US Army gaming for civil unrest

[Glenn]

have you heard of Unified quest 2011? The Pentagon is running war games to practice dealing with social unrest in this country.

here is a clip from that ultra right wing bunch at CNBC

CNBC’s Business News analyst Eamon Javers explains:

Ever since the crash of 2008, the Defense Intelligence establishment has really been paying a lot of attention to global markets and how they could serve as a threat to U.S. National security interests. At one upcoming seminar that we’re going to see here next month, they’re going to be taking a look at a lot of the issues … [including] the use of sovereign wealth funds to manipulate markets, currencies; nation state economic collapse, sovereign default, nation state instability; U.S. Allies’ budgets, deficits, national security infrastructures.

Similarly, the Army has launched an operation called “Unified Quest 2011” in which it studies the “implications of ‘large scale economic breakdown’ inside the United States that would force the Army to keep ‘domestic order amid civil unrest.'” The Quest also trains the Army in how to “deal with fragmented global power and drastically lower budgets.”

In October, the United States Marine Corps visited J.P. Morgan to “study markets and the economy.”

Javers concludes:

All different parts of the Pentagon and Defense Intelligence establishment are looking at markets and looking at ways they can present a new kind of threat to the United States. These are the guys whose job it is to think of the worst possible things that could happen.

According to Wired.com, the Army hosts a Unified Quest every year, which entails “the Army’s chief of staff [instructing] talented mid-career and senior officers and senior enlisted (wo)men to evaluate where the service is falling short — and propose remedies.”

However, the 2011 Unified Quest lends truth to assertions that the United States is indeed not witnessing an upward economic recovery, as so many in our federal government have asserted. Soldiers are being trained in evacuation and detainment as a response to rioting, revealing the possibility that the United States military may resort to martial law in order to maintain order.

Unified Quest 2011 also prepares soldiers to act as diplomats in the event that there is a limited availability of diplomats at combat outposts, or on the streets contending with hungry and angry Americans. Wired.com writes, “There’s a strong consensus that negotiations ought to be part of the Army’s toolkit — something backed by a ream of recent doctrinal manuals and various short courses in negotiation at the Army’s many schools.”

It's coming soon

Do a search for unified quest 2011

Glenn

Edited December 9, 2010 by Glenn

[Guest mustangdave]

I heard about this...in all honesty the only thing NEW about this wargame scenario...is the location. The military has wargamed this scenario in preparation for our involvement in Bosnia back in the late 80's-early 90's as well as Operation Uphold Democracy in Haiti in 94-95...it does make the hair on the back of my neck stand up just thinking that there is a contingency operation "planned" for OUR SOIL

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm really hoping something like this doesn't happen with that idiot currently holding up in the

White House. That makes Homeland Security take on a different meaning. 2012 please hurry!

[Guest carbonarcher]

Why are you surprised? I could be wrong, but I thought that they have a division in FT. Knox's to take care of this..

Yeah..... and....

Day late and dollar short if your are all hearing about his now.

[Guest mustangdave]

Ft Knox...is where they TRAIN for Urban combat scenarios...whether there is a DIVISION there...I would assume they are the TRAINING Battalion

[Kegger]

The Army does this every year. Nothing new.

You worry about us training for a contingency that could very well happen if we were say, invaded...

What would you say if we were invaded and weren't prepared to deal with the local populace as well as fighting an invading force?

[1gewehr]

When I was in the Army, we did this regularly. In 1980, there were really only two scenarios we trained for; Russians invading Germany and US Civil Unrest.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

What I am curious about is the "how" the local populace are to be "dealt with". I would assume the military

would get mostly support from the local populace, wouldn't you?

In the case of economic meltdown, I wonder what the military would do to its own? From what I understand,

it's not legal to turn our military against us. One illegal act will usually be followed by a series of others, until

society takes back civilian control of the military. A group would have to suspend the Constitution and attempt

a coup. So just how many soldiers would really get an order like that and think they are still in the USA?

[shortround]

Curious what others think: If there were economic meltdown leading to massive civil unrest and the declaration of martial law, would the federal government immediately declare civilian ownership of guns illegal? I know it depends to some extent on who is in the WH, but just in general what do you think?

[Kegger]

Deal with the local populace as in, firefight on your street, handle the civilians, clear the buildings, and make sure people aren't being stupid and shooting at us as we help clear the area.

[Guest carbonarcher]

Shortround,

I could be incorrect, with what I am about to say. Didn't that happen in New Orleans when the storm hit. After all was said and done, I thought that they passed a law that would not allow this to happen again. I seem to remember that "picture" of Sean Penn walking in knee deep water with a shotgun.

I again could be incorrect, but did that go infront of one of the high courts and was deemed illegal? I can't remember all the details.

[Guest mustangdave]

Curious what others think: If there were economic meltdown leading to massive civil unrest and the declaration of martial law, would the federal government immediately declare civilian ownership of guns illegal? I know it depends to some extent on who is in the WH, but just in general what do you think?

I could see this happening in most of your larger urban areas in the northeast and west coast...NYC...DC...Philly...Boston...LA...SF...to name a few...as you get into the "heartland of America" things get spread out way to much...just my opinion...

[shortround]

Shortround,

I could be incorrect, with what I am about to say. Didn't that happen in New Orleans when the storm hit. After all was said and done, I thought that they passed a law that would not allow this to happen again. I seem to remember that "picture" of Sean Penn walking in knee deep water with a shotgun.

I again could be incorrect, but did that go infront of one of the high courts and was deemed illegal? I can't remember all the details.

I believe that most of what you are saying is correct. A state of emergency was declared, which (I think) was legal and did give the state of LA additional police powers. I think the whole 'martial law' thing, however, came from the idiot mayor of NO who had no authority to do anything of the sort.

What I'm thinking of is martial law declared by the federal government, either for the entire country or just for parts of it.

[shortround]

For anyone truly interested, a little research into Rex 84 is called for: Rex 84 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(I know Wikipedia is not authoritative, but it is a good starting point.)

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Deal with the local populace as in, firefight on your street, handle the civilians, clear the buildings, and make sure people aren't being stupid and shooting at us as we help clear the area.

I guess what I was asking, Kegger, was if I was defending my property by fending off a mob, who would be

getting dealt with, myself or the mob? I think I would be on the military's side, at least I hope so. If the military

is being used as a police force against its citizenry, who's calling the shots? I'm just curious.

[Guest carbonarcher]

6.8ar,

I hope so also. Isn't that what they were trying to do in N.O.? I don't know? I am just asking. Weren't the people there trying to do the same?

[Guest oldsmobile98]

Curious what others think: If there were economic meltdown leading to massive civil unrest and the declaration of martial law, would the federal government immediately declare civilian ownership of guns illegal? I know it depends to some extent on who is in the WH, but just in general what do you think?

Maybe. Maybe not. Martial law or no martial law, I'm not giving mine up to anyone, no matter what badge or uniform he has.

Anyone who tries to "temporarily" suspend the Constitution, or habeas corpus, or even one article of the Bill of Rights should be suspended from a tall tree with a short rope.

Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of history knows that governments use (and sometimes create) emergencies to violate rights (remember what Rahm said?). Don't let them do it to you.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The thought of martial law should scare the hell out of everyone. I won't be surrendering to anyone

because of military showing up. Somehow or another when something like this happens, the military

will have already been made useless. You can train for something until you are blue in the face and

all that training will be for nothing with the wrong leadership. Some New World Order crap will be the

end of your training.

If I'm still on my property when something like that happens, it may be my last stand, but it will remain

mine until I die. Of course knowing what's going on will be difficult. It won't be like the TV or radio

will be much good. Computer will be worthless.

And don't get all huffy because I support the military like most folks, but if used in my home town

against civilian populace, it would get ugly, fast. All the retired military and family of active duty would

be in the same boat as my family. I think Clarksville would take care of their own gang problem, quickly.

I imagine the military would be utilized, but to the event of civilian unrest, I wonder more about their

master. Like you said about Rahm, that could happen, but I'll bet the military wouldn't fall into lockstep

with that. The boy president isn't a leader. One can respect the office only so much, in that case.

[shortround]

Anyone who tries to "temporarily" suspend the Constitution, or habeas corpus, or even one article of the Bill of Rights should be suspended from a tall tree with a short rope.

+1 If they suspend habeas corpus, does the rest even matter? Once they can throw you in jail for no reason, you have no rights.

[Oh Shoot]

Well, let's be realistic about logistics and manpower here.

Martial law might "work" for a while in a regional disaster, or a couple of large cities in same region.

But just how much country do you think the military could actually "lock down" if there were some sort of national insurrection or anarchy due to whatever reason?

The entire National Guard and regular army combined is maybe 1.3 million. Even given the armament/technology/communications, that's really not much of a force to control 325 million folks spread out over 3.7 million square miles.

Which is why it's absurd to even imagine feeding the current population in a crises "only" as bad as the Depression, let alone totally controlling it.

- OS

[I_Like_Pie]

If it ever happens I could make a lot of money selling bulletproof tin foil hats....

[shortround]

That's a really good point. Add to that the fact that huge numbers of military would probably head home to take care of their own families in any kind of major national crisis. In the end, they would probably be doing well to control a few major cities.

Well, let's be realistic about logistics and manpower here.

Martial law might "work" for a while in a regional disaster, or a couple of large cities in same region.

But just how much country do you think the military could actually "lock down" if there were some sort of national insurrection or anarchy due to whatever reason?

The entire National Guard and regular army combined is maybe 1.3 million. Even given the armament/technology/communications, that's really not much of a force to control 325 million folks spread out over 3.7 million square miles.

Which is why it's absurd to even imagine feeding the current population in a crises "only" as bad as the Depression, let alone totally controlling it.

- OS

[Kegger]

I guess what I was asking, Kegger, was if I was defending my property by fending off a mob, who would be

getting dealt with, myself or the mob? I think I would be on the military's side, at least I hope so. If the military

is being used as a police force against its citizenry, who's calling the shots? I'm just curious.

Were not robots, we are going to understand if you're keeping looters and people who want to kill your family for your weapons and food.

Were gonna side with the property owner, you may be detained and questioned about it but you'd be let go.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

Now is that your personal stand Kegger or is that really what the brass would order? (I know this is all hypo)

[mikegideon]

Well, let's be realistic about logistics and manpower here.

Martial law might "work" for a while in a regional disaster, or a couple of large cities in same region.

But just how much country do you think the military could actually "lock down" if there were some sort of national insurrection or anarchy due to whatever reason?

The entire National Guard and regular army combined is maybe 1.3 million. Even given the armament/technology/communications, that's really not much of a force to control 325 million folks spread out over 3.7 million square miles.

Which is why it's absurd to even imagine feeding the current population in a crises "only" as bad as the Depression, let alone totally controlling it.

- OS

Not to mention the fact that the military would never be able to devote all their resources to street patrol. If it ever hits the fan nationwide, the military and law enforcement will be the least of anybody's worries.