Side story on the recent gun spree

[jmm99]

These are two brief comments on Slap's links.

First looking at Col Michael D. Wyly, USMC (Ret), Fourth Generation Warfare: What Does It Mean to Every Marine? (1995). To me, these points are very material to this thread:

What then is fundamental to our Constitutional concept, so fundamental that every Marine must understand it? First, that the laws of the land govern human conduct. We have a new concept grown up since the 1960s called "civil disobedience." It is all right to believe in it, but it is against the law to practice it. Offenders must expect to be prosecuted. It is an issue Marines need to grasp.
...
In a fourth generation situation Marines would need to know that people have a right to assemble and assert themselves against abuses of power. Denying that right to Americans makes them demand it more strongly. Strong resistance by civilians raises the issue of gun control. Gun control is a very touchy subject today. But, since arms are crucial to Marines' profession, we cannot evade the issue. It is a constitutional issue that is likely, someday, to involve us.

Understanding the issue is fundamental to Marines' understanding the Constitution. We live in a country where the people enjoy a unique right to bear arms. Marines should know there is a reason for that. Of course there is the history of Indian wars followed by the threat of armed redcoats. Those threats have disappeared. However, the fourth generation threat includes armed criminals in numbers Americans have not had to reckon with before. Marines, like all Americans, are free to favor some kind of gun control or eschew it altogether up until laws are passed. What is crucially important, however, is that they understand there are serious constitutional ramifications. Taking the right away from Americans, or enforcing such a restriction, could quickly make us the enemy of constitutional freedom. It is this sort of understanding that separates citizens from "all the rest."

Col. Wyly doesn't address the ultimate question: Will Marines obey orders to shoot down their fellow Americans; or, are there some "tipping points" beyond which they will not go ?

Given that Marines have a strong tradition of following orders, I personally wouldn't bet on a "Marine mutiny". Nor, would I bet on an "Army mutiny". Thus, my preference for a Gene Sharp approach in addressing non-compliance.

As to William S. Lind, I've read both his "4th Gen Warfare" stuff (leave that on the shelf, please) and his "utopian" (cultural conservative) stuff. Lind is something of a Luddite, a reactionary (used in the sense that he would like to travel back in time), and occasionally sounds notes that seem strange to me; e.g.,:

In his On War column of December 15, 2009, Lind announced that he was leaving the staff of the Center unexpectedly and that his series of On War articles was on hiatus for the moment. "Once I am re-established, either with a new institution or in retirement, I intend to re-start the column. When that will be I do not know. It also depends on obtaining connection to a telegraph line, which is not available everywhere."

I've not the foggiest as to how or why a telegraph line comes into play. I've mentioned Lind in 7 previous posts, starting here, A Lawyer's View (which is part of a conversation with Slap - remember when we at SWC actually had real conversations ).

Enough of Lind personally, but to his What is Cultural Marxism? As to that, my only comment is to this snip:

... the members of the Frankfurt School - - Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Wilhelm Reich, Eric Fromm and Herbert Marcuse, to name the most important ...

I'm ignorant of Horkheimer and Adorno; I've read some Reich, Fromm and Marcuse (mostly Fromm). Perhaps, because I do not rate them very high in my pantheon of political theorists, I can't give them (esp. Marcuse) credit for destroying USAian culture.

That being said, there has been a real break in our USAian cultural framework. So, Slap and Carl are on to something there. That framework break also is material to this thread; but I have to write something offline - and think it over and re-write before posting. Wouldn't want Kiwigrunt to call it "drivel". That word reminds me of Wilf (too bad he's too busy elsewhere).

Regards

Mike

[carl]

Col. Wyly doesn't address the ultimate question: Will Marines obey orders to shoot down their fellow Americans; or, are there some "tipping points" beyond which they will not go ?

Given that Marines have a strong tradition of following orders, I personally wouldn't bet on a "Marine mutiny". Nor, would I bet on an "Army mutiny". Thus, my preference for a Gene Sharp approach in addressing non-compliance.

Here is a link to a Naval Postgraduate School thesis done in the mid 1990s.

www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a293790.pdf

It was quite controversial at the time because question 46 asked this of about 300 serving Marines:

"The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizens groups refuse to turn over their firearms.

Consider the following statement: `I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government'."

They were then given 5 choices of response ranging from Strongly agree to no opinion.

On page 79 of the thesis the author states that about 26% of the Marines would fire on fellow citizens but about 66% would refuse. The author concluded that "The response to this scenario suggest that a complete unit breakdown could occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission."

That being said, there has been a real break in our USAian cultural framework. So, Slap and Carl are on to something there. That framework break also is material to this thread; but I have to write something offline - and think it over and re-write before posting. Wouldn't want Kiwigrunt to call it "drivel". That word reminds me of Wilf (too bad he's too busy elsewhere).

As I keep saying, Charles Murray has a lot to say about that break in the cultural framework in his book Coming Apart, though the book mainly demonstrates the extant and growing gap between the superzips and the rest of us. He doesn't get much into what it might mean for the future. Question 46 might give an inkling about what might happen if things go badly awry. (It also concerns me that cultural and political differences are lining up geographically and regionally.)

[motorfirebox]

Col. Wyly doesn't address the ultimate question: Will Marines obey orders to shoot down their fellow Americans; or, are there some "tipping points" beyond which they will not go ?

Given that Marines have a strong tradition of following orders, I personally wouldn't bet on a "Marine mutiny". Nor, would I bet on an "Army mutiny". Thus, my preference for a Gene Sharp approach in addressing non-compliance.

I dunno. Once, maybe. But even a one-time event would have a drastic effect on the political landscape, to the point of a coup. After that, I think political leadership would be in such flux that it'd be an open question who would be in a position to give further such orders. I can't imagine any of the people I served with obeying such an order, unlikely as it is that the HHT of an Apache squadron would be picked to carry something like that out.

[carl]

I dunno. Once, maybe. But even a one-time event would have a drastic effect on the political landscape, to the point of a coup. After that, I think political leadership would be in such flux that it'd be an open question who would be in a position to give further such orders. I can't imagine any of the people I served with obeying such an order, unlikely as it is that the HHT of an Apache squadron would be picked to carry something like that out.

That was why the author of the report I cited said such a mission may result in the breakdown of the unit. But that could be got around by picking and choosing who would go into a unit asked to do something like that, long before it was actually called upon to do it. One thing that I believe history tells us is that you can always, always find throat cutters if you want to find them. There are more than a just a few people who will do anything, and I mean anything if an authority figure gives them the ok. We were able to find people to torture with no trouble that I am aware of. And we were able to get average soldiers to help beat people to death (I am talking about the Afghan who was hung from the ceiling and subjected to very numerous leg strikes until his muscles macerated and he died). So if the powers that be cared to, they could find the people they wanted.

But as you say, it would cause big trouble. I don't think it would come as a coup. I think it would come about with state governments challenging the fed government. Something along the lines of the feds tell the state of Texabama that we are going here and doing this. The fed agents are met by members of the Texabama State Police who tell them you will not do that and if you do we will arrest you. That would be some kind of trouble.

[Surferbeetle]

I dunno. Once, maybe. But even a one-time event would have a drastic effect on the political landscape, to the point of a coup. After that, I think political leadership would be in such flux that it'd be an open question who would be in a position to give further such orders. I can't imagine any of the people I served with obeying such an order, unlikely as it is that the HHT of an Apache squadron would be picked to carry something like that out.

Don't conflate some of the third and second world s###holes that we have served in with a 1st world country.

Recall the basics please.

Institutions are favored over individuals because they help to diffuse power and provide some level of inertia/institutional wisdom which serves to circumvent radical and ill thought out moves. 1st world countries are chock full of institutions.

On to American culture and mores. Illegal orders are just that, illegal. People are put in charge because they have a pair and are willing to make the right call. NCO and Warrant systems help to constrain and guide those Officers who are, shall we say, confused. Our legal and judiciary system would have a frigging Christmas/Hanukah/Eid party with whomever would be so stupid. Criminal and civil systems would salivating.

Kent State shootings, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

[jmm99]

To Carl for a 206 page study, which I'll gum.

More generally,

On the other hand, we have Kent State and the Detroit Riot (National Guard ops), and Ruby Ridge and Waco (Fed ops) - realities, as opposed to a hypothetical. I suppose those four could be set aside as cockups; or are they simply examples of how confrontations can quickly get out of hand?

On the other, other hand, 25% of a Marine company is still a lot of firepower - and, what if a company is fired on first? I'd expect the non-firing Marines would flip their switches very quickly.

Thus, I'd still stick with a Gene Sharp approach as the default means of non-compliance - although that is not a life assurance policy.

All that being said, a question might be how many of the 3 million or so NRA members would engage in some form of "civil disobedience" ? I've no idea whether that's been studied. And, how many others (not NRA members) would join them ? Again, I've no idea.

Finally, Carl, thanks for reminding me of Charles Murray, Coming Apart - which reminded me of Rasmussen's polls to the same effect. I'll work them in.

Regards

Mike

[carl]

Mike, the author suggests that the problem wouldn't be the 26% or the 66%, it would be the interaction between the two if that nightmare scenario ever came to be.

No matter how you cut it, or what would or would not happen, for the civilian or military leaders to ever let it get anywhere close to that would be a disaster for the military as an institution, for civil-military relations and especially for the serving soldiers. You would have situation where soldiers, who are citizens, would be asked to perhaps fire on fellow citizens to enforce a political dictate. If they didn't, then they disobey orders. If they did, regardless of the circumstances, the would have killed Americans, the circumstances would only make the difference between bad and nightmarish. There is not a way that could come out good. The long term effect on unit cohesion, as the author alludes to, would be very, very bad.

[Surferbeetle]

Mike, Carl,

Although I am not a lawyer, I am of the opinion that American legal and cultural constraints would prevent the scenario from occurring.

On the legal side of things, the Posse Comitatus Act circumscribes federal military actions within US borders and requires Presidential and Congressional concurrence for exemptions to the Act. Congress has not been able to balance a budget in years; passing a weapons ban to be enforced by the military is even less likely and has no historical precedent (that I am aware of).

On the cultural side of things our nation is great in large part due to an informed and armed citizenry which is deeply committed to democratic principles. Despite the visible indicators of a diffuse general concern (such as increased weapons sales, ammunition shortages, and various ongoing propaganda efforts), I do not envision that a majority of Americans will request that their representatives enact a weapons ban and have our military enforce it.



Posse Comitatus Act, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Timeline of United States military operations, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States

The Constitutional Amendment Process, National Archives, http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

[carl]

Surferbeetle:

I am just tossing around an ill formed idea now, but. What if federal law enforcement agencies were stymied by the Texabama State Police and called upon the federal armed forces for help? And further what if for several years prior to something like that occurring, the senior leadership of the military had been selected based upon informal inquiries as to their willingness to order their men to do something like that? Something along those lines already happened in Arkansas.

Mike:

I don't understand the legal basis upon which Ike was able to do that.

[jmm99]

Attached are three pdfs of relevant pages of the 1995 Cunningham Survey of 300 Marines.

pdf 00 is the question and allowed answers.

pdf 01 is the results by grades of E1-E5 and E6-E7, O1-O3.

pdf 02 is a footnote (#68) of individual comments.

The upshot is that NONE of 13 persons in grades E6-E7, O1-O3 agreed with the shoot order - 7 strongly disagreed; 6 disagreed.

I'm happy to be proved wrong on this point (and gratified as to the 300 Marines surveyed).

But, I still think the Martin Luther King approach is better if the issue is pushed - as it appears it will be. Mark Kelly (who will be an as articulate or more articulate spokesman for gun control as Sarah Brady) was certainly in a push on mode in today's interview with Chris Wallace: "This Isn’t About The Second Amendment Anymore."

Now, as to enforcement (and who BTW will enforce the gun control mandates), Andrew Jackson supposedly said privately in effect: "John Marshall has entered his mandate. Now let him enforce it."

I suppose gun controllers do not expect anything but voluntary compliance with their mandates. They will look at Australia, etc.; and not see it likely that the law-abiding (hence, in their eyes, sheeply) gun owners will put up any sort of fight once the mandate is entered by someone.

That COA (IF there is substantial "civil disobedience", much less any USG "shoot orders") would rip this country apart. On this and many other issues, the country is not really neatly divided blue and red. It is purple with interlaced blue and red boxes.

I think there is a cultural disconnect here.

Regards

Mike

PS: Note the comment in pdf 03 "Only if fired upon". I'd keep that in mind.

Posse Commitatus is no real legal bar. It can be waived by Presidential Order - and there are many options to follow in doing that.

As to Carl's Texabama situation, the President issues a finding that Texabama is in rebellion - and away we go with Civil War II.

Ike and Little Rock - his speech on it, “Mob Rule Cannot Be Allowed to Override the Decisions of Our Courts”:

Whenever normal agencies prove inadequate to the task and it becomes necessary for the Executive Branch of the Federal Government to use its powers and authority to uphold Federal Courts, the President’s responsibility is inescapable. In accordance with that responsibility, I have today issued an Executive Order directing the use of troops under Federal authority to aid in the execution of Federal law at Little Rock, Arkansas. This became necessary when my Proclamation of yesterday was not observed, and the obstruction of justice still continues.

Ike and Earl Warren were on better terms than Jackson and Marshall. Ike's legal authority was probably under one of the Force Acts, as updated to that time. I didn't look up which one.