Role of the military in a Civil War?

[fire4effect]

19 hours ago, fire4effect said:

Interesting we are having this conversation in the first place. But given who we have running for the office of POTUS on  both sides not really surprising. What would really be interesting would be the reaction of the Praetorian Guard (AKA Secret Service)....4000 or so strong? or say Brigade size.....who are supposed to be apolitical to the extreme....many of whom are former military....would they defend POTUS in a relevant scenario or walk....I understand that they're recruiting fewer than they are losing.......the times we live in....

 

18 hours ago, ihtfp06 said:

Put....down....the....bottle....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair assumption.....meant it more tongue in cheek....should have been clearer......I admit that I am more than a little surprised that there is actually a thread seriously discussing a potential military role in a domestic civil war on a mainstream forum such as Baseops....that is what I was referring to the "times we live in"  Now..........where is that rum and coke?

[Kiloalpha]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Agreed - the crazies from both sides would come out of the woodwork with the probability of unforeseen forays into lunacy high

I would like to see reform but without the Constitution put at risk, for all its quirks and problems it is still the best house of cards to keep a large and diverse nation together.

Right there with you. Speaking of amendments, the 17th is one that I'd like to see removed. But, good luck telling people that they can't elect their senators. 

You know, having Congress do their job for once would be a good start towards reform.

[matmacwc]

1 hour ago, Kiloalpha said:

Right there with you. Speaking of amendments, the 17th is one that I'd like to see removed. But, good luck telling people that they can't elect their senators. 

You know, having Congress do their job for once would be a good start towards reform.

The system was supposed to be gridlocked.  I don't like Pres O and thankfully we have a house and senate that can shut hum down, executive orders can and should be shredded by the next president.  He had 2 years of control of all houses and could have done anything, but instead rammed the ACA through on Christmas eve.  The constitution is the greatest document ever conceived by man, and we should move back toward it.

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:

Right there with you. Speaking of amendments, the 17th is one that I'd like to see removed. But, good luck telling people that they can't elect their senators. 

You know, having Congress do their job for once would be a good start towards reform.

2 

I would rather modify the intent and make at least Senators be elected members (previously or currently) members of a state wide legislative body.  The people can vote on the candidate but the candidate must be a legislative member of the state government to put the perspective of the states truly into the Federal Government so you don't get the ever growing Borg Cube trying to assimilate every part of our government, economy and society, like we have now.

1 hour ago, matmacwc said:

The system was supposed to be gridlocked.  I don't like Pres O and thankfully we have a house and senate that can shut hum down, executive orders can and should be shredded by the next president.  He had 2 years of control of all houses and could have done anything, but instead rammed the ACA through on Christmas eve.  The constitution is the greatest document ever conceived by man, and we should move back toward it.

Agree in spirit but as a practical matter we probably have to acknowledge the level of consensus the Federal Government requires to function as it was intended (passing budgets, confirming judges, enforcing the laws and borders, you know those mundane things) , as how it is structured now by the Constitution is probably not possible.  

We are probably too diverse for the levels of consensus required to function with the majorities the Constitution requires.  I like the checks the Constitution puts to keep smaller population states like mine at the grown-ups table via the Senate but I see the problem(s) that these features have.  If we go to straight majorities and proportional representation, pretty much our Federal Government will be the Congressional delegations of CA, TX, NY, FL, IL with a few other big population states making all the calls.  Not acceptable either.

Governing for mutual benefit doesn't seem to work anymore so let's try something different, governing for our interest(s) and tie our political opponents to the same fate also.  

Decide on a 2 year budget by simple majority, from October to June, 3 quarters of an FY, then vote / horse trade in the 4th quarter, with every day in the last month knocking 1% off the budget and adding 1% in tax revenues.  No budget pass, the budget submitted minus 30% plus 30% taxes is your shit sandwich, enjoy.  Lots of incentive to focus the minds of Congressmen.

Liberals scramble like hell to get it passed fast before losing more money for their government programs and conservatives hustle to keep from sending more money to the Federal government.  Everyone has an incentive not to lose, not to win and make the other guy lose, just not to lose.  Like it or not, just not losing is the best COA sometimes.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Clark Griswold
closed the loop

[SuperWSO]

10 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

 minus 30% plus 30% taxes is your shit sandwich, enjoy.  Lots of incentive to focus the minds of Congressmen.

Everyone thought sequestration would be the shit sandwich that would force a deal on the budget.  Then the Dems decided shit with a heaping helping of defense cuts was ok.

Don't propose something that you couldn't stand to see take effect.

 

 

[matmacwc]

The party of Pres O will not pass a budget, they didn't even do it when they were a majority in all branches.

[Clark Griswold]

27 minutes ago, SuperWSO said:

Everyone thought sequestration would be the shit sandwich that would force a deal on the budget.  Then the Dems decided shit with a heaping helping of defense cuts was ok.

Don't propose something that you couldn't stand to see take effect.

Yep, basically my model for incentivizing the two sides has the conservatives at a disadvantage (typically the Hawks protecting DoD) so non-discretionary spending with their own funding vehicles (SS, Medicare, Medicaid) would have to be in there too, requiring statutory changes to the programs stewardships to keep the Dems feet to the fire, the 1% increases in taxes could / should be from the elimination of tax credits, subsidies, etc... rather than raising income tax rates.

Gov worker salaries / benefits would have to be on the table, as there are a shit load of millionaires in Congress this has limited effect but their staffs, military, federal employees would have to be hostages in this scenario or Congress would have to pay them at the expense of operations of departments.  

How shitty when you can't imagine ways other than pain & punishment to get things done.  

[Kiloalpha]

As for @Clark Griswold's budget idea? I'll have to admit, that's incredibly clever. Trust me though, they'd find a way to game that. Whether that means inflating the first budget knowing that they could handle a cut on the backend... or even if the two parties agreed on a date to pass a budget that wouldn't cut/raise taxes past a certain amount. Working in politics has made me somewhat cynical, but I'm telling you... There's not much distinguishing a majority of the two parties once they all sit in a chamber together.

How about we change your idea slightly. The budget text cannot exceed 150 pages, 2-sided with no less than 10pt font. That passed budget has to be mailed to every citizen with a packet of information from the Congressional Budget Office about what their member of Congress and their staff makes in salaries and benefits, how the budget directly affects you/the nation and what the # is to speak to your representative.

Now we're talking about some fun. I have enough ammo and popcorn I think. Have to check on the ammo though. 
 

Edited August 24, 2016 by Kiloalpha
Grammar

[Clark Griswold]

Not on the role of the military in a Civil War but a good article on a potential situation that might get a Civil War discussed in mainstream political discussion and could lead to factions in the military arising:

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-30/candidate-death-could-delay-or-eliminate-presidential-election

There are good mechanisms in place for succession of a candidate legally and by policy of the political parties it seems but if one of the candidates did die mid-campaign either by assignation or suspect circumstances, real or perceived, what does the military do if a significant body of the one branch of the government basically claims the election is a fraud by the death of their candidate, the process of election decided upon after that death and the result thereof?  

I am thinking Congress in mass by political party refusing to accept the result if the Executive and/or Judicial moved to a special election procedure, if all the members of one party just refused to meet for a quorum to be made and would not accept that decision, backed by their respective state legislatures, we could be on the road to becoming Barter Town.

Does the military step in at that point for national security of borders, strategic deterrence, national cohesion?

[guineapigfury]

Isn't this why the candidates select a spare several months before the election?  If Trump dies of a heart attack, the Republican ticket is Pence/Player to be named later.  If both candidates on a ticket die, then things start to get wacky.  Maybe we should pick tickets 17 deep (Pres, VP + 15 Cabinet officers).  That way there is no chance of losing them all and we can abridge the tedious confirmation hearings.  The people spoke, let the Senate have a voice vote for the Cabinet as a block, press.

[guineapigfury]

So if "2 Dead People 2016" wins 270 electoral votes, then what?  I'd argue for letting the respective National Convention reconvene to pick replacements prior to the electoral college vote in December.  This is why the Electoral College is a good idea.  Technically, we're voting for electors, not President and VP.  Those electors are selected by the parties, so it shouldn't be too hard to convince them to vote along partisan lines after a re-selection of candidates.

[brickhistory]

18 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

 

Does the military step in at that point for national security of borders, strategic deterrence, national cohesion?

No.

There is still a functioning system in place - Legislature and Judicial - as well as mechanisms for executive branch succession, e.g. Speaker of the House.

DoD sits on the sidelines and stays quiet until the political branches sort it out.  If DoD jumps in once, what prevents it from doing so again in the future.  We may be awarded chest-fuls of medals and ribbons like banana republics, but we don't have to respond like one.

 

[Clark Griswold]

4 hours ago, brickhistory said:

No.

There is still a functioning system in place - Legislature and Judicial - as well as mechanisms for executive branch succession, e.g. Speaker of the House.

DoD sits on the sidelines and stays quiet until the political branches sort it out.  If DoD jumps in once, what prevents it from doing so again in the future.  We may be awarded chest-fuls of medals and ribbons like banana republics, but we don't have to respond like one.

That would be my desire also, if the Speaker of the House succeeded the POTUS our democracy would get about 10x stronger if he/she agreed to only one year and declare they would resign allowing for another round of political kabuki theatre known as a modern Presidential election.  An emulation of Washington's example of walking away from power for the good of the Republic.  

[Clark Griswold]

22 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:

That article you posted to bring up this topic was the subject of a lengthy conference call with both state and national party officials today. FWIW, they're at least thinking through the possibility.

Good, anything can happen and a Plan B has to be ready.  I don't know why but sometimes when you discuss the unlikely but possible with some people on issues of basic stability of American governance and politics they just want to blow it off like it could never happen here, no we have a good history of stability but shit can get wacky real fast.

This is not that far fetched (death and disruption to American politics during an election), the assignation of RFK is not directly analogous as the primary was still underway but it likely had a radical effect as the 1968 Democratic Convention might / likely would not have been such a disaster and he quite possibly could have defeated Nixon.  No political wishful thinking there as I lean right but as the election between Humphrey and Nixon was tight in the popular vote, 43.4% to 42.7% (wiki), RFK might have closed that gap.  Had he been POTUS versus Nixon, history would likely be much different...

What I think is more likely to cause a political crisis and foment the idea of American Military involvement in American domestic politics is an accusation the Executive is not faithfully executing the laws vis a vis inaction on illegal immigrations and accusations of an "Executive Amnesty" - whether real or perceived.  So far, no one has made that case beyond posturing but if it were made in Congress by an article of impeachment, especially if we saw an major influx of illegal immigrants, persons / family units requesting amnesty along with fast / questionable efforts to naturalize persons not lawfully present in the USA, etc... I think this would quickly precipitate a crisis as one side of American politics would see it (rightly IMO) as an existential threat to their political representation by the other side illegally trying to skewer the American electorate by importing new voters / supporters and then pushing to minority political status their opponents... 

That's not to say it would go to a full boil so quickly the military would need / be tempted to intervene but it does set the stage...

Edited September 2, 2016 by Clark Griswold

[brickhistory]

9 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

 

That's not to say it would go to a full boil so quickly the military would need / be tempted to intervene but it does set the stage...

Big Green/Grey/Blue should never, ever be "tempted" to intervene.

IF such an "intervention" should occur, there is no longer a Republic or Constitution to uphold.  Then it's just brute force in charge like most of the rest of the world.

There is no unfcuking the dead whore in that instance.

Barring a rerun of 1861-1865, there is not a place for DoD in the domestic U.S. political landscape. A President not upholding his oath is something for the other two co-equal branches of government to stop.

BTW, I'm against retired GOFOs spouting off on endorsements/insults for political candidates.  Not a big step to go from retired dudes to active duty ones.

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

Big Green/Grey/Blue should never, ever be "tempted" to intervene.

IF such an "intervention" should occur, there is no longer a Republic or Constitution to uphold.  Then it's just brute force in charge like most of the rest of the world.

There is no unfcuking the dead whore in that instance.

Barring a rerun of 1861-1865, there is not a place for DoD in the domestic U.S. political landscape. A President not upholding his oath is something for the other two co-equal branches of government to stop.

BTW, I'm against retired GOFOs spouting off on endorsements/insults for political candidates.  Not a big step to go from retired dudes to active duty ones.

I could have used a better verb than tempted, forced would have been better and by forced I mean it is absolute chaos in the streets, we are being threatened by foreign enemies trying to use the chaos to attack, the civilian government is non-functional, etc... I mean a real emergency.  We would never be the same nation again, but at least the nation would survive in a new form, for the better probably not.

On the subject of GOFOs participating in politics in retirement, not for or against but it does seem to be unseemly.  I think that is really a product of the opinion of our elected representatives and the esteem the public holds the military and particularly high ranking military officers, rightly or wrongly.  We know that democracy is of a transactional nature vice a system where individuals hold true to their principals but find some common ground with their opponents and manage to compromise accordingly and get things done.  These transactions are where the sausage is made and it's not pretty, now imagining these esteemed individuals in that business just seems wrong...

25 minutes ago, Kiloalpha said:

The race in 1968 is an interesting case to work with. Modern political analysis (academics) teach/theorize that Humphrey was a bad candidate but was boosted by the sympathetic vote. Honestly? We have ventured so far from the democratic model that JFK and RFK espoused. Put up JFK against Obama or Hillary Clinton and he'd be a centrist, possibly leaning republican. But, that's an interesting side topic.

The problem is that we like to live in a world where DoD is the great sentinel at the gates of American freedom. That it exists as an impartial entity upon which every American citizen (Democrat or Republican) can depend on in the moment of crisis. In a general sense? It absolutely is. The professionalization of our military is astounding (in comparison to the rest of the world) and second to none in many respects. However, we need to accept the fundamental fact that DoD too has been impregnated by politics. Historically we saw it only at the GO and Secretary levels due to the shenanigans required to pin on another star or earn yourself the title of "Honorable". Now? It's everywhere. Shaving waivers for religious/ethnic reasons, DoD paying for gender reassignment, SAPR, puffing up ISIS reports for political gain, forcing the integration of women into all combat roles... the list goes on. This "queep" that we talk about removing? It's not just paperwork, it's becoming cultural. With that being said, all of those things mean that sentinel analogy begins to crumble. People are no longer at ease knowing that the DoD is the last vestige of government to fall prey to political pressures. That implicit trust is what keeps people content with battling at the ballot box and not elsewhere, because they know the real firepower is just standing by, not picking sides. Take that away? Chaos.

I think your example is a fair point, because immigration is a hot issue right now. However, polling data from this election cycle is showing that people generally aren't sure of what to think about it. You have a 30% group of folks that say "go home and come back the right way", roughly 25% who say "please, stay and enjoy the fruits of our labor" and the 45% in the middle who simply don't know. I'm not entirely sure that 45% of the public is going to "rise up" and test the waters of military intervention. We've endured all kinds of executive orders in this administration and no one has screamed for impeachment. Granted, the stakes are higher this year, I'll give you that. I'm also a little cynical to be honest.

@brickhistory is dead on about one thing, you can't put the shit back in the horse. Once that contract is breached, there's no going back.

True, the military doing anything but standing guard will be crossing the Rubicon but what if there is no choice?  That is question, where is that line?  It has to exist somewhere but it is just very very far away from where we are now or probably (hopefully) ever will be.  

Edited September 2, 2016 by Clark Griswold

[matmacwc]

We serve at the desire of our elected officials.  Period.  Who approves your commission, or promotion.  Think about it.

[Clark Griswold]

We serve at the desire of our elected officials.  Period.  Who approves your commission, or promotion.  Think about it.

Yeah but we swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution - my pontificating is trying to "formalize" how to tell when our pols are code 3 and we (the military) may have to act independently to uphold our oath - I am thankfully confident this has a low chance of ever happening but beyond the discussion of not obeying illegal orders how could the civilian government set boundaries that if it crossed (written before a governance crisis) that the military could act not to run the country but to restore conditions so a civilian authority could reestablish order?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lawman]

I think a large part that is missed in this theorized scenario... How long before the Military command structure (like the civilian one) and more importantly the support structures completely fractures.

Personally I see a lot of mass defections with government property going on in a real post major break up of the country. Especially if it has to do wi a mass attack/crises like some EMP knocking out the power or terror strike that beheads the government resulting in regional fracturing.

People are gonna stop getting paid. Some may be doing this for God and country and all but a lot of troopers, airmen, etc are not going to go marching into work to fix he strategic problems when civil disorder abounds and they can't get money to buy diapers and groceries. I think you'll see stuff in the Armories that can be carried off by hand disappearing quick, and the bigger stuff breaking down fast and being left where it sits for lack of logistics.

Essentially our military capability would look like a lot of our 3rd/2nd world partners who buy nice stuff but can't seem to keep it running.

[Clark Griswold]

45 minutes ago, Lawman said:

I think a large part that is missed in this theorized scenario... How long before the Military command structure (like the civilian one) and more importantly the support structures completely fractures.

Personally I see a lot of mass defections with government property going on in a real post major break up of the country. Especially if it has to do wi a mass attack/crises like some EMP knocking out the power or terror strike that beheads the government resulting in regional fracturing.

People are gonna stop getting paid. Some may be doing this for God and country and all but a lot of troopers, airmen, etc are not going to go marching into work to fix he strategic problems when civil disorder abounds and they can't get money to buy diapers and groceries. I think you'll see stuff in the Armories that can be carried off by hand disappearing quick, and the bigger stuff breaking down fast and being left where it sits for lack of logistics.

Essentially our military capability would look like a lot of our 3rd/2nd world partners who buy nice stuff but can't seem to keep it running.

Valid.

Of late the threat of an EMP still seems plausible but the Cyber attack possibility of incapacitating the government for some period of time is getting more real or Cyber manipulation / blackmail, real or manufactured.

This could be an interesting inject from White Cell in Military / LE exercise practicing DOMOPs - your first world AOR just became loosely / not governed, proceed.  

[Lawman]

Valid.

Of late the threat of an EMP still seems plausible but the Cyber attack possibility of incapacitating the government for some period of time is getting more real or Cyber manipulation / blackmail, real or manufactured.

This could be an interesting inject from White Cell in Military / LE exercise practicing DOMOPs - your first world AOR just became loosely / not governed, proceed.  

I think it would be a lot like exercises where they randomly kill key leaders to see you function.... Ok let's do that with logistics and communications too.

My guess is it would lead to a reevaluation on what we are allowed to keep "on hand" since having stuff you have to pull forward to then meet your OR rate works great in peacetime. At the same time I think a lot of commanders would fail to take a good hard look at maintaining a sustaibable OR status and would push stuff out early in a furious "get after it" approach which would piss away combat power they are gonna need latter. Now the unit is on its ass, the situation is deteriorating, it's not clear who is giving orders, and Joe has not been paid or heard from his family (or has and it's bad).

Cases of MREs are gone, trucks aren't in the motor pool, and the Armory is suddenly sans a lot of rifles and ammo.... "1SG we need an accountability of our people and equipment!.... 1SG?"

It would be an interesting study to see that's for sure.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

10 hours ago, Lawman said:

I think it would be a lot like exercises where they randomly kill key leaders to see you function.... Ok let's do that with logistics and communications too.

My guess is it would lead to a reevaluation on what we are allowed to keep "on hand" since having stuff you have to pull forward to then meet your OR rate works great in peacetime. At the same time I think a lot of commanders would fail to take a good hard look at maintaining a sustaibable OR status and would push stuff out early in a furious "get after it" approach which would piss away combat power they are gonna need latter. Now the unit is on its ass, the situation is deteriorating, it's not clear who is giving orders, and Joe has not been paid or heard from his family (or has and it's bad).

Cases of MREs are gone, trucks aren't in the motor pool, and the Armory is suddenly sans a lot of rifles and ammo.... "1SG we need an accountability of our people and equipment!.... 1SG?"

It would be an interesting study to see that's for sure.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup - can you depend on your soldiers/airmen/sailors/marines?  Were they paid?  What is the political leaning of their commander?  Does Intel suspect they cold be flipped?

Edited September 3, 2016 by Clark Griswold

[Lawman]

Yup - can you depend on your soldiers/airmen/sailors/marines? Were they paid? What is the political leaning of their commander? Does Intel suspect they cold be flipped?

Hey I can tell you right now, I love my country.... But when the day comes where I've gotta pick between supporting a government I can't even see/didn't elect/etc while my kid(s) go hungry and my wife is sitting in the house day by day hoping this isn't the day some band of raiders/criminals pick my neighborhood to rape and pillage.... Sorry but I've got places and people that need me.

[Clark Griswold]

10 hours ago, Lawman said:

Hey I can tell you right now, I love my country.... But when the day comes where I've gotta pick between supporting a government I can't even see/didn't elect/etc while my kid(s) go hungry and my wife is sitting in the house day by day hoping this isn't the day some band of raiders/criminals pick my neighborhood to rape and pillage.... Sorry but I've got places and people that need me.

 

Sorry - should have been clear, that was just a continuation on the tangent of inputting this into an exercise (breakdown in civilian authority).

 

[BFM this]

11 hours ago, Lawman said:

 

Hey I can tell you right now, I love my country.... But when the day comes where I've gotta pick between supporting a government I can't even see/didn't elect/etc while my kid(s) go hungry and my wife is sitting in the house day by day hoping this isn't the day some band of raiders/criminals pick my neighborhood to rape and pillage.... Sorry but I've got places and people that need me.

 

I got asked by my teenage daughter my thoughts on the massive flow of refugees from the Middle East.  I explained that should trouble arise, we might make a similar journey.  But at some point, when the guns had faded from earshot, and I could calculate a certain level of safety for my loved ones, that we would part ways.  That is the difference between our culture, and others that have been ground into an apathetic flight response.