The Civil War of 2016 - U.S. military officers are told to plan to fight Americans

A rather long article by a retired Colonel of the US Army but, worth a reading. The write up appeared in the Small Wars Journal. The link to the article source is given below, at the end of the post.

The U.S. Army’s Operating Concept 2016-2028 was issued in August 2010 with three goals. First, it aims to portray how future Army forces will conduct operations as part of a joint force to deter conflict, prevail in war, and succeed in a range of contingencies, at home and abroad. Second, the concept describes the employment of Army forces at the tactical and operational levels of war between 2016 and 2028. Third, in broad terms the concept describes how Army headquarters, from theater army to division, organize and use their forces. The concept goes on to describe the major categories of Army operations, identify the capabilities required of Army forces, and guide how force development should be prioritized. The goal of this concept is to establish a common frame of reference for thinking about how the US Army will conduct full spectrum operations in the coming two decades (US Army Training and Doctrine Command, The Army Operating Concept 2..., TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1, dated 19 August 2010, p. iii. Hereafter cited as TD Pam 525-3-1. The Army defines full spectrum operations as the combination of offensive, defensive, and either stability operations overseas or civil support operations on U.S. soil).

A key and understudied aspect of full spectrum operations is how to conduct these operations within American borders. If we face a period of persistent global conflict as outlined in successive National Security Strategy documents, then Army officers are professionally obligated to consider the conduct of operations on U.S. soil. Army capstone and operating concepts must provide guidance concerning how the Army will conduct the range of operations required to defend the republic at home. In this paper, we posit a scenario in which a group of political reactionaries take over a strategically positioned town and have the tacit support of not only local law enforcement but also state government officials, right up to the governor. Under present law, which initially stemmed from bad feelings about Reconstruction, the military’s domestic role is highly circumscribed. In the situation we lay out below, even though the governor refuses to seek federal help to quell the uprising (the usual channel for military assistance), the Constitution allows the president broad leeway in times of insurrection. Citing the precedents of Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and Dwight D. Eisenhower sending troops to Little Rock in 1957, the president mobilizes the military and the Department of Homeland Security, to regain control of the city. This scenario requires us to consider how domestic intelligence is gathered and shared, the role of local law enforcement (to the extent that it supports the operation), the scope and limits of the Insurrection Act--for example maintaining a military chain of command but in support of the Attorney General as the Department of Justice is the Lead Federal Agency (LFA) under the conditions of the Act--and the roles of the local, national, and international media.

TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE PLEASE VISIT: http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/full-spectrum-operations-in-th...

WRITTEN BY: Retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army's University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas.

Favorite

4 members favorited this

Comment

You need to be a member of 12160 Social Network to add comments!

Join 12160 Social Network

Comment by ghostmaster on August 19, 2012 at 12:21am: @DOTOM From what i understand the surveys were given to ward off anyone trying to figure out really what the survey was for. You was always given some BS story. Put some nice stuff in the survey, and mix in a few you really care about. They may of looked at the survey to see the answers, but very few of them counted, and they took notes on those very few, and trashed the rest. So if you look at the survey as a whole it looks innocent enough the soldiers were doing civil duty. But to find out how they would act in a certain type of scenario you give them pep talks. They you send out a survey to see if your pep talk worked or not.

I have seen this before, years ago between 2000 and 2003. A few of those same questions were on the same survey. Others were not. Perhaps they were handing these out to different branches?

Comment by Ria on August 13, 2012 at 6:15pm: :)

Comment by Nathan on August 13, 2012 at 5:49pm: Thank you ma'am.

It is a good, informative post btw. Keep up the good work!

Comment by Ria on August 13, 2012 at 5:41pm: Thanks again, Nathan. I just did as you suggested. :)

Comment by Nathan on August 13, 2012 at 5:03pm: Hi Ria,

No need to delete. At the top of the page there is an "options" button, if you clk it you will have an "Edit Post" option. Clking that will put you in edit mode allowing you to change/delete/add to your post. Just delete 60% (best guess) and leave the link at the bottom; you could put in something like 'continue reading at source' or 'full article here' before the link to alert readers that there is more.

If I can be of any help, just ask.

Thanks Ria.

Comment by Ria on August 13, 2012 at 4:22pm: Wow!! Awesome comments, loaded with info. Thank you DTOM for additional insights into this.

And, Nathan, thank you for the heads up. My bad actually, I thought since I was crediting the authors and also providing the link of the source, I would not be infringing upon or violating copyright. :(

But, I am glad you shared this with me now and I will bear it in mind starting now. However, please let me know if I should remove this post and just let the link be there instead of the whole article? I would appreciate your suggestion.

Comment by DTOM on August 13, 2012 at 3:17pm: I remember reading the form for the first time in '98, but the following link is better than most.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1088237/posts

Links to various sources in the above, and the full text of DD Form 3206 (Rev 2/96)

It seems this issue opened up a can of worms.

It is claimed that on 08 April 1995, J.F.A. Davidson of The RESISTER - "The Purported Newsletter of the Special Forces Underground" - conducted a telephone interview with Lieutenant Commander Earnest Guy Cunningham, USN, regarding his Combat Arms Survey which was given to 300 U.S. Marine Corps combat trained marines at Twenty-Nine Palms California on 10 May 1994.

The Resister stated "Although we do not agree with some of LCDR Cunningham's premises regarding the constitutionality, or desirability, of even benign Operations Other Than War, particularly the bifurcation of the U.S. military into national defense and peacekeeping forces--as a result of our interview, and review of his thesis--we find no justification for anybody questioning his patriotism. LCDR Cunningham's thesis was purely a research effort to determine the long term effects of Operations Other Than War and non- traditional missions on both horizontal cohesion (how the unit coalesces, supports itself, and performs as an integrated whole), and vertical cohesion (trust and confidence in the unit's leadership).

Anybody who doubts this need only talk to the man."

The Resister site no longer exists, the above link goes to archived web pages from 2004.

Comment by Cryptocurrency on August 13, 2012 at 2:46pm: DTOM do you have a link to that form? Would be mega stellar if you did.

Comment by DTOM on August 13, 2012 at 2:43pm: The authors of the piece responded to the recent outcry.

"Our objective was to highlight what we believe is an understudied ...
- Kevin Benson, Ph.D., Colonel, U.S. Army, Retired

"Potential operations"?

Note how these things are always drawn up by 'think tanks' or 'academics'?

Remember DD Form 3206 (Rev 2/96) JOINT SERVICES TRAINING COMBAT ARMS SURVEY, authored by one Navy Lieutenant Commander Ernest Guy Cunningham, that was handed out to USMC at the 29 Palms Marine Corps base in California.

It asked the following questions:

Do you feel that U.S. combat troops should be used within the U.S. and bordering countries for any of the following missions?

(Strongly Disagree) (Disagree) (Agree) (Strongly Agree) (No Opinion)

8. Drug enforcement

9. Disaster relief (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes)

10. Security at national events (e.g. Olympic Games, Super Bowl)

11. Environmental disaster clean-up including toxic and nuclear

12. Substitute teachers and school workers in public schools

13. Community assistance programs (e.g. landscaping, environmental clean-up,road repair, animal control)

14. Federal and State prison guards and auxiliary police

15. National emergency police force/international security force

16. Advisors to SWAT units, the FBI, or the BATF

17. Border Patrol (e.g. prevention of entry of illegal aliens into U.S. territory)

18. Drug enforcement and interdiction

19. Disaster relief in bordering countries (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes, etc.)

20. Environmental disaster clean-up in bordering countries including toxic and nuclear.

21. Peace keeping and local law enforcement and internal security forces

22. National building (reconstruct civil governments, develop public school system, develop or improve public transportation system, etc.)

23. Humanitarian relief (e.g. food and medical supplies, temporary housing and clothing and domestic care).

---

45. I would swear to the following code:

“I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world peace and every nation’s way of life. I swear and affirm to support and defend the Charter of the United Nations and I am prepared to give my life in its defense.”

46. The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-approved firearms. A 30-day amnesty period is established for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of irregular citizen groups and defiant individuals refuse to turn over their firearms to authority.

Consider the following statement:

“I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government.”

End of Survey

At the time, Cunningham was working towards a masters degree at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey.

In October 1995, John F. McManus, writing for NEW AMERICAN magazine, interviewed Cunningham, who said the survey was intended to confirm and then pass on to higher authorities his fears about "the lack of knowledge among the soldiers about the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and their heritage as Americans."

Genuine concerns or inbuilt damage control/ denial, while trolling with agit propaganda?

Comment by Charles Magus on August 13, 2012 at 1:46pm: Don't be in a state of fear! The zionist Criminal network doesn't always get what they want!! Unless these zionists see how they are being manipulated to hate and Murder by the Rothschild Agenda, they will die in Ignorance and fear, never knowing who they really are! The Rothschilds may want all gentiles dead, but a world full of nothing but zionists will be a horrific and mentally unstable world! Until the Earth wipes them off her surface as the parasites that they have become because they believe in all of the lies of their own superiority! Zionists don't have to be the beings that they have become. A few have already awoken to a bigger world! Will the rest see how they can walk into the light?