Got a good deal of animated reaction to this post, including this anonymous comment earlier today:"I can tell you that no one in the .mil (current or former) -- no one -- with whom I have discussed this topic believes that there won't be a significant number of Oath Breakers.
Those same folks assured me that there will be a significant number of Oath Keepers as well."
Yep, there will be both.
Problem is, the article you posted does not recognize that reality. He paints a picture of ALL military ALWAYS gunning us down no matter what we do.
"Until such time, it behooves everyone to be realistic and open-minded about what the future will bring."
Exactly why you should just write up your own REALISTIC balanced analysis, like you just did, rather than posting an unrealistic, innacurate, totally defeatist article by an author who has an incentive to be "controversial" to drum up book sales.
We trust you. We don't necessarily trust monkey man author.
January 5, 2010 7:21 PM
Anonymous said...
Or at least post your own analysis right below the article providing the balance this subject deserves. Nothing is ever so black and white as Monkey Starver makes it out to be.
Here's my take, in several parts:
1) I am not .mil, neither former or current. I am therefore pretty darned ignorant of military culture, be it enlisted, NCO, or officer.
2) I yield to no one in my admiration, respect, and support of Oath Keepers, its members, and its mission. Its function as an educational organization in the pre-conflict environment is indispensable, and its C4I (command, control, communications, computers and intelligence) interruption function once certain unconstitutional orders are given may well be decisive, if there are enough actual Oath Keepers come the issuance of those orders.
Therefore, if you want freedom to have the best chance, help spread the Oath Keepers message and support its mission.
3) Now, using the same generic "oath breakers (OB)" and "oath keepers (OK)" nomenclature from the comment string above, it is reasonable, I believe, to assume that there will be a very large (>50%) percentage of Constitutionally-sworn non-military personnel (legislators, executive branch leaders, lawyers, judges, and law enforcement officers) at the Federal, state, and local levels who will continue to violate the Constitution. These OBs are responsible for, among other things, the unconstitutional bankster-bailout of the 2008 TARP plan, the federalization of GM and Chrysler, the 2009 stimulus I program, and the upcoming nationalization of health care. Once the legislative OBs enact each of these violations of the Federal government's basic charter, executive branch OBs sign the bills into law and then enforce those laws, while their oath-breaking comrades in the judicial branch affirm each law's alleged "constitutionality". Ditto for the FedGov's analogues at the state/local/tribal levels.
In addition to their role as Constitutional violators via impermissible legislation, these same Congressional OBs control the budgets of all branches of the military via the House and Senate armed services committees. At the state and local levels, legislative OBs fund the budget of local law enforcement/oath-breaking agencies.
4) That same Congressional purse power also affects the oath-keeping probability of every department in the Federal bureaucracy, as well as much of state and local government activity. Look around your home jurisdiction and ask yourself honestly how many government functionaries -- at the Federal, state, local, and tribal levels -- are ready, willing, and able to behave in accordance with the Constitution's limitations, as written, on legitimate government activity.
Be honest with yourself -- is it 20%? 10%? Less? More?
And if you say more, be prepared to give supporting hard data in chapter and verse, because I am calling Bravo-Sierra in advance on any such claim.
5) Now, does the fact that the corrupt Congress and the corrupt state legislatures have a massive proportion of our nation -- including the military -- by the financial short hairs mean that all is lost, even given that Congress is in the thrall of their party comrade, the socialist Comrade Soetero?
No, not at all. But it does mean that we have one hell of a problem, regardless of the clothes and insignia worn by each of us.
I have never said, nor would I ever say, that every law enforcement officer and every prosecuting lawyer is an oath breaker. But, based on my law enforcement experience in metropolitan New York, I am willing to bet that 50% or more will act unconstitutionally against their fellow citizens come the Crunch.
They are doing so today across the country in Federal investigations and prosecutions, as are their state and local peers in New York, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey, and elsewhere. Why would any of these law-and-order mooks change as the ratchet tightens and their government-pensioned jobs become even more secure?
That is one hell of a problem.
Conceding again my ignorance of American military culture, I too would never say that all -- or even most -- currently-serving military personnel will follow unconstitutional orders. Given what it takes to join and stay in the military, that actual ratio of OK to OB may go as high, as some have claimed, as 80/20.
But ask yourself these questions as you ponder the OK/OB ratio:
-- How many Navy ships will remain under civilian command once unconstitutional orders are given?
-- How many fixed-wing Air Force aircraft will remain under civilian command under those conditions?
-- How many rotary Army aircraft?
-- How much armor?
-- How much artillery, both smooth-bored and rifled?
-- How much of the nation's CBRN (chemical/biological/radiological/nuclear) arsenal?
-- How many support, communications, medical, and intelligence assets?
-- How many individual and how many crew-served automatic weapons?
-- How much ammunition?
-- How much food?
-- How much other logistics?
-- How many personnel?
In other words, assuming bad things happen and illegal orders are given, what amount of force will be able to be projected by the Bad People against the side of freedom?
I submit that the honest answers to those questions pose one hell of a problem, even if the OK/OB ratio is 80/20.
Once again, I am not suggesting any freedom advocate roll over onto his back, wet himself, and quiver. What I am suggesting is that people begin to wrap their brains around the actual size of the problems that we confront.
That was the rationale behind posting the "Colonels" essay. Can anyone, specifically and in detail, refute Baugh's premise that current military education at all levels does not adequately address the Constitutional issues to be faced by today's soldiers/Marines/airmen/sailors?
If so, I would be more than happy to publish that rebuttal.
It is a classic strategic planning error to simply dismiss contingencies that are unpleasant or difficult to counter, and I fear that many patriots are falling into the same trap. In my not-so-humble opinion, the worst possible thing that the FreeFor could do is to assume that major elements of the .mil will not support the executive branch that commands it and the legislative branch that funds it. Notwithstanding the stellar character of all of the .mil folks that each of us know, we simply will not know which way the armed services -- by branch and as a whole -- will jump until the event itself.
Will individual soldiers/Marines/airmen/sailors defy illegal orders?
You bet.
Will many, from all ranks, resign or desert?
You bet. A whole lot.
Will others "strike in place" or sabotage illegal actions by the chain of command?
And how.
Will senior officers relieve subordinates and keep doing so until they find someone who will execute illegal orders?
Bet on it.
Will there be enlisted personnel, NCOs, and officers who place job security and advancement over fidelity to the Constitutional oath?
Sadly, yes.
And absent a lot more effective education to today's serving military and police on the topics of duty, obedience, and freedom, that fact is not going to change.
Please understand -- this is neither a theoretical nor a future consideration.
Unconstitutional legislation has been passed by this and prior Congresses, and signed into law by both the current and former Presidents. Unconstitutional executive orders have also been signed by this and former Presidents.
All of these unconstitutional laws and orders remain on the books today, administered and enforced by the executive branch, which also commands the armed forces.
More unconstitutional legislation and executive orders will be forthcoming in the near future.
Those laws and orders will also be enforced by agents of the executive branch and approved by the judicial branch.
To date, American citizens both in uniform and in mufti have done little or nothing but talk in opposition to this continuing treachery.
Why wouldn't Leviathan continue on the same course and speed?
Why indeed?
Ask Michael New.
Leviathan ruined him over a powder-blue hat.
What do you think Leviathan's minions will do in the near future to a young enlisted man who refuses to stand a post at an "anti-terrorist" roadblock in rural Georgia?
UPDATE 5 JANUARY 2010 2327 EST: Go immediately and read Vanderboegh's essay in response to Baugh's article, which features commentary by another service academy graduate and career officer.
A very good and fair assessment of where we are.
ReplyDeleteIt truly is time for everyone to look at the cold hard facts and put their egos in their back pockets.
The next move is really up to the fedgov.
The novel, Seven Days in May
ReplyDeleteA solid analysis, thanks. My takeaways are to assume nothing and move with caution. Uncertainty cuts both ways. Oath Keepers need all possible support.
ReplyDeleteTheir move. Do the feds call, fold, or raise? The latter may be more likely now in light of the Interpol announcement. Rather than screw around, when the hammer drops the post-American president pulls in elite brigades of UN 'peacekeepers' from the likes of Chavez, Castro, Putin, and (to protect their interests if this does unfold) the Chinese. To get to this point of course they need to work out objectives, priorities, logistics, and chain of command quietly in advance.
Tinfoil? Twelve months ago I would have thought so. Today not so much. Such an event would of course greatly swell the ranks of Oath Keepers.
Being former military, unfortunately, I believe there will be a majority of oath breakers. The military trains the rank and file to obey orders without question, and reinforces this training with harsh disciplinary action for those who disobey. Fear will drive most (remember, the average age of most military members is something like 21) to obey without question. The thing we Patriots might count on is these greenhorns' natural reluctance to bring harm on others, and their openness to suggestion. Either way, there are a lot of tense moments coming our way. Oath Keepers, while a noble bunch, make up a very small minority of military and LEO folks. Way too small.....
ReplyDeleteSomething I don't see entering this discussion is the fact that if things go hot (gunfire xchange) in an unlawful order scenario, military personnel can more easily avoid combat while keeping their pride intact by saying "I'm an OathKeeper, so I'm not going to do this," rather than having to say "I'm scared." In typical American warfare, a soldier must face intense shame if he's to intentionally shy away from combat, BUT in the OK vs OB scenario we're discussing here, it's somewhat easier. A soldier, whether motivated by genuine Patriotism, or a simple desire to avoid danger, or a combination of both, can avoid combat while keeping his pride intact.
ReplyDeleteIf it's a "colder" scenario, i.e., they're confiscating guns, but no one's shooting back, the situation is different. It's easier for the soldeir to obey the unlawful order, because he's not so much risking his own neck in obeying the order.
I would imagine the OK-OB ratio would be much, much worse for our side, the colder the scenario for this reason. The decision making process in the soldiers head is much different if there's no shooting.
This is why, if any of the infamous 10 orders are given and executed agains the American people, we need to make the situation as "hot" as possible as quickly as possible.
More gunfire = more soul searching.
This is from a combat veteran of gun-confiscation missions (overseas, of course).
Both Baugh's essay and MV's friend's comments are on the money. Many are taking offense from the essay where I think none is intended, the essay points out facts and gives opinions on what may occur. That does not denigrate oathkeepers, it merely points out that they are not the majority, and that the orders will be carried out. Katrina hasn't been that long ago, illegal orders(door to door confiscation) were carried out while breaking doors and slamming old ladies against the wall.
ReplyDeleteSo, what do we, the People, do in the face of all that firepower? Submit, and be slaves? Die in a hopeless fight, because that's better than slavery? Or fight a guerilla war against our military? Can a guerilla war succeed against our military?
ReplyDeleteI tend to believe that every Oathkeeper will ultimately be driven out of the military, and then, they'll have to fight it from the outside, alongside of us.
Baugh is right: the military exists to back the national will with force, and the Constitution means nothing to them.
I'm with Daniel; I think that the Oathkeeper ranks will, let's say, rapidly swell when it becomes plain that it means that you don't see combat in a civil war.
ReplyDeleteEven if we don't, isn't a unit generally considered combat ineffective at 10% losses? In a state of insurrection, it's going to be pretty chaotic to start with, and the resources to run down deserters aren't likely to be there. In addition, it's much easier to desert stateside than it is in, say, Iraq or Afghanistan. The temptation is going to be constant and unyielding.
I was talking this over with a friend and he argued that a nationwide gun confiscation won't happen all at once. His suggestion was to get troops used to treating citizens like subjects in small increments. Maybe start off with the areas controlled by street gangs -- nobody likes them. Surround and close off area like South Central LA (#6 on the OK list of order they won't obey), start systematic searches of residences (#2) and confiscate any guns found (#1).
ReplyDeleteBTW, the verify word for this was "takin". Go figure....
My two cents. I dont expect this to directly involve the .mil or the any "UN troops" nonsense. Open your eyes a little here guys. The very fact that an organization like OK exists spells uncertainty to the upper tyrants. No tyrant is going to want to unleash the .mil on our soil. Look what happened the last time we went through this. How many Federal officers and soldiers left the US Army to join their State or CSA forces? The lines were much clearer then. Today the division is one of ideas and not state lines. Look for an expansion of the Homeland security department to become a defacto federal police agency. These will be our enemies. Look for the military to be kept in a support role. They will be there but their memebrship and "loyalty" is questionable to the PTB. They will be kept guarding fixed assets while the Federal SWAT teams will be the real "operators".
ReplyDeleteGrenadier1
I hate how Katrina is constantly brought up as an example of why our military will go along with any unlawful orders against US citizens.
ReplyDeleteKatrina was a natural disaster of incredible magnitude, compounded by the incredible levels of destruction caused by the storm, the flooding, and the utter incompetence of local (and Federal, once they got on the scene) authorities.
It was an extreme situation, and the lawsuits afterwards have helped to serve as a check on uncontrolled federal power, much the same as the TEA parties are now impacting the health care debate.
While we're at it, we may as well use the Mai Lai massacre to predict that US troops will open fire on unarmed US civilians.
It would be just as reliable, IMO.
Anon:
ReplyDelete-- Did the NO residents who were deprived of their guns and their "guaranteed" civil rights get their guns back? In the same condition? Have the government actors been forced to pay damages to them? How much?
-- Re the Republican-infiltrated TEA parties, haven't both the Senate and House passed unconstitutional medical system nationalization bills, which are in the process of reconciliation into a joint bill that will also be passed and then signed by POTUS?
In other words, can you prove to me that the tea-party movement (of which I am a member, BTW, having attended both ATL on 4/15 and DC on 9/12) has accomplished anything material?
If so, do so.
I tend to agree with Grenadier1 to a point. One thing I've been saying since Jan. 21 of last year is that the new enemy will be a modern day version of the Brown-Shirts / Gestapo.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to dis-arming, and harrasment of the American people I believe the conventional military will be a 2nd or 3rd tier support role at best.
I mean come on people; the bastard stood on that stage and told the whole world his plans... didn't even try to hide it. "Civil Police Force" MY ASS. Some type of "Mandatory CIVIL SERVICE" MY ASS.
Lets face it, KOOL-AID BARRY isn't talking about the PEACE CORPS. He's talking about a well funded, trained, and indoctrinated version of NEO-GESTAPO_BLACK PANTHER_BROWN SHIRT FORCE that is taking its orders from a modern day POLITBURO.
THE RED COATS ARE COMING!, THE RED COATS ARE COMING!, Don't fire until you see the BLUE of thier helmets....
SGT USA
11B20-B4/C2
Ill leave my 2 cents worth here , IMHO how the statistics would break down in the military as to the ratio of OK to OB that will be debateable, and actually to everyones benefit it may be best to hope that the divide is enough that the military decides to sit it out rather than let all its TOYS go their seperate ways because in the event they do get involved , they will be busy watching their own backs from their own comrades. as to use of foriegn nationals ie nato, un, the moment they are landing , dont you think most folks would see them as an invading military force?how would that go over with joe public irregardless of political affiliation? and would that force be willing to go into a very heavily armed area where they know they will be viewed as invaders? so that if what im thinking comes about , leaves the alphabet agencies and whom they can recruit to their side. now , that pretty much sets the table , and what if every single conpat decides, to just remove 2 more of the opposition individually(by themselves) than the opposition can remove of them? that would be a 3 to 1 ration , and is entirely feasable and not exactly a good outcome for any potential tyranical leader, and the probability that the ratio could be even higher increases with the more sucsessful applications a single individual does as they say practice makes perfect. And what would start all this ? in think thats what everyone is watching for right now , on all sides, the only thing everyone knows for sure, is if it starts , its going to be very very messy.
ReplyDelete