Total Pageviews

4/05/2012

From PubIntel Blog: http://www.phibetaiota.net/


Marcus Aurelius: US Military – To Coup or Not to Coup?

Categories: Uncategorized
Marcus Aurelius
Phi Beta Iota:  This is a long and interesting presentation of two points of view.  In short, the US political system, the upper reaches of the US government, and the US military “clerk-leaders” are an incestuous self-sustaining circle of corruption.  We do not have an “Obama” problem.  We have an Israel / Goldman Sachs / Fed / Wall Street / two-party political tyranny problem.  If Mitt Romney is elected, that just puts the drug cartel side of Wall Street in charge, instead of the Israeli rope a dope side of Wall Street.  There is nothing honorable or useful about the two-party political system in the USA.  That we should even be having this discussion of coups etcetera is a sign of how far from a Republic we have fallen.
The non-violent alternative has been clearly presented at We the People Electoral Reform Coalition (and is still viable), but not a single presidential candidate now running has the integrity to see the logic of supporting the Constitution instead of running their own one-man show.  We project that Obama will win again with the lowest voter turn-out in history (i.e. the Independents will not vote for Romney, or vote), and that the US economy will implode in 2013 with major social disruption in 2014.
Marcus Aurelius Sends:
BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT: I assess that the current crop of key military leaders will never revolt in any way against the President, the Commander in Chief. I see it as beyond the realm of the possible.
Here’s why:
FIRST, you can take it to the bank that every key three or four star leader appointed since POTUS was inaugurated in 2009 has already pledged personal obedience to him. Count on it as being a part of the screening process for these “Presidentially Appointed, Senate Confirmed” (PAS) positions.
All O-9 and O-10 (Lieutenant General/Vice Admiral and General/Admiral) positions are PAS. Count on it being done very slickly, with the candidate being asked to confirm something like that, if nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, he/she will be and perform as a full member of “the President’s team.”
SECOND, if the firing of GEN McChrystal and the passover of GEN Petraeus for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff didn’t trigger a coup, nothing is likely to.
THIRD, if you observe what the Chairman, the Service Chiefs, and other key leaders are saying in public and writing, it’s pretty clear that they’ve pledged their full support to DoD as the principal bill payer for Federal deficit reduction, even though that imposes military and strategic risks on the Nation.
FOURTH, uniformed military leaders are moving expeditiously to execute POTUS’ will in such strategically questionable areas as withdrawal from Afghanistan. They are doing what their training and centuries of developed ethos have conditioned them to do: subordinating themselves to civilian masters.
FIFTH, at least for the Army, our 237-year old Service culture is such that we never protest anything. Soldiers, enlisted and officer, are the ultimate obedient servants. GA MacArthur was a clear aberration and everyone knows his efforts didn’t work out well for him personally or professionally. We Soldiers lead all other Services in “yes sir, yes sir, three bags full”. No matter how much a President or a Congress abuses American citizens, American Soldiers, or the Army as an institution, the Army will quietly suck it up and come back for more. Check out Carl Builder’s Masks of War if you want to explore this dimension further.
So, to recap: I dispute Mr. Perry’s assessments and assertions and counter-assert that POTUS is absolutely safe from a hard or soft coup attempt by any element of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Below the line: the original article quickly removed from the original site.

Full Text Of Newsmax Column Suggesting Military Coup Against Obama

Here is the full text of John L. Perry’s column on Newsmax which suggests that a military coup to “resolve the Obama problem” is becoming more possible and is not “unrealistic.” Perry also writes that a coup, while not “ideal,” may be preferable to “Obama’s radical ideal” — and would “restore and defend the Constitution.” Newsmax has since removed the column from its website.
Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention
By: John L. Perry
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.
America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn’t mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:
# Officers swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to “obey the orders of the president of the United States.”
# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.
# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.
# They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.
# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.
# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America’s troop strength is allowed to sag.
# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.
# They can see the nation’s safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.
So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?
Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?
Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran’s nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?
What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, “I’m not interested in victory”) that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?
Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?
Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America’s military leadership is lost in a fool’s fog.
Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a “family intervention,” with some form of limited, shared responsibility?
Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.
Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later.”
In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.

No comments:

Post a Comment