Share

Ellsberg: Obama Fears Military Revolt

by: Sari Gelzer, t r u t h o u t | Report

photo
(Photo Illustration: Troy Page / t r u t h o u t; Adapted from: Steve Rhodes, sugarmelon.com, The U.S. Army)

Ellsberg: Leaked Pentagon Papers from Vietnam give clues to why Obama will most likely grant military requests to send more troops to Afghanistan.

Paul Jay, senior producer of The Real News Network, interviewed former military analyst and Pentagon whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg about the common thread between the conflict in Afghanistan and the war in Vietnam.

Like Vietnam, Ellsberg said "no victory lies ahead [for the US] in Afghanistan" and President Barack Obama knows it.

Still, Ellsberg believes Obama will "go against his own instincts as to what's best for the country and do what's best for him and his administration and his party in the short run facing elections, which is to avoid a military revolt."

That means the president will likely authorize a sizable increase of US forces in the region, Ellsberg said, because Obama fears that top US military commanders will stage a revolt if he rejects their requests for additional soldiers.

Click here to watch Daniel Ellsberg on The Real News.

Ellsberg predicted that Obama will cave in to Gen. Stanley McCrystal's request for as many as 40,000 US troops in order to, "prevent his military from making a political case to his public and to the Congress that he has been weak, unmanly, indecisive, and weak on terrorism, and has endangered American troops."

The Pentagon Papers, which Ellberg leaked to The New York Times in 1971, made public the decision-making details behind the Vietnam War. Ellsberg chose to leak the highly-sensitive papers because they revealed that the government was continuing the Vietnam War despite knowing it would not likely be won.

As revealed in the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg said that President Lyndon B. Johnson chose to go along with increasing US troops in Vietnam: "To keep the military from resigning and going public with complaints that he had abandoned a winnable war."

President Obama's decision to shield himself from a military revolt, as Johnson chose to do in 1965, will take place at the expense of US troops and Afghani civilians, said Ellsberg.

"Many Americans, many Afghans will die in order to protect the president from that kind of blame," Ellsberg said.

Ellsberg, who used to write about what is now known as counterinsurgency theory, critiqued General McChrystal's approach to Afghanistan. Sending more troops to Afghanistan, said Ellsberg, will only increase the Taliban's strength. Ellsberg said:

"The more troops we put in Vietnam, the more Vietcong were recruited. And, the more troops we put in Afghanistan, the curve shows very clearly from 2005 on, the Taliban has come back having been, as you say, despised and reviled by most of the country. How can it be that they get the degree of support that they do now? One reason only: the number of troops, of US troops that they are fighting."

  

»


Sari Gelzer is an editor and reporter for Truthout.

Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

The military must be

The military must be confronted on the Afghanistan issue. If they are not confronted, they will continue to call the shots on intelligence, foreign policy, and national security. Truman confronted Douglas McArthur during the Korean War and that confrontation kept the military in line for a decade afterwards. Come on, Obama, show some spine. There are a lot of people who will support you on this.

Chillin, tragic. Fire

Chillin, tragic. Fire McChyrstal and pull out, we've got your back.

If the military are brought

If the military are brought home McChrystal and Petraeus will imitate Caesar (their hero) by crossing the Rubicon and wrecking the already weakened Republic. Not only are we on the brink of a military takeover in the US (they make the policy and get all the lion's share of the resouces already), but bringing the military home will result in skyrocketing unemployment and massive social unrest. These soldiers will do the only thing whey know how to do: wage war. And they'll do it on us.

some folks need transcript

some folks need transcript or cc close captioned for access (deaf) or choice (other disabilities or prefer reading while reading). Question: Didn't Obama appoint McChrystal? Wouldn't that thought occur to Obama before he appointed him (McC's military position on Afghanistan)?

As much of the top military

As much of the top military brass seems to lean Republican, I have to wonder if one of their main objectives is to see Obama mired in a Vietnam-like quagmire.

OK, so what if our wars cost

OK, so what if our wars cost the average citizen everything from a massive proportion of his treasure to his son, or daughter, or mother or father. It would still be unpatriotic to complain, because the profits being made are so MASSIVE! For a few, that is. The few that paid our government to start the wars in the first place. They paid for these wars, after all, and it was a big investment, so they deserve their profits! It's the American way.

I find it humorous that

I find it humorous that anyone would consider our military to be interested in a political confrontation with a wildly popular president over a wildly unpopular war. Our generals all the way down to the foot-soldiers on the line, are smart enough and loyal enough to not start a PR war with the President. The notion that a "Military Revolt" may occur is laughable in that Obama merely would need to relieve any General or other officer of command, and could even hand them a courts-martial. People need to stop, and give some real thought and read some history of the US Military before jumping to the conclusions like this article has.

The military (and their

The military (and their sponsors in industry, Congress, and wide swaths of a mal-formed public) runs this country. It's a sad, sick truth that never seems to change. Thank goodness we're a Christian country or it could really be bad...

JFK was going to end the war

JFK was going to end the war in Viet Nam. He was also going to put RFK in charge of the CIA. The Military and the CIA took care of those concerns on Nov 22, 1963. Obama will succumb to them in order to survive.

I don't know when the

I don't know when the madness will end, the military controlling everything like Linda above said. We're called un patriotic if we do not support any military operation. Obama is smarter than this; why do presidents not have the moral conviction to go against the grain? Is it really worth another term to lose all the treasure we will surely lose? By giving in once again to the negative forces running this country he gives them more power, stop going along to get along, this gets everyone no where!

Barack Obama, as

Barack Obama, as Commander-in- Chief, must do what is best for the country, and the military needs to accept the decision. The military lives by the chain of command, and the President is at the top. If adding troops won't help the effort, then we need to bring the troops home. Wasn't Vietnam a lesson about leaving troops in a quagmire? Who will be the last to die for a mistake? A clear majority of Americans support getting out of Afghanistan, so what's the big deal?

Oh, I get it, now our poor

Oh, I get it, now our poor President has to sacrifice more soldiers to avoid a Pentagon mutiny! Can't we think of something a bit more complicated? Like Obama having to send more troops to make sure Wall Street won't take another dive so he has to bail it out again and might need a strong record supporting an unwinnable war which alone can guarantee continuing vast war and armament-related stock profits for the richest five percent of the population? I could make it even more complicated but there isn't enough space here. Pete Edler, Stockholm

We have been beholden to the

We have been beholden to the military long enough. It is time to stiffen our spines and say no more meddling in the affairs of countries and cultures we don't understand and which have a history that should be a lesson to us. Even if Obama would loose in 2012 because he pulled out of Afghanistan he would be remembered as the president who did not risk the lives of our military personnel and the lives of the citizens of Afghanistan. We should have finished the job there before we went into Iraq and then gotten out. This is a different world, even than the Vietnam era, and military might is not the best answer anymore. Let's use more diplomacy and fewer military responses as we face the rest of the 21st century, starting now!

I agree with Harry Truman.

I agree with Harry Truman. Fire McCrystal if necessary. If we are this inthralled to the military we need to reset our priorities. There cannot be two leaders, which there appear to be right now if Obama fears a no win buildup like Vietnam, and cannot get rid of him without jeopardizing his presidency. I will and I know many others will support Obama on this action, Not on 40,000 more troops to fight an unwinnable war just to line the pockets of the paramilitary. This is part of the change. WAR is the only way the military can keep in the ascendency. The presidency and the administration have more and better choices. We can maintain a presence by keeping the military as a peace keeping force.

This and the previous

This and the previous article "What Obama Is Up Against" are pathetic attempts to justify the supposed actions of the president with regard to "change we can believe in". I suppose that slogan should be changed to "Excuses we can believe in"... bah! He is just trying to thread a slim and twisting path to reelection like every other president before him. And, he will fail.

We need the executive to

We need the executive to execute. Remember Eisenhower vs. MacArthur? Military has been out of control for a long time and the civilians have paid dearly with lives and money. It is time to make the generals listen to their funders....

IΒ΄m starting to think Obama

I´m starting to think Obama is riddled with many of the same prejudices against the poor and against non-english-speaking peoples in the world that the majority of USians have instilled in them by the extremely selective history taught in schools. Just because his father was african didn´t ¨color¨ his world-view developed in the halls of harvard - it did help sell him to the public, though.

The President is commander-

The President is commander- in- chief of the armed forces. He appointed MacChrystal; he can just as well fire him as Truman fired MacArthur. And for the same reason: failure to follow orders.

President Obama is

President Obama is commander-in-chief- of US forces and as such he can appoint and he can fire. Just as Truman fired McArthur for failure to follow orders, so can Obama fire McChrystal for the same reason.

Chill out, Truthouters. We

Chill out, Truthouters. We are not on the brink of a military coup. The U.S. military understands perfectly well that no "victory" is possible in Afghanistan. Like Obama, they are seeking a way to minimize the damage caused by ongoing deployments there. There is no endgame in Afghanistan. The war just keeps going until we pull out, and then the Afghan warlords (some of whom are allied with the Taliban) will plunder as they please. The Pashtun parts of the country will be re-enslaved by the Taliban, but the Tajiks and Uzbeks and Hazaras will fight off Taliban misrule and remain allied with the West. Afghanistan was born in chaos and to chaos it will return.

No additional troops

No additional troops compliance, weak he is, they say Confronting the General, and he’s still weak Good calculated game Brilliant movement, they made Resulting in checkmate

It is time to withdraw our

It is time to withdraw our troops from Iraq - NOW. The generals have had years to plan for such a return, but have chosen not to because the GOP and their friends wanted war. Now they want to expand Afghanistan, when history shows that such a strategy will only lead to loss and failure. Mr. President, it is time to fire the generals. I have said this before and I will say it again - we need generals with a knowledge of historical strategy, guerilla warfare, and ethics - not religious crusaders who only care for political gain and riches. It is also time to fire the Defense Secretary and find someone who will be honest and ethical in his dealings with you. And while you are at it, fire the Secretary of State whose rhetoric is undermining everything you are trying to do. It is time to clean house, Mr. President, and save lives - both Afghani and American. It is time to put in place policies that will secure Bin Laden's demise, while achieving real peace within the Arab world. It is time to deal honestly with both our allies and our enemies, not send mixed messages from your State Dept. and your White House. It is time to dismantled the military/industrial/religious complex that has taken over this nation - and you, Mr. President, are the only one who can command it to be done. We will support your efforts, but no ones that lead to endless, unwinnable war. http://www.letfreedomring.community.officelive.com

We have been beholden to the

We have been beholden to the military long enough. It is time to stiffen our spines and say no more meddling in the affairs of countries and cultures we don't understand and which have a history that should be a lesson to us. Even if Obama would loose in 2012 because he pulled out of Afghanistan he would be remembered as the president who did not risk the lives of our military personnel and the lives of the citizens of Afghanistan. We should have finished the job there before we went into Iraq and then gotten out. This is a different world, even than the Vietnam era, and military might is not the best answer anymore. Let's use more diplomacy and fewer military responses as we face the rest of the 21st century, starting now!

When the 20th century is

When the 20th century is replete with examples of the utter failure of continued or expanded military presence/operations in quagmires like Afghanistan, while there is scant little history of the success of such tactics, why on earth are we even having this debate? Obama's period of "deliberation" is a total farce. It is a forgone conclusion within the political establishment (and I'd say MORE SO ON THE CIVILIAN SIDE than the military side) that the occupation will continue, and with renewed vigor. With the bloodletting of the health care debate having seriously undermined the Democratic majority, the blues cannot afford to cede any more ground in next year's election. Obama doesn't need the prospect of military subversion to incite him to escalate a war that is already lost. His party is already on sufficiently shaky ground.

If Congress won't stop the

If Congress won't stop the spending like they did for Nam, maybe we need to put an end to Congress. (just for starters)

Einstein said that if 2% of

Einstein said that if 2% of draft-age men refused to go to war the jails would not hold them all; some day, the youths of the country, despite no draft, will wake up to the fact that they have been "drafted" to bear the burden of exponentially growing debt to enrich the War Mongers and other thieves their government chooses to give a free pass.

Someone in here has already

Someone in here has already mentioned how President Trueman handled Gen. MacArthur during the Korean War. Now it's a time for Obama to make a decision how to handle Gen. McChrystal in the on-going war in Afghanistan. Foreign policy should be determined by the civilian government headed by the President who was elected by the people in the Democratic society not by the Generals of Military.

" Ellsberg chose to leak the

" Ellsberg chose to leak the highly-sensitive papers because they revealed that the government was continuing the Vietnam War despite knowing it would not likely be won." And to this day Ellsberg is considered by many to be a traitor. That is an indictment of establishment politics as practiced in the US. James Douglass' recent book "JFK And The Unspeakable" - which is researched from the reams of information released in the past 15 years - follows a president who was prepared to stand up to the desires of both the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies.It is notable that the establishment press has ignored the book. It is also worth repeating that the military was in complete control of the horribly flawed JFK autopsy

We have been beholden to the

We have been beholden to the military long enough. It is time to stiffen our spines and say no more meddling in the affairs of countries and cultures we don't understand and which have a history that should be a lesson to us. Even if Obama would loose in 2012 because he pulled out of Afghanistan he would be remembered as the president who did not risk the lives of our military personnel and the lives of the citizens of Afghanistan. We should have finished the job there before we went into Iraq and then gotten out. This is a different world, even than the Vietnam era, and military might is not the best answer anymore. Let's use more diplomacy and fewer military responses as we face the rest of the 21st century, starting now!

President Obama needs to

President Obama needs to adopt President Truman's slogan he put on his Oval Office Desk, "The Buck Stops Here." He needs to Broadcast that he is Firing McChrystal...and medal-bedecked Petreaus. And also get rid of his Secretary of War, Gates. He appointed them--he can fire them, simple as that. Obama must stand up and be brave. He knows that he is damned if he does and Damned if he doesn't. So why not take the High Road and tell all the nay-sayers to go to h---. He does have that power so he might as well use it. He will be Faulted if he doesn't. Since when is the Military supposed to dictate the Foreign Policy of this land ? The Constitution expressly forbids that . Bush did all he could to make a mockery of our Constitution. So it is up to President Obama to uphold the Words he swore to defend, and our brave men and women have fought and died to protect ever since it's conception. If not Now...When ?

It is unreasonable to expect

It is unreasonable to expect the president to do the only conscionable thing and return our troops back home. The facists who wield greater power would pull the carpet from under him. Instead, we should peacefully resist the continued US military troop presence in the middle east by organizing in unexpected and large numbers. Only a ground swell such as this will make the difference and justify the return of our troops by our president and congress. We should start with a yellow ribbon bumper sticker saying, "RETURN OUR TROOPS". I had mine custom made 8 years ago and distributed more among my friends. But, we feel alone in a field of apathy. Patriotic dissidents spending their time on keyboards twittering away as a means to an end. They would better use the internet to organize a march on Washington to protest the continued insanity. - This is the only way out.

The comment starting with

The comment starting with "if the military are brought..." speaks the truth. What do you do with 60,000 men and women suddenly coming home and not finding a job? Remember the only thing they know how to do is fight and kill. They could very easily be used by unscrupulous demagogues of which there is no shortage. What would follow? A fascist-military coup? Civil war? I sure wouldn't want to be in Obama's shoes.

I so wish someone would

I so wish someone would educate both the Pentagon and the public about just who works for whom.

Obama's Hobson's choice -

Obama's Hobson's choice - confront the military and end up like JFK, or comply with their evil desires and end up like LBJ - with a foul Republican resurgence to follow in either case.

Most in the US thinks it's

Most in the US thinks it's okay to be over in Afghanistan killing non-whites. No problem there. Same with Iraq. A woman I know proudly showed a picture of her to me, stating he's in Iraq. I made her angry by saying he was a thug for our gov't. She had the nerve to tell me that he's over there fighting so we won't have to fight here. I could only walk away after that. And Gen. McChrystal doesn't give a whoop about sending more troops. He ain't out on the front lines. No danger to his a$$. ""Many Americans, many Afghans will die in order to protect the president from that kind of blame," Ellsberg said." Now there's a good reason to continue fighting, so the president won't get "blamed". People die so our president can save face. Does anybody else see something wrong with that?

How surprising and

How surprising and disappointing that Daniel Ellsberg, whose leak of the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times disclosing that even the Pentagon did not believe the war could be won, did so much to help change Americans' attitudes toward that war, should think it inevitable that Obama will increase troops in Afghanistan even though he knows that this war,too, is not winnable in any meaningful way. I would have hoped Ellsberg would be encouraging Obama to withdraw from Afghanistan. You either believe in supporting the causes you believe in or you don't.

Our massive, bloated

Our massive, bloated military budget (routinely okayed by our corporate-whore Congress), is the main reason there's not much money for the rest of us. Add TARP and you have a banana republic. You can kiss our future good-bye unless the politicians get a spine or we take to the streets--or both.

I appreciate what Devon J.

I appreciate what Devon J. Noll, MPA writes and just knowing that he has a Masters of Public Administration helps to give weight to his opinion. I agree with him strongly. Why? The opportunity to live in S. Africa During Apartheid, to return there many times since and see what non- violence can attain, to have the opportunity to travel to China 1987, Cuba 1990, Porto Rica 1993, Honduras 1994, Zimbabwe 1964, Ghana 1966, Scandinavia 1975 and England coming and going has given me a broader world view than many people. In regard to Viet Nam, we should not have been therein the first place but should have respected the UN plebiscite that was won by Ho Chi Min and that country would have been a bastion against the advance of Chinese Communism, not the first domino to fall. The Al Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan and is not welcome there. We are not welcome there. They have to develop their own desire to be a democracy. It cannot be enforced upon them. Pull out now! Tell the present government, if you want to remain in power challenge your many factions to join together, create a stable government, get foreign capital, build the gas line from Turkmenistan and share the wealth. (see what Bolivia has done!) It is not worth our wealth and the lives of our youth to get that gas line. As for "what to do with 60,000 men and women suddenly coming home and not finding a job?" Recreate the CCC and put them to work planting trees, building roads and parks and other creative instead of destructive jobs. It wont cost more than their being in the Army and will be of much greater benefit for us.

I have a different

I have a different perspective. I was a grunt Marine in the Viet Nam War. I was 'Gung Ho' for war...and the war and friends and enemies educated me! Ellsberg is right about a possible 'military revolt'. However, what most people miss and I think about is the 'Real' revolt that will stop this war...that is the soldiers turning their guns around at their officers, and fraggings etc. Because for sure, in every war there is a limit that the soldiers can and will endure before mass resistance spreads, and when it does (as it did in Viet Nam) it will be impossible to stop unless the cause is eliminated-the very war itself. There have been many reasons put forward as to why the Viet Nam War ended, but the Pentagon knows the true reason...mass resistance!! In a study commissioned by the Pentagon to assess the situation Col. Robert D Heinl Jr., had this to say: "THE MORALE, DISCIPLINE and battleworthiness of the U.S. Armed Forces are, with a few salient exceptions, lower and worse than at anytime in this century and possibly in the history of the United States. By every conceivable indicator, our army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having _refused_ combat, murdering their officers and non commissioned officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near mutinous. See: 'The Collapse of the Armed Forces' Bring them home, and prosecute our own war criminals

To Anonymous 13:55... "Now

To Anonymous 13:55... "Now there's a good reason to continue fighting, so the president won't get "blamed"." Well that is exactly the reason LBJ presided over the Vietnam buildup. He said he didn't want to be the 1st president to lose a war. I'm sure there were internal intrigues and what not back then just as now being suggested by those getting ready to defend Obama, but from my point of view, if LBJ had an excess of testosterone, Obama seems to have the opposite condition.

Let Kazakhstan do it!

Let Kazakhstan do it! Really! They actually volunteered to get together a regional group of the 'Stans' who share many of he same qualities and difficulties of Afghanistan to help stabilize the region. It was on their UN Web page. We could bring our troops home, save our money and economy and become something better than a fearful rogue power! Or we can do the same thing again-give over to insanity and tragedy.

The object of the war in

The object of the war in Afghanistan is money, unlike Vietnam. The prize is the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline to pipe natural gas to India and China from Turkmenistan. As long as the Taliban were not opposed to the pipeline, America courted them and looked away at their abuses. They made a stupid mistake to allow Bin Laden to stay in the country. Then, after they were defeated, Bush let them out to dry, doing nothing to secure the country, instead, going into Iraq becaue there were more military contracts there. Lockheed Martin made fortunes and its stock soared from 16 to seventy five. The question is, who will be making the money from the pipeline? Answer that and you know the real reason for the war.

This is UTTER GOOBLY-GOOP.

This is UTTER GOOBLY-GOOP. War makes money for certain white males. You either go along with the program or you get shot. End of discussion.

Remember kids... This

Remember kids... This article is based on the OPINION of one Daniel Ellsberg. Most of the replies I read are by people who try to draw the bullseye around whatever whack-a-doodle shot in the dark theory they happen to be inclined to take (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy).

There is no way our military

There is no way our military would revolt or overthrow our government. Somebody should commission a poll if they think this is even a remote possibility. Maybe down the road if future presidents and Congress keep handing over their authority to McCrystal types. Usually I think Elsburg is pretty credible.

Again, this is great news -

Again, this is great news - if you live in an asylum, and we probably do. The folks who run it are nuttier than the patients! So nutty in fact that it makes sense to kill a lot of people so the head doctor can keep his job. Pete Edler, Stockholm.

Bizzarro world again.

Bizzarro world again. Democrats must keep the war going so they will be reelected even if they personally feel it should be ended.

As retired military, I do

As retired military, I do not believe that the military will revolt en masse. It is made up of many types, not all warmongers. There are the Pat Tillmans, the neocon religious freaks, over worked and over deployed, young folks learning the real Afghanistan and not liking it, etc. The German and British people are against it. Several US Army generals are against it. A foreign service person has resigned. The Dept of Mil History chief at West Point is against it. There will be no military revolt. Ellsberg is a bit over the top on this. Some dissension, yes. Leadership takes courage. Obama needs to show some.

Let's not forget β€” Obama

Let's not forget β€” Obama campaigned last year for an increased American presence in Afghanistan. The military's request for more troops is not unwelcome to Obama, it's what he wants to do.

The writer of the book Home

The writer of the book Home Front: Viet Nam and Families at War about how military families and extended families were publicly ostracize and harassed not for opposing or even protesting the Vietnam War but simply for the crime of Questioning the War. Nuff, promotion of the book Google it. Suffice it to say that today the anti-war movement as such (cough) is spear headed by Veterans and Military Families. Compared to Vietnam, Veterans did not join the anti-war movement in significant numbers until toward the end of the war and military families not at all. I have to agree with HighPlains Joker here with a slight slant. Saying the a few military leaders mostly Army just might hold a publicity revolt and the reality of them leading their troops on Washington, DC are two different things. The closest thing I could buy would be a insurrection within the military between those who support the duly elected commander and chief against those who make up their own interpretation of the constitution as they go along. FEW IN NUMBER BTW. There's a simple solution to this. Well two really. 1. THE DRAFT to give a few generals more than enough cannon fodder to carry out American Enterprise Institute (AEI) objectives internationally or on behalf of Israel in the Middle East and SW Asia. I'd have to look it up but even the Prophet of Liberals Bill Moyers is now calling for THE DRAFT. 2. Even faster way to end the war(s) is with town, city, county, and state tax levies that have a catch. Organize in each state to take back YOUR National Guard. A good number of us who vote (AGAIN FEW IN NUMBER) have reached the point where we only show up at elections not to vote for a candidate but the local tax levies and related bills of direct interest to US. That's only natural. So when your school system, fire department, police department, parks and recreation, roads and infrastructure begin preparing for the next election with their hands out, have your Secretary of State or other election official as the case maybe add this choice to the ballots. Education levy of 10mil. Library levy of 1 mil. Of course multiply that by 50 states give or take a few colonial possessions. Vote: Yes, No, Yo-Why can't we get that money from what the state's share of funding the National Guard is. Remember Uncle Sam only pays the Guard when they are federalized the rest of the time it is your dime. Point: Refuse to vote on any local tax levy until your Government or State Legislature refuses to provide troops to Obama, Bush, Clinton, or whomever.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Anyone who seriously thinks the US military could ever stage a coup in the United States is just clueless. They have never served in the military and certainly do not understand the military ethos..."to defend the constitution of the United States." Senior officers might well resign rather than obey orders they believe to be illegal or immoral but they would never, never, ever stage a coup. Give me a break.

We don't need an army or

We don't need an army or other branch of service to stage a coup. We have Homeland Security, Blackwater and other private companies who hire mercenaries, and the CIA. From CROSSING THE RUBICON, and I paraphrase, Most people think of FEMA as a benevolent agency that comes to the rescue of people in disasters (or is supposed to). But it is an enormously powerful federal agency mandated to, in the event of a crisis, to ensure the "Continuity of Government." (This prophetic book was published in 2004.) FEMA is now under the umbrella of Homeland Security which also houses dozens of other agencies. So how powerful does that make H.S.? Homeland Security has its roots in the Hartman-Rudd U.S. Commission which began work on creating it in '97. It was established in Jan. '01 (before 9/11). It is an "anti-terrorist department." Anyone can be designated a terrorist by virtue of the Patriot Act. I highly recommend CROSSING THE RUBICON. You won't sleep as well at night, but maybe you will stop expecting someone else to "do something."