America’s “Dimwit General” Calls for Martial Law

               By Gordon Duff and Senior Army Staffers (Anon)

I was sent the initial article written by Joe Wolverton from the New American, who I credit but included is more than a comment or two on Army Chief of Staff Raymond Odierno.

There is an agreement within his own staff and those who have ever served with him, General Odierno is the biggest “horses ass’ to have worn an American uniform since Custer. The term his staff uses, to be quite exact is “dangerous dimwit.”

This week, Odierno, a member of the CFR, the Council on Foreign Relations, a group consisting of failed academics, rap artists, former hockey players who too many high sticks to the head and delusional dimwits like Odierno, advocated the use of the Army any time local police need help.

Man beats dog? Call in the army, hell, get a raptor overhead, get a company of Rangers, kill the man, the dog and spray his lawn with Agent Orange to boot.

If only I were making it up:

“Where appropriate we will also dedicate active-duty forces, especially those with niche skills and equipment, to provide civilian officials with a robust set of reliable and rapid response options.”…Odierno

“The jurisdiction of domestic military enforcement “to keep the homeland safe from domestic disasters”…in time of ..public danger” [5^th Amendment] is NOT enumerated in the Army Claus [ Article I Section 8 CI 12], it belongs to “the Militia of the several States” [Article II, Section CI 1], composed of the whole “People of the several States” [Article I Section 1 CI 2], enumerated “..to execute the Laws [Article 1 Section 8 CI 12] .. necessary to the security of a free State.. “[2^nd Amendment]. Jurisdiction is additionally confirmed by “The powers..reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” [10^th Amendment].

It is past due time for the several States legislatures to each revitalize their Militia institution and comply with their enumerated duty. Both the reasoning behind the constitutionalism and history have articulated the consequences of professional soldiers in a standing army forced against the citizenry.”

In an article penned by Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, General Raymond T. Odierno, the CFR would see the Army used to address “challenges in the United States itself” in order to keep the homeland safe from domestic disasters, including terrorist attacks. Odierno writes:

Where appropriate we will also dedicate active-duty forces, especially those with niche skills and equipment, to provide civilian officials with a robust set of reliable and rapid response options.

That’s right. Should the sheriff suspect that a particular citizen in his county poses a threat to security and feels he doesn’t have the proper “skills and equipment” to deal with the situation, he can just call out the U.S. Army and bring a “rapid response” force that is robust enough to eliminate the problem.

These are not the musings of an unknown academic written in an obscure journal of little importance. These are the black-and-white plans for “building a flexible force” as laid out by the man in charge and published for all the world to read by the people who may have put him there.

In order to justify this new (and illegal) mission for the Army, General Odierno points to three “major changes” that have precipitated the re-tasking of the troops: First, “declining budgets due to the country’s worsened fiscal situation; second, “a shift in emphasis to the Asia-Pacific region; and third, a “broadening of focus from counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, and training of partners to shaping the strategic environment, preventing the outbreak of dangerous regional conflicts, and improving the army’s readiness to respond in force to a range of complex contingencies worldwide.”

There are so many things wrong with every one of these points that each deserves its own article focused solely on its deconstruction. Unfortunately, there is only so much space and each of these considerations has one critical flaw in common: no constitutional authority for any of it.

Start with the woeful economic state of American affairs. Odierno lists this first among his unholy trinity of reasons the army must “transition” from its traditional role to one with a wider domestic and international scope.

Perhaps it has escaped General Odierno’s attention, but the decline of America’s economic fortunes may be in some significant part tied to the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that siphon about $13 billion per month from the U.S. Treasury. Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, estimates are that Congress has approved a total of $1.283 trillion in military operations, (Editorial note:  Newer accounting more than triples these figures) base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care spread over three operations: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).

There is a certain macabre irony to the claim by a military leader that his troops are forced to adapt to stringent budget considerations partially brought about by the use of his troops as the tip of America’s sword of empire.

General Odierno’s third “major change” is the need to use the Army to solve complex international conflicts. Again, these conflicts and the solutions to them are made more complex by the fact that there is not a single syllable in the Constitution that grants the President or Congress the authority to deploy American armed forces to work out the world’s difficult dilemmas.