Sunday, November 7, 2010
LOOKING BACK TO NOVEMBER 2008... The Coming Civil Unrest & Martial Law
Strategic Studies Institute / United States Army War College
Authored by Mr. Nathan P. Freier. | November 2008
A Summary
The current defense team confronted a game-changing “strategic shock” in its first 8 months in office. The next team would be well-advised to expect the same. Defense-relevant strategic shocks jolt convention to such an extent that they force sudden, unanticipated change in the Department of Defense’s (DoD) perceptions about threat, vulnerability, and strategic response. Their unanticipated onset forces the entire defense enterprise to reorient and restructure institutions, employ capabilities in unexpected ways, and confront challenges that are fundamentally different than those routinely considered in defense calculations.
The likeliest and most dangerous future shocks will be unconventional. They will not emerge from thunderbolt advances in an opponent’s military capabilities. Rather, they will manifest themselves in ways far outside established defense convention. Most will be nonmilitary in origin and character, and not, by definition, defense-specific events conducive to the conventional employment of the DoD enterprise.
They will rise from an analytical no man’s land separating well-considered, stock and trade defense contingencies and pure defense speculation. Their origin is most likely to be in irregular, catastrophic, and hybrid threats of “purpose” (emerging from hostile design) or threats of “context” (emerging in the absence of hostile purpose or design). Of the two, the latter is both the least understood and the most dangerous.
Thoughtful evaluation of defense-relevant strategic shocks and their deliberate integration into DoD strategy and planning is a key check against excessive convention. Further, it underwrites DoD relevance and resilience. Prior anticipation of September 11, 2001 (9/11) or the Iraq insurgency, for example, might have limited the scope and impact of the shock. In both instances, wrenching periods of post-event self-examination did help solve our current or last problem. They may not have been as effective in solving our next one.
DoD is now doing valuable work on strategic shocks. This work must endure and mature through the upcoming political transition. The next defense team should scan the myriad waypoints and end points along dangerous trend lines, as well as the prospect for sudden, discontinuous breaks in trends altogether to identify the next shock or shocks. Doing so is a prudent hedge against an uncertain and dangerous future.
Read The Report -'Known Unknowns: Unconventional "Strategic Shocks" in Defense Strategy Development'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psy-Op or Not? You Decide :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh5dpmKGOHg
The US Army War College recently published the following paper, later leaked to Newsmax dot com
You may google the original paper, a pdf document, by searching for it's title:
"Know Unknowns: Unconventional Strategic Shocks in Defense Strategy Development"
Army ‘Strategic Shock’ Report Says Troops May Be Needed To Quell U.S. Civil Unrest
Steve Watson & Paul Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesday, Dec 16, 2008
A recent report produced by the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Institute warns that the United States may experience massive civil unrest in the wake of a series of crises which it has termed “strategic shock.”
The report, titled Known Unknowns: Unconventional Strategic Shocks in Defense Strategy Development, also suggests that the military may have to be used to quell domestic disorder.
“Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security,” the report, authored by [Ret.] Lt. Col. Nathan Freir, reads.
“Deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction or other catastrophic capabilities, unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters are all paths to disruptive domestic shock.” it continues.
“An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long-secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home…”
“Already predisposed to defer to the primacy of civilian authorities in instances of domestic security and divest all but the most extreme demands in areas like civil support and consequence management, DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States.” Lt. Col. Freir concludes.
See Pages 31-32 (PDF) for quoted sections.
Freir is a Senior Fellow in the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). He joined the think tank in April 2008 after retiring from the U.S. Army after 20 years as a lieutenant colonel. In his role at CSIS he rubs shoulders with a whole host of globalist luminaries including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and Richard Armitage.
Echoing recent comments made by Pentagon advisors, along with other notable figures such as Colin Powell and Joe Biden, Freir also warns that the incoming Obama administration should prepare for a “first term crisis” that could act as a catalyst for such unrest.
“The current administration confronted a game-changing ’strategic shock’ inside its first eight months in office,” the report reads. “The next administration would be well-advised to expect the same during the course of its first term. Indeed, the odds are very high against any of the challenges routinely at the top of the traditional defense agenda triggering the next watershed inside DoD [Department of Defense].”
We have recently highlighted plans to station thousands more U.S. troops inside America for purposes of “domestic security” from September 2011, an expansion of Northcom’s militarization of the country in preparation for potential civil unrest following a total economic collapse or a mass terror attack.
“The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials,” reported the Washington Post last month.
In a September 8 Army Times article, Northcom announced that the first wave of the troop deployment, which was put in place on October 1st at Fort Stewart and at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, would be aimed at tackling “civil unrest and crowd control”.
After a controversy arose surrounding the admissions made in the Army Times article, Northcom retracted the claim but conceded that both lethal and non-lethal weaponry traditionally used in crowd control and riot situations would still be used in the field.
The increasing militarization of America is part of a long term agenda to abolish Constitutional rule and establish a “military form of government,” following a large scale terror attack or similar disaster, as Tommy Franks, the former commander of the military’s Central Command, alluded to in a November 2003 Cigar Aficionado piece.
Franks outlined the scenario by which martial law would be put in place, saying, “It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”
In the short term, the domestic deployment of troops is likely aimed at combating likely civil unrest that will ensue after a complete economic collapse followed by a devastating period of hyperinflation.
This warning was again echoed a few days ago in a leaked internal memo from Citibank.
“The world is not going back to normal after the magnitude of what they have done. When the dust settles this will either work, and the money they have pushed into the system will feed through into an inflation shock,” wrote Tom Fitzpatrick, Citibank’s chief technical strategist.
The memo predicts “depression, civil disorder and possibly wars” as a fallout from an economic collapse that many say is on the horizon.
Naturally, the claim that such troop deployments are merely to aid in disaster relief efforts is a thin veil aimed at distracting from the real goal. Should a real tragedy occur, volunteers and already existing civil aid organizations are fully capable of dealing with such events, as we witnessed on 9/11.
The military are primarily trained to kill people and break things, and their role during the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts was mainly focused on detaining people in sports stadiums, shooting alleged looters and seizing guns from wealthy home owners in the high and dry areas, while real recovery measures were left to volunteers and local state authorities.
The open admission that U.S. troops will be involved in law enforcement operations as well as potentially using non-lethal weapons against American citizens is a complete violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act, which substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement unless under precise and extreme circumstances.
Section 1385 of the Posse Comitatus Act states, “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
Under the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006, the law was changed to state, “The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United States the President determines hinders the execution of laws or deprives people of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.”
However, these changes were repealed in their entirety by HR 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, reverting back to the original state of the Insurrection Act of 1807. Despite this repeal, President Bush attached a signing statement saying that he did not feel bound by the repeal. It remains to be seen whether President elect Obama will reverse Bush’s signing statement.
The original text of the Insurrection Act severely limits the power of the President to deploy troops within the United States.
For troops to be deployed, a condition has to exist that, “(1) So hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.”
Is the incoming Obama administration and Northcom waiting for such a scenario to unfold, an event that completely overwhelms state authorities, before unleashing the might of the U.S. Army against the American people?
[Ret.] Lt. Col. Freir’s Known Unknowns report addresses this specifically, stating:
“A whole host of long-standing defense conventions would be severely tested. Under these conditions and at their most violent extreme, civilian authorities, on advice of the defense establishment, would need to rapidly determine the parameters defining the legitimate use of military force inside the United States. Further still, the whole concept of conflict termination and/or transition to the primacy of civilian security institutions would be uncharted ground. DoD is already challenged by stabilization abroad. Imagine the challenges associated with doing so on a massive scale at home.”
The deployment of National Guard troops to aid law enforcement or for disaster relief purposes is legal under the authority of the governor of a state, but using active duty U.S. Army in law enforcement operations inside America absent the conditions described in the Insurrection Act is completely illegal.
The political left and right need to join forces and denounce this plan for what it is – another unconstitutional step towards the incremental implementation of martial law and the militarization of America.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMF warns of economic riots, police ready for civil unrest
Paulson discussed worst-case scenario at bailout meeting – declare martial law
Pentagon resources and U.S. troops may be used if needed to quell protests and bank runs during an economic crisis, the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Institute reported.
"Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security," the War College study states.
Incidents of economic collapse, terrorism and disruption of legal order could require deployment of forces within the U.S., it said.
A "strategic shock" could require the nation to use "military force against hostile groups inside the United States."
International Monetary Fund Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn has warned that advanced nations could face civil unrest during distressful economic times
"[S]ocial unrest may happen in many countries – including advanced economies" if the economic crises are not properly dealt with, Strauss-Kahn said...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox Business: Gerald Celente Predicts Revolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46MEqEgdLTg
They mentioned that before 2012:
1. America will be the first undeveloped country
2. Revolution, food shortages, riots, marches
3. Food instead of gifts for Christmas
Seriously, I was shocked. The segment lasted for more than 6 minutes. He said things like parents shouldn't send their kids to get business degrees or psychology degrees and send them to community colleges to learn a real skill. He kept implying that food will become the most important thing for us. He said the retail industry will die off completely but local markets will thrive.
The host even introduced him as a guy who's "predictions always come true". He has been remarkably accurate over the decades.
From the 11/10/08 show.
Gerald Celente's website:
http://www.trendsresearch.com/
Labels: Army War College, civil unrest, Gerald Celente, martial law, past article, report, Strategic Studies Institute
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Compared to 30 years ago, it's all about me now, study finds
College students today are less likely to "get" the emotions of others than their counterparts 20 and 30 years ago, a new review study suggests.
Specifically, today's students scored 40 percent lower on a measure of empathy than their elders did.
The findings are based on a review of 72 studies of 14,000 American college students overall conducted between 1979 and 2009.
"We found the biggest drop in empathy after the year 2000," said Sara Konrath, a researcher at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research...
Labels: Army War College, empathy
Monday, May 17, 2010
"The real 800 pound gorilla in the US lobbying system is the veterans groups...27 million people that's money AND votes...The great fear of AIPAC is that someone will tap into the veterans organizations, because this is the one lobby which can make them history." - Dr. Alan Sabrosky
"I have had long conversations over the past two weeks with contacts at the Army War College and HQ Marines, and I made it absolutely clear that in both cases it [the USS Liberty and 9/11] was a Mossad operation." - Sabrosky
Zionism: A political philosophy envisioning a militarized theocratic state in which Judaism is the official religion, often includes manifest for expansion.
Judaism: One of the world's great religions. All Jews are not Zionists, historically there has been a vigorous debate within Judaism over the legitimacy of a Jewish state, even long before the establishment of Israel. Some strains of Judaism vehemently oppose any Jewish state, for religious or other reasons. See JewsAgainstZionism.org
Anti-Semitism: Bigotry against all Jews, regardless of whether they are Zionist or not. Opposition to Israeli government policies is often incorrectly conflated with anti-semitism.
Below are two audio files of key excerpts from two lengthy recent interviews of Dr. Alan Sabrosky, for the time-challenged who are interested in hearing a compilation of some of the most important (and electrifying) statements made in the course of the interviews. Sabrosky was a Director of Studies and Adjunct Professor at the U.S. Army War College, who has stepped forward to state unequivocally that the Israeli Mossad played a central role in 911, along with co-conspirators in the American government. Dr. Sabrosky, who is part Jewish and a former U.S. Marine, argues that only the Mossad, representing the Israeli far-right, has the organization, discipline, skills, and above all geopolitical motivation to pull off 9/11, which enabled the American invasion of Iraq. Sabrosky says although money was made by many individuals by the wars, in overarching terms only Israel is the winner.
Rarely remarked upon in discussion of this kind is that the Israeli right's goals in the Middle East have long been public knowledge, promoted by Israeli and dual-citizenship Neocons for some time. In a 1982 article in the Israeli journal Kivunim, the journal of the Department of Information of the World Zionist Organization, Israeli scholar Oded Yinon, formerly attached to the Foreign Ministry, reiterates the old idea that Israel's best course for long-term safety, prosperity, and possible expansion lay in its neighbors being broken up into many weaker, squabbling states. Yinon envisioned Iraq broken into a Shiite south, a Sunni middle, and a Kurdish north, with other countries thereby destabilized along the same lines. Although the invasion of Iraq has been called an ongoing disaster for America, with troops unable to withdraw due to the threat of full-blown civil war, by another yardstick the invasion has been a resounding success. Sabrosky says that Iraq was never a threat to America, but it was certainly a threat to Israel, to the point of SCUD missiles already having been launched into Tel Aviv by Saddam during the first Gulf War...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/11 Truth from Director of US ARMY War College
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZci_o8nzQs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Alan Sabrosky Interviewed By Mark Glenn And Phil Tourney - March 15, 2010
- Title: Dr. Alan Sabrosky Interview
- Length: 48:28 minutes (5.55 MB)
- Format: MP3 Mono 22kHz 16Kbps (CBR)
Labels: 9/11, AIPAC, Alan Sabrosky, Army War College, Israel, Mossad, professor
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]