Side story on the recent gun spree

[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.

[Surferbeetle]

Carl,

What you are suggesting goes against everything an officer is trained, educated, and stands for.

An officer who would be likely to do such a thing would be run out (and rightfully so) early in his/her career.

As a case study perhaps it would worthwhile to study/determine what happened to Maj. Gen. Sylvester T. Del Corso the Ohio TAG at the time of the Kent State shootings, as well as the officers in the chain of command at that time. I do not know the answer to this question, but have found a few links to help shed some light on historical precedent:

State adjutant general, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_adjutants_general

Sylvester Del Corso, 85, Head Of Guard at Kent State Attack, By WOLFGANG SAXON Published: April 11, 1998, NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/11/us...te-attack.html

[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.

[carl]

Mike:

Are you sure you read that right? The tables I am looking at show one E-6 and one O-1 agreed that they would fire. One O-1 and one O-3 said they had no opinion. A 'no opinion' guy may go with the wind and somebody from on high pushing would be a pretty strong wind. But a sample of 13 isn't really reliable.

An interesting part of the survey was the most willing to fire or with no opinion were the E-2s and E-4s. 43 of E-2s said they would fire or had no opinion vs. 50 who said they would not. 32 of the E-4s said they would fire or had no opinion vs. 35 who said they would not.

No wonder the author of the study said the unit might break up.

This study was done almost 20 years ago and I know of no other similar study done since. There probably won't be one either.

Do guys out there think think attitudes have changed much since the study was done? Why were there such variations in attitudes amongst the enlisted men? Are brand new soldiers more likely to do anything they are told? The cultural disconnect Mike spoke of is, I think, getting more pronounced in the civilian world. Is that reflected at all in the military?

I know there is probably no hard data out there on any of this so I seek subjective opinions.