The American Military Coup of 2012

September 12, 2005 1:34 AM

In 1992, General Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, awarded the prize for his strategy essay competition at the National Defense University to Lieutenant Colonel Charles Dunlap for 'The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012'. Rumor is, Colonel Dunlap's essay has been circulating among the military's top brass and strategists.

Vice Adm. Allen's appointment as successor to FEMA Director Michael Brown could be conditioning Americans (intentional or not) to accept the idea of Martial Law. Rep Cynthia McKinney's (D-GA) mention of "impeachment" four days ago on the House floor was omitted from the record. If our representatives will not be heard and if we do not want to live under a military dictatorship, then what? It makes me think of Romania (1989) Of course there's always concentration camps and slave labor.
posted by augustweed (71 comments total)

Does it involve the use of scalar technology? Cuz that'd make it really scary!
posted by Onanist at 1:42 AM on September 12, 2005

So, Bush Jr. was on the grassy knoll? Is that what this means? Or is he simply a Knight Templar?
posted by Dagobert at 1:58 AM on September 12, 2005

previous posting of Dunlap's essay
posted by advil at 1:58 AM on September 12, 2005

I don't like suspending the Davis-Bacon Act in storm-hit areas either, but I think it's a bit much to characterize it as "slave labor."
posted by alumshubby at 3:16 AM on September 12, 2005

It's my understanding that they never record anything Rep. Cynthia McKinney says because she's in-fucking-sane.
posted by Mick at 4:53 AM on September 12, 2005

I can't speak to McKinney's sanity, but blasé incompetence isn't sufficient grounds for impeachment. (Alas.)
posted by alumshubby at 5:01 AM on September 12, 2005

It was pretty easy to find:

Well, the Times-Picayune calls for the firing of Michael Brown; and I have signed my name to many letters that are floating around here calling for his firing, his resignation, Chertoff's as well; and in a minute somebody on this House floor is going to mention impeachment.

Doesn't she have the Find/Replace option in her word processor?
posted by Bort at 5:03 AM on September 12, 2005

Oh, by the way, augustweed...
posted by alumshubby at 5:05 AM on September 12, 2005

I haven't read the essay yet. Does it say anything about private security firms like Blackwater?

"North Carolina-based Blackwater USA, like other companies, took about a day to get in place in Louisiana, a lightening-speed mobilization compared with the one organized by local, state and federal governments." (from http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3349334

which can go into NOLA, but not the Red Cross?

Just saying to make jokes about the weird happeniings and to think that a power grab could never happen here is to forget what power wants, more power. And to forget the White House Putsch.

Anyway it's all pretty funny isn't it? FEMA not letting in aid, but letting a massive private security firm into New Orleans, the press being limited in their coverage of death in Iraq and New Orleans, hell even the shoot to kill orders are good for jokes too. I've got a box here of hackneyed joke material. . . let's see grassy knoll, tinfoil hat, um, illuminati, space lizards, HAARP, oooh! Gnomes of Zurich! that one's lovely and doesn't get used much and you get to say Gnomes of Zurich!
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 5:08 AM on September 12, 2005

"I am calling my paper the 'Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012.' I think it's important to get the truth recorded before they rewrite history."

Rewriting history? Check. And it started BEFORE Ms. McKinney's comments were striken from the record, by a theocratic civilian Congress.

If the guys out at the Pentagon are reading this, they might be more inclined to be on the people's side. I was alarmed when I heard the title of this paper several years ago, but now several of my liberal-left friends have suggested that they might back such an action.

Wonders. Cease. Never. Will.
posted by vhsiv at 5:26 AM on September 12, 2005

I skimmed the paper, making me late for work. But the interesting thing is that it warns against actions that could lead the military down the wrong, authoritarian path. In the end it calls for the responsibility of the military to speak out against policies that are wrong. Of course, there could be a flip-side esoteric reading (don't do this unless you really want the result I describe).
The important thing is that guys like Charles Dunlap, Eisenhower, and Smedley Butler, all military men, have warned against the dangers of the military within a democracy. Eisenhower in his farewell speech warns us about the military-industrial complex and now if you mention it, out come the tinfoil hat jokes. Discussion of real dangers are occluded by Nazi bases at the South Pole and other batshit material.
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 5:35 AM on September 12, 2005

I can't speak to McKinney's sanity, but blasé incompetence isn't sufficient grounds for impeachment. (Alas.)

Yes it can be when it contributes to criminal manslaughter. The gross incompetence of power in this case could have been utilized to save lives, somtething which this adminstration is loathe to do unless it is unborn or in a coma, in a district which supports their 'agenda.'
posted by N8k99 at 5:45 AM on September 12, 2005

Best of luck to you with that.
posted by alumshubby at 6:10 AM on September 12, 2005

It's my understanding that they never record anything Rep. Cynthia McKinney says because she's in-fucking-sane.
posted by Mick at 7:53 AM EST

Shall we now document all the in-fucking-sane blatherings of the nutty right politicians that don't get stricken from the Congressional Record?
posted by nofundy at 6:13 AM on September 12, 2005

Are you gonna cry if we don't?
posted by Witty at 6:47 AM on September 12, 2005

It wasn't too long ago that the kind of rhetoric right wing politicians openly trumpet as 'facts' were derided for how cleary stupid and deranged they were. Now we have FOX news to 'show us the way'. Way to go brainwashing 'murica right-wing journalism.
As far as the military coup thing goes, ten-fifteen-twenty years ago the thought that there would be a government in place like the one we have no would have been consigned to cloud-cuckoo land. Yet here we are. Military coup? Five, ten, fifteen years? Five months? Who can say.
posted by mk1gti at 7:01 AM on September 12, 2005

Wow, it would be just like Portugal?
posted by warbaby at 7:07 AM on September 12, 2005

It's my understanding that they never record anything Rep. Cynthia McKinney says because she's a democratically-elected radical black woman in-fucking-sane

Right. And Tom Delay and Tom ("nuke Mecca") Tancredo are paragons of reason and moderation. Rep. McKinney is a duly elected member of congress, dammit. To see someone casually dismiss the significance of denying her the right to speak for her constituents is to be reminded of how fascism takes root.

I'm way beyond the tinfoil hat. We already live in a state of coup d'etat. At this point, I wonder which side the military would in fact take here. But it's not like they would be overthrowing anything resembling representative democracy.
posted by realcountrymusic at 7:31 AM on September 12, 2005

I think I like kingfisher's take on this more than the tinfoilers. I'd like to think our men in uniform are not the military coup type.
posted by rzklkng at 7:36 AM on September 12, 2005

"in-fucking-sane" & "blasé incompetence" could easily describe McKinney's constituency.
posted by mischief at 8:03 AM on September 12, 2005

... Now several of my liberal-left friends have suggested that they might back such an action.

If I woke up tomorrow under a military dictatorship instigated at the behest of the left, I'd laugh bitterly all the way to the re-education camp.
posted by alumshubby at 8:04 AM on September 12, 2005

I'll go along with you on that one alumshubby. Military types tend to see civilians as brainless sheep to be herded around, nothing more. Imagine a nation ruled by cops and that is what it would be like. . .
posted by mk1gti at 8:20 AM on September 12, 2005

Rep Cynthia McKinney's (D-GA) mention of "impeachment" four days ago on the House floor was omitted from the record.
****

That's funny-- my reponse to this seems to have vanished from this thread. Let me try again:

I can't speak to McKinney's sanity, but blasé incompetence isn't sufficient grounds for impeachment. (Alas.)
posted by alumshubby


Bush appointed a Spectacular Fuck-Up to head FEMA. As a result of this action, people died needlessly in Louisiana and Mississippi. This is a "Violation of Public Trust," which is an Impeachable Offense.

Also, Michael Brown (the Spectacular Fuck-Up in question) lied on his resume which The Bush Administration presented to Congress. If it turns out that The Bush Administration colluded with Michael Brown to "enhance" his resume, that's called "lying to Congress" which is also an Impeachable Offense.

Add those to the pile...
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 8:32 AM on September 12, 2005

Like I said...best to you. Go for it, even.
posted by alumshubby at 8:36 AM on September 12, 2005

alumshubby, I appreciate the kind words. I urge you and anyone else who cares about America to also stand up and help protect Americans from the effects of dangerous incompetence by calling for the Impeachment of George Bush.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 8:43 AM on September 12, 2005

I consider myself urged. And I respectfully decline from said opportunity. Sadly, I think the idea of impeachment got trivialized down to nothing but politically-motivated witchhunting, and it proved highly ineffectual to boot...if you can be impeached for perjury and get away with it, you're going to have to catch somebody with a smoking gun standing over a dead body to have a realistic chance at an impeachment that'll stick. So, if you can't get traction with something better than lying and collusion, I applaud your idealism, but these calls for impeachment sound like a lot of useless enthusiasm to me. What's been happening with that Congressman that wanted to start impeachment proceedings against W for lying about Iraq? Has that gotten anywhere?
posted by alumshubby at 8:50 AM on September 12, 2005

I consider myself urged. And I respectfully decline from said opportunity. Sadly, I think the idea of impeachment got trivialized down to nothing but politically-motivated witchhunting, and it proved highly ineffectual to boot...if you can be impeached for perjury and get away with it, you're going to have to catch somebody with a smoking gun standing over a dead body to have a realistic chance at an impeachment that'll stick. So, if you can't get traction with something better than lying and collusion, I applaud your idealism, but these calls for impeachment sound like a lot of useless enthusiasm to me. What's been happening with that Congressman that wanted to start impeachment proceedings against W for lying about Iraq? Has that gotten anywhere?
posted by alumshubby at 8:50 AM on September 12, 2005

Dang.
posted by alumshubby at 8:50 AM on September 12, 2005

dangerous incompetence by calling for the Impeachment of George Bush.

So that we may bask in the Presidency of Dick Cheney. Brilliant!

What would be gained by impeachment? How do you propose convincing a portion of the Republican majority to go along with it?

There are much better efforts to put that angry energy into. Like, finding a candidate worth electing and convincing other left-leaners that they are worth electing.
posted by shawnj at 8:59 AM on September 12, 2005

While I would surely enjoy a Bush impeachment hearing (but would rather see it for him lying to the American people about Iraq) I fear for the world if Cheney is president, even for a year or two.

McKinney is quite insane, I wish she'd get off my side. And I have Republican friends who feel the same way about Delay, the neo-cons, and Dubya.
posted by Ber at 9:13 AM on September 12, 2005

Is impeachment going to reverse the innumerable encroachments on civil rights, bring back Iraqi or NOLA victims, cancel Halliburton contracts, fix the deficit, repeal NCLB, unveil abuses at Abu Ghraib and/or Guantanomo, or catch bin Laden?

Short of a top-to-bottom schism in the Republican party, it's hard to see what could possibly turn the situation around.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:16 AM on September 12, 2005

Sadly, I think the idea of impeachment got trivialized down to nothing but politically-motivated witchhunting...
posted by alumshubby

I think you might be right. But we don't have to crawl around in the muck Ken Starr style: The American People have the power to use impeachment as a tool to protect our country against dangerously incompetent leadership, and we should.

shawnj, re: President Cheney: consider the longer view. I think the American Public's disgust over three years of President Cheney would do a lot to move the Republican Party away from the extreme right and back toward more moderate conservatism.

What would be gained by impeachment?
The same thing gained by any impeachment: it would send a message to future leaders that these actions are not tolerated by The American People.

How do you propose convincing a portion of the Republican majority to go along with it?
The only way I see this happening is if enough outraged people write, call and email their representatives and demand that impeachment proceedings begin. Remember, they work for us.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 9:22 AM on September 12, 2005

It's not safe to click the above links. The helicopters are watching.
posted by StarForce5 at 9:25 AM on September 12, 2005

Remember, they work for us.

Awww... that's pretty cute.
posted by Witty at 9:26 AM on September 12, 2005

Remember, they work for us

That sounds terribly naive. They pretend to work for us only to the extent that is required in order to get elected or reelected. They really work for their corporate donors and rich friends.

"Representative" democracy in the U.S. is simply a farce anymore.
posted by beth at 9:27 AM on September 12, 2005

The Founding Fathers thought so too.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 9:27 AM on September 12, 2005

(That "Founding Fathers" line was a response to Witty)

Beth, it's a farce until you and I and the rest of The American People do something about it.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 9:29 AM on September 12, 2005

You folks are tossing around the word "insanity" like it means something - could you provide a specific example, with respect to Rep. McKinney, of what you are talking about? Recall that in Stalinist Russia authorities would typically accuse political opponents of "insanity" and back it up with lengthy enforced "hospital" visits...
posted by dinsdale at 9:36 AM on September 12, 2005

beth: They pretend to work for us only to the extent that is required in order to get elected or reelected.

All the more reason to make it increasingly difficult for them to maintain so wide a gap between the pretense and reality. We must talk to them and to each other (including the people who don't agree with us yet), and make sure they know that we are watching, and we are not complacent. That is where accountability begins.
posted by skoosh at 9:52 AM on September 12, 2005

"Representative" democracy in the U.S. is simply a farce anymore.
--------------------
Agreed.

See 'Reaganism and the Death of Representative Democracy' for more info
posted by mk1gti at 10:18 AM on September 12, 2005

Beth, it's a farce until you and I and the rest of The American People do something about it.

I'd really like to hear your ideas for what we should do. I don't know of any really plausible solutions. The fact is, the great mass of voters responds most fervently to buzzwords and slogans calculated to bypass their rational thinking and evoke an emotional response. Our education system contributes to the problem of people not being able to detect when they are being manipulated and lied to. Absent a clued-in electorate, what are we to do? Lie to them and manipulate them for ends which we assure ourselves are in their and our best interests?

I have my own crackpot ideas for how I would design a system that would (hopefully) be less prone to corruption and detachment from the plight of ordinary people by the ruling class. But I'm just a lone crackpot on the internet. I wouldn't expect anyone to agree with me.
posted by beth at 10:50 AM on September 12, 2005

Yes, the US has been under martial law since November 2000, n'est-ce pas? This fits right in.

On a related note, it looks like less than 250 died in New Orleans, proper. As sad as that it, it's not the dead toll the incited all the Bush Bashing. I call for all you to apologize to the President right now! Yes, you over there. And you over there.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:59 AM on September 12, 2005

Any number would be acceptable to you, PP.

Just like any number of dead Iraqis.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:09 AM on September 12, 2005

That Dunlap essay is, on the face of it, silly from the git-go: if the President dies and the Vice-President is somehow unable or unwilling to become President, then the office passes to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. If that doesn't work it goes to the President pro Tempore of the Senate, then it works its way through the Cabinet . There is no ambiguity to it: the order of succession is spelled out clearly in the United States Constitution, specifically Section 1 of Article 2 as modified by the 20th and 25th Amendents and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947. (More here and here.) Dunlap's paper presupposes that nobody, not even the Speaker of the House, bothers to read the damn U.S. Constitution to find out who is second in line -- and a long line it is. (Is "Dunlap" a pseudonym for Al Haig?)

This is not to say a military coup is impossible or even unlikely, but that that scenario won't hold water. Maybe Dunlap's paper is part of the plot, to make people think there's ambiguity where there's not -- but again given the dozens of politicians in line ahead of any theoretical General I doubt it would work. Can anybody imagine that NO civilian politican would start waving the parchment yelling "Hey! No fair! It says right here it's MY turn now!"?

--
And ParisParamus, so the President and his cronies stand accused only 250 murders in New Orleans proper instead of 5 or 10 or 20 times that number. So what. Would it be okay to kill you mother if I let your father go? Maybe you should ask your rabbi about this if it's not immediately clear now why your "reasoning" is fucked up. So no, I won't apologize to that felonious chimp-puppet, any more than Roman Polanski should have apologized to Charlie Manson. You however are welcome to apologize for all the mass murderers you want; I suggest you start with Genghis Khan though, any earlier and you might die of old age before you're halfway through.
posted by davy at 11:11 AM on September 12, 2005

What we need to do is pay our elected officals more. Like a lot more. $5m a year for congresmen, $20m for senators.

That way, smart people will run in order to get rich.
posted by delmoi at 11:16 AM on September 12, 2005

Oh dear. Even after a couple previews I see I actually forgot to include a comma, and mispelled a word, in the first damn paragraph. The 3rd sentence should read "...25th Amend[m]ents[,] and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947." My apologies for any false hint of ambiguity that might create.
posted by davy at 11:21 AM on September 12, 2005

I do not trust any "official" death toll numbers coming from the government, or anything else they say, for that matter.
posted by wsg at 11:33 AM on September 12, 2005

250 is nonsense. We've all seen more than that number already. No wonder the govt tried to block media from showing more bodies. Move along, nothing to see, and all that. The number of dead will go well over 1000, or I'll eat my laptop.
posted by realcountrymusic at 11:45 AM on September 12, 2005

One American Dead From Incompetent Leadership Is Too Many.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 11:51 AM on September 12, 2005

Remember not to feed the PP bot . . .
posted by mk1gti at 11:52 AM on September 12, 2005

One American Dead From Incompetent Leadership Is Too Many.

Yea... YEAH!
posted by Witty at 11:53 AM on September 12, 2005

davy, talk about missing the point. Dunlap's essay is not a blueprint for a coup; the constitutional mechanism is made vague for just that reason. It's a clarion call about military culture and militarism.

I'm sure even our laws of succession contain unforeseen loopholes that could be exploited *cough* Bush v. Gore *cough*, but I don't fear it, really. Ultimately it depends on the men in the offices. A more likely ambiguity exists in the question of declaring a President incompetent. Heck, Air Force One raised an interesting question (if a President is under duress, does that trigger succession?), which the movie then skirted for dramatic purposes.

I think that the Orange Revolution in Ukraine provides a very intriguing model for how a coup would take place, and intelligent readers are advised to think this way. Coups don't happen like Seven Days in May (which had similar constitutional breeziness), with a rogue group suddenly popping up in control. A coup d'etat -- any coup -- can only succeed with the prior consent of large (or at least powerful) sectors of society. During the 23-F attempted coup in Spain, there were about a kajillion phone calls back and forth between civilian and military leaders. It's widely assumed -- though unproven -- that the coup leaders thought they could easily get the endorsement of King Juan Carlos, but in the end he was persuaded to back civilian and constitutional rule. (Defenders say it was the King who sought allies.) In Ukraine, the Kuchma government may have engineered a massive vote fraud to endorse their candidate, or maybe not -- but what turned the tide for the protesters was one of the security services switching sides. Did they do so out of genuine democratic values? Did they do it just to angle for power under the new order? Were there already longstanding rivalries which affected their choice? These are open questions, and instructive. There have been military coups which have shown up the idea of a monolithic military, by arising from one service and having a war with the others.

Oh, and augustweed: Crap post. Try actually reading things before you editorialize about them.
posted by dhartung at 11:59 AM on September 12, 2005

Breaking news -- Embattled FEMA chief Michael Brown resigns.
posted by ericb at 11:59 AM on September 12, 2005

Brownie, you're doing a great job!
posted by wsg at 12:02 PM on September 12, 2005

beth, I agree with you when you say The fact is, the great mass of voters responds most fervently to buzzwords and slogans calculated to bypass their rational thinking and evoke an emotional response. Our education system contributes to the problem of people not being able to detect when they are being manipulated and lied to. What we can do immediately-- and what any "lone crackpot on the internet" can do-- is help spread facts and help fight against fictions. We don't have to lie. If an uninformed electorate is the problem (and I agree with you that is, and our Media Sources ain't helpin' much) then we can start by making sure We The People have accurate information.

Sure, some people will willfully ignore this information if it doesn't jibe with their world view. There will always be people who equate politics to football ("My Team is better than your Team! Go Team!") and will blindly follow their team leaders, whether Republican or Democrat. The key thing to remember is whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, you deserve better than incompetent leaders who, in a crisis situation, would allow you to die.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 12:11 PM on September 12, 2005

"I do not trust any "official" death toll numbers coming from the government, or anything else they say, for that matter.
posted by wsg at 2:33 PM EST on September 12 [!]"

Well, WSG, why don't you start a revolution, or leave the country. Do something, for crying out loud!
posted by ParisParamus at 12:27 PM on September 12, 2005

Fuzzy Monster

Great advice. Now, what are you going to DO about it? Seriously, what/how? I'm not trolling, I would really like to get an answer.
posted by mrblondemang at 12:46 PM on September 12, 2005

On a related note, it looks like less than 250 died in New Orleans, proper. As sad as that it, it's not the dead toll the incited all the Bush Bashing. I call for all you to apologize to the President right now!

ParisParamus, I think you have it backwards --

"Shortly after Katrina devastated New Orleans on Aug. 29, breaching levees and flooding the city, Mayor Ray Nagin said the death toll could reach 10,000. Federal officials also prepared for a high toll, making 25,000 body bags available." [Reuters | September 9, 2005].

Looks to me like the Feds were preparing for a higher death toll than the locals.
posted by ericb at 12:52 PM on September 12, 2005

mrblondemang, allow me to repeat myself: "What we can do immediately-- and what any "lone crackpot on the internet" can do-- is help spread facts and help fight against fictions. We don't have to lie. If an uninformed electorate is the problem (and I agree with you that is, and our Media Sources ain't helpin' much) then we can start by making sure We The People have accurate information."

You and I and anyone else can help balance lies with a hearty helping of truth. In this case, the truth is that Bush appointed a dangerously incompetent man as the head of FEMA, and because of that action American Citizens died needlessly. Join me, won't you, in shouting this from the rooftops, and let's channel our collective rage (aka The Power of The People) into pressing local, state and Federal politicians for a positive change.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 1:08 PM on September 12, 2005

dhartung, to quote from the Dunlap thingy:

I've got to hand it to Brutus, he's ingenious. After the President died he somehow "persuaded" the Vice President not to take the oath of office. Did we then have a President or not? A real "Constitutional Conundrum" the papers called it.[1] Brutus created just enough ambiguity to convince everyone that as the senior military officer, he could--and should--declare himself Commander-in-Chief of the Unified Armed Forces. Remember what he said? "Had to fill the power vacuum." And Brutus showed he really knew how to use power: he declared martial law, "postponed" the elections, got the Vice President to "retire," and even moved into the White House! "More efficient to work from there," he said. Remember that?

See? It says right there how they circumvented the Constitutional Order of Succession: by pretending there's a "loophole"and a "power vacuum". When anybody who can read the Constitution knows there's not. I'm not arguing that it's a Good Thing that the order of succession is clear, only that that is in fact the case: if not the Vice President then the Speaker of the House, no "Conundrum" to it.

The Orange Revolution was another bird entirely: it concerned electoral fraud, not the death of a sitting President.

For the purposes of discussing the scenario Dunlap sketched out in that pseudo-Vidalian fiction under discussion, the order of Presidential succession is not irrelevant any more than a biography of Galileo wherein he reveals that the Sun revolves around Uranus would be. That is precisely MY point: exploiting a Constitutional "loophole" like in Dunlap depends on everybody ignoring the fact that no such "loophole" actually exists.

Again, I don't rule out a military coup here, but I don't think we Americans are quite so stupid as to let one happen that way. It'd be far more likely that some General orders a forceful takeover of D.C., as in Chile in 1973, without mentioning the Constitution at all except perhaps in the process of "suspending" it. Nor do I rule out a Chekist coup as you seemed to suggest happened in Ukraine, or whatever.

It's just that in discussing a particular text, such as the Dunlap epistle, we cannot ignore what that text actually says, any more than we can discuss Humbert Humbert's penchant for fat 50 year old Chinese men with warts.

In every other respect, except, that is, the issue of whether facts are stupid enough things that we should disregard them completely, I don't disagree with you.

(Incidentally, I didn't know that the Pinochet coup happened on Sept. 11, 1973, though I doubt "Al Qaida" picked that date for that reason; conspiracy geeks however are welcome to amuse me by trying to find a tie-in.)

--

On Preview, I strongly discourage people from planning a revolution in public on Metafilter. Sometimes dear PP can be so provocative.
posted by davy at 1:46 PM on September 12, 2005

You and I and anyone else can help balance lies with a hearty helping of truth.

You seem to presuppose that the truth will win out over lies. For people who keep up with what's going on in the world via Fox News, this is demonstrably not the case.

The mass of clueless people unable to reason effectively and realize when they are being manipulated and lied to need a far more fundamental education than just telling them what is really going on. As it is, you'll get handwaving and "that sounds like a conspiracy theory" and "why do you hate America?" in response.

I don't know that a clue-by-four on a mass scale is really possible unless the press change their tune. We saw some of that with the Katrina coverage, and I hope it continues. We'll have to see.
posted by beth at 2:18 PM on September 12, 2005

I agree with beth.

The flag waving that began as something that shouldn't have happened anyway, 9/11, will continue until either A) The U.S. consumes itself with it's willingness to support a regime that pretends to protect us while actually uses and steals from us.

Or B) When the machine that fuels our beliefs, the media, can break away from their corporate allegiances and begins to report the truth.

I support the revolt, as long as it just means that we will be a better country for having done it.
posted by snsranch at 5:04 PM on September 12, 2005

Um...contrary to the FPP, Admiral Allen was not appointed as the "successor" to FEMA chief Brown. He was placed in charge of the Katrina clean-up. The true successor to Brown is likely going to be R. David Paulison.
posted by davidmsc at 5:23 PM on September 12, 2005

This country's government has had over thirty years of heavy-handed brainwashing actions against it's own populace, it will take at least that long to correct it once the issue is addressed.
posted by mk1gti at 5:51 PM on September 12, 2005

It seems as if most of you, aside from davidmsc and a few others, lack context and basic reading comprehension skills. *Sheesh*

The hyperbole among these comments is enough to make a reasonable person cringe: Of course there's always concentration camps and slave labor. Erm. Yeah. That’s realistic.

Is it wrong for me to suggest a moratorium on the "OMG insert extremist view here" statements and deluge of posts that have absolutely little to offer?
posted by ten-fifteen at 7:04 PM on September 12, 2005

The essay makes an interesting statement on how the military feels about the civilians who run it.
posted by clevershark at 7:05 PM on September 12, 2005

so ten-fifteen, tell me about your life in the military, I'm sure you can contribute something here. So how long were you in for? How many current or ex-military people do you know? Were you a grown-up when Reagan was prez? When Carter was prez? What are your experiences in being able to 'drop da diss' on this shiznit? Or are you just some narcassist with his head up his poop-chute?
posted by mk1gti at 8:41 PM on September 12, 2005

Rumor is, Colonel Dunlap's essay has been circulating among the military's top brass and strategists.

When somebody says something that starts "Rumor is..." but cites no source, I have to wonder: augustweed, did you just make this shit up? Because it sounds a lot like bullshit to me. If not, provide evidence. If so, it kind of pisses me off.

So what we have here are four basically irrelevant links about an essay that is mischaracterized, misreporting about Michael Brown's successor (the intended nominee, R. David Paulison, was a firefighter and fire chief for 30 years: perhaps we are about to be taken over by firefighters? 'Cause I might be okay with that), a contention of omission from the congressional record that best as I can determine is only being alleged by Rense.com, great sourcing there, rounded out by some particularly ridiculous hyperbole. This is one rotten, worthless post.
posted by nanojath at 8:45 PM on September 12, 2005

rotten, worthless posts don't generate as much commentary as this one did. It is something to discuss and something that I am sure is on more than just a few minds considering the feedback it's generated. I don't think we're likely to see a coup here, but then again no one really predicted the fall of the Soviet Union or two stolen U.S. elections and little to no reaction about it either.
As far as the 'rumor has it around the campfire' bit, yeah he doesn't have any sources cited but one can't help but wonder how the military brass feels these days seeing it's numbers getting whittled down by incompetent, unprofessional ass-kissers who in a more professional military would have whiled away their final years at a remote post waiting for retirement, cast off and ignored by the real professionals. There are a lot of upper-level military men who have retired during this administration who have very impressive records. Who's to say they might not come out of retirement once this bunch has left office? Do you really think those men are just sitting around playing golf now? I don't.
posted by mk1gti at 9:24 PM on September 12, 2005

As far as the military coup thing goes, ten-fifteen-twenty years ago the thought that there would be a government in place like the one we have no would have been consigned to cloud-cuckoo land. Yet here we are. Military coup? Five, ten, fifteen years? Five months? Who can say.

Ah, takes me back to first year sociology. Discussing international takes on social programs, health care, and a bunch of other factors that make a nation a good place to live and be happy. #1 in the world, at the time, was lovely Yugoslavia... (I'm not kidding)
posted by dreamsign at 10:21 PM on September 12, 2005

mk1gti, a person doesn't have to be a military member in order to criticize those who criticize the military, or to criticize the military either. Why did you go off on 10:15 like that?
posted by davidmsc at 9:31 PM on September 13, 2005