Air Force JAG Predicts US Military Coup by 2012!

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2007 @ 09:45 AM
link   
This definitely caught my attention.

This is a paper written by Lieutenant Colonel Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., USAF, is the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate, US Central Command, at MacDill AFB, Florida. Now, to clarify the position, the writer makes clear at the beginning that this is a work of speculative fiction in the form of a "letter" from an Air Force colonel who is detained for sedition following a military coup of the U.S. government in 2012.

Quite creative, if you think about it.

The paper though, written in 1992, talks about trends and events that led to this coup. While this is fiction, Dunlap makes some startling accurate predictions.

Among his observations:



  • Americans became exasperated with democracy. We were disillusioned with the apparent inability of elected government to solve the nation's dilemmas. We were looking for someone or something that could produce workable answers.
  • The country suffered from a "deep pessimism about politicians and government after years of broken promises."
  • Congress initiated the use of "national defense" as a rationale to boost military participation in an activity historically the exclusive domain of civilian government: law enforcement.
  • Concern about crime was a major reason why General Brutus's actions were approved in the Referendum. Although voter participation by the general public was low, older Americans voted at a much higher rate.[32] Furthermore, with the aging of the baby boom generation, the block of American voters over 45 grew to almost 53 percent of the voters by 2010.
  • As more commercial airlines went bankrupt and unprofitable air routes dropped, the military was called upon to provide "essential" air transport to the affected regions.
  • In the name of national defense, the military next found itself in the sealift business. Ships purchased by the military for contingencies were leased, complete with military crews, at low rates to US exporters to help solve the trade deficit.
  • What made this all the more disheartening was the wretched performance of our forces in the Second Gulf War.[73] Consumed with ancillary and nontraditional missions, the military neglected its fundamental raison d'etre. As the Supreme Court succinctly put it more than a half century ago, the "primary business of armies and navies [is] to fight or be ready to fight wars should the occasion arise." When Iranian armies started pouring into the lower Gulf states in 2010, the US armed forces were ready to do anything but fight.
  • People in the military no longer considered themselves warriors. Instead, they perceived themselves as policemen, relief workers, educators, builders, health care providers, politicians--everything but warfighters. When these philanthropists met the Iranian 10th Armored Corps near Daharan during the Second Gulf War, they were brutally slaughtered by a military which had not forgotten what militaries were supposed to do or what war is really all about.


While some of the methods that led to the coup in the paper are a little far fetched today, the nut of his thesis remains. The military is too divested with pointless policing missions (Iraq?) and rebuilding programs (again, Iraq?) to be effective and the military, along with a growing U.S. public support, will swell into the White House to fix things....




posted on May, 19 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   
All people who serve in the military take an oath to defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. I'm not so sure I would call military intervention a coup if it was done for those reasons. I would see it as defense of the constitution. Consider how open recent retired Generals have been. Most of them resigned in protest. I have seen on the news where if the surge continues past October expect open dissent from active commanders who are generals.

General Franks even said after he retired that our current form of government would not likely survive another Sep 11.



posted on Jun, 2 2007 @ 03:10 AM
link   
great post ... It seems completely feasible. I agree with the other poster.

We need our military to defend our constitution, and to get rid of the liars and criminals that we have now. I am hoping the new election we will get someone better in office and help restructure and repair our broken system.

I do not want martial law ... and it is odd how bush just passed the presidential directive where he can do what is said in the beginning of that


hopefully, our troops in all the different branches, and our police will be strong enough to oppose a man or group of men who may try to defy our rights more than they have been already.

I truly hope that our people and those who chose to protect the people can open their eyes and be awake to the truth ... see through propaganda and disinformation.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by FreeThinkerIdealist]



posted on Jun, 14 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   
"hopefully, our troops in all the different branches, and our police will be strong enough to oppose a man or group of men who may try to defy our rights more than they have been already."

That won't happen. The rights you speak of are a thing of the past. We have already ceeded those rights in the name of National Security. They no longer exist.
Power corrupts and total power corrupts totally. No dictator, benevolent or otherwise willingly gives up their power.
The current status of our "rights" makes the police and military more powerful domestically than ever in history. it makes them the favored ruling class.
They and their "Civilian" croneys will never relinquish this new found power.
And the days of unalienable rights have come and gone.
For an exercise; name one time in world history where power was voluntarily given back to the people when it had been taken as it is now.
Haven't you noticed that our leaders and the media no longer talk about what is right. Now the talk surrounds what is legal. You can't change right and wrong. You can forever change legal and illegal.



posted on Jun, 14 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
Consider how open recent retired Generals have been. Most of them resigned in protest.


Name one General that resigned? Big difference between retiring and resigning.



posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
Consider how open recent retired Generals have been. Most of them resigned in protest.


Name one General that resigned? Big difference between retiring and resigning.


I should of said retired in protest. Major General John Batiste is a good example.





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join