright website, and at first glance the article seems alarming....which I guess may have been the intention of the blogger. What the blogger doesn't make explicit in his polemic is that the article in which the "Tea party terrorist" scenario was floated was published in a not-for-profit publication called "Small Wars Journal" and is not endorsed as reflecting US Army or Department of Defence policy.

    what is the Small Wars Journal?

    You may wish to read the actual article which has caused right wing bloggers to get their collective knickers in a knot, and come
    to your own conclusions.“vision”-of-the-future

    As to the retired colonel half of the Small Wars Journal article writing team, Kevin Benson; the bio at the bottom of the article clearly indicates that the views expressed in the article are the author's own opinions

    The Small Wars Journal article posits a hypothetical scenario and then uses it as a means of examining the legal and operational doctrines that may affect the resolution of such a scenario. Where the authors have apparently made a tactless (or perhaps a tactical)error, is in identifying the revolting entity as a "Tea Party" group. Had the authors described the imaginary revolutionaries as Neo Black Panthers, Acornists, The GLBT Rebel Alliance, or the Justin Beiber World Dominationist Party, I wonder whether the faux outrage coming from the political right would be as full of spittle?

    The Australian Army uses a 'notional" opponent for the purposes of teaching tactical doctrine, and for framing training exercises. It would be very impolitic to use the name of any actual sovereign nation for that purpose, even though in all probability, the contest for Australian sovereignty is likely to be with a populous country to Australia's North. So, to get around the probable diplomatic embarrassment that using actual names of countries would entail, a fictional nation with a fictional name is used (also coincidentally to Australia's North, at least most of the time). The authors of the Small Wars Journal article could have saved right wing / conservative bloggers a lot of angst and faux outrage by doing the same.

    Given that this is a US presidential election year, why would the right wing blogocracy pass up the opportunity of painting Obama's administration to speak, even with such a rather lame wet noodle as the confected Tea Party terrorist controversy?

    I think it healthy that the issue of how a nation might deal with internal insurrection be aired in the open arena of public discussion. God knows, historically, some of the US military's earlier efforts at dealing with internal public disorder have not been stellar.

    The following journal article is worth looking at in conjunction with the Small Wars Journal Article quoted above.
    oldawg, tulianr and Brokor like this.
  3. Seawolf1090

    Seawolf1090 Retired Curmudgeonly IT Monkey Founding Member

    Definitely of great concern to anyone who believes in the principles this nation was founded upon. As I have said before, the single greatest TERRORIST THREAT to this nation is the current resident of The White House and his minions in government.
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary