It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Is Upcoming Troop Redeployment A Harbinger Of Marshall Law?
page: 10
share:
Recently, many news organizations have run stories based on President Bush's recent Cincinnati speech introducing his new policy of troop
redeployment:
Bush announces major troop realignment
Some statements surrounding this move concern me:
So, what they're saying, essentially, is that we're going to pull between 60,000 and 70,000 troops from overseas posts to the US, so they'll be in the most strategic place possible and as mobile as possible. For what? Unless the U.S. has suddenly become the center of the world and therefore the most logical place from which to deploy troops, they must be expecting massive domestic threats over the coming decades or the necessity of controlling an unhappy populace with Marshall Law.
As many have pointed out, many opportunities to secure this country both before and after 9/11 have been neglected. We have limited offshore radar capabilities for tracking inbound hostile targets, NORAD apparently is to nervous about public backlash to execute any orders which would truly protect this country's citizens, our borders are about as porous as lava rock, and we continually engage in antagonistic diplomacy with people who didn't like us much to begin with. We're almost asking for an attack and I don't see what staging an additional 60,000 to 70,000 troops in the U.S. does to prevent that. I can only imagine that force to be used as a reactionary one. Possibly in enforcing Marshall Law after a spectacular attack.
Any thoughts?
Bush announces major troop realignment
Some statements surrounding this move concern me:
"There are some things that we should do to redeploy troops so that they are in the best position possible for what the new threats are," Sen. Carl Levin, a Democratic member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Bush said about 60,000 to 70,000 uniformed personnel would move from overseas to posts in the United States over the next decade.
"This is a fundamental change and is a change probably in the tactics of our military, so that our people will be more mobile, more available at other places all over the earth," Sen. Richard Lugar, Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Sunday.
So, what they're saying, essentially, is that we're going to pull between 60,000 and 70,000 troops from overseas posts to the US, so they'll be in the most strategic place possible and as mobile as possible. For what? Unless the U.S. has suddenly become the center of the world and therefore the most logical place from which to deploy troops, they must be expecting massive domestic threats over the coming decades or the necessity of controlling an unhappy populace with Marshall Law.
As many have pointed out, many opportunities to secure this country both before and after 9/11 have been neglected. We have limited offshore radar capabilities for tracking inbound hostile targets, NORAD apparently is to nervous about public backlash to execute any orders which would truly protect this country's citizens, our borders are about as porous as lava rock, and we continually engage in antagonistic diplomacy with people who didn't like us much to begin with. We're almost asking for an attack and I don't see what staging an additional 60,000 to 70,000 troops in the U.S. does to prevent that. I can only imagine that force to be used as a reactionary one. Possibly in enforcing Marshall Law after a spectacular attack.
Any thoughts?
new topics
-
AI phrenology
Science & Technology: 6 hours ago
0