A Pro-Trump Militant Group Has Recruited Thousands of Police, Soldiers, and Veterans

[Agema]

We have a Federal Department of Education. Domestic Violence Against Women. And much more. While these are local issues that should not have been Federalized, I think we can handle the duplication of effort.

Governance frequently requires degrees of harmonisation between entities that act in concert. Much of your average trade deal, for instance, is establishing common rules between the signatories. Federal departments make sense, because they should oversee relevant uniformity and compliance with national standards, even where core responsibility is largely down to the states. They may overreach of course, but that's a matter for routine political debate.

A major problem I have is that if the US cares about being a nation governed by and for the people, then we need to do more to see to it that they have that power and say. But we're losing it. Believe it or not, there should be about 50 times as many Congress members. They should have no staff and should be easily accessible by your average Joe. That isn't happening.

The key problem is the amount of money swilling around US politics, and that politicians overwhelmingly represent the upper middle classes, with concerns and social lives that almost entirely intersect with the business elites.

Bear in mind the quote from the UK conservative Edmund Burke: " Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays you instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion." You take away their staff, you impair their ability to exercise judgement.

The police too seem to be too much a standing army occupying us. I think a citizen force, partnered with the police, will create an environment in which people really will know they are the masters of their fate. It is their country.

The police just need to learn more in the way of community policing and less in the way of force-orientated militarism. I would be open to a police support unit of community officers - a sort of intermediate step with police training and regulations, to handle low-level responses and community relations. But I very much think they should be an arm of the regular police force rather than a subcontracted, independent militia.

EDIT: ITMT: Oath Keepers seems to be scaring some people. Their website seems unobjectionable:

Even extremists like to present themselves as reasonable people.

Fundamentally, the Constitution is a vague document that requires a lot of complex interpretation. That's what the government and SCOTUS are for. When an organisation says it adheres to the constitution that way, implicitly it means it thinks it knows better than the government and the courts. What right does it have - what is its public mandate? In essence, it's arguing the right to impose its will on the people without the slightest pretence of democratic assent or oversight. They are very heavily right wing: their interpretation of the Constitution is inevitably going to reflect right wing preconceptions that will interpret various left-wing policies as conveniently "unconstitutional". Their constant talk of civil war implies forcing their will by arms.

In actuality, they are tyranny waiting to happen.

 

[Satinavian]

We would only be getting into " whose command do they follow" territory in late January if another president is sworn in and Trump refuses to acknowledge it. We do not actually have constitutional plan for that scenario yet, so it could get crazy if that were to happen since the military isn't allowed to even arrest the president, only the sergeant at arms of the Senate is, and he too is also in GOP control as of present.

Yes, the transition is in January. Between election and transition Trump is still President and probably can still do and say stupid things. There will be no second impeachment process in December.

It is not particularly relevant that he is still commander in chief in Decenber. He doesn't need the military support in December. He needs it after his term technically ended and he should have stepped back.

 

[lil devils x]

Yes, the transition is in January. Between election and transition Trump is still President and probably can still do and say stupid things. There will be no second impeachment process in December.

It is not particularly relevant that he is still commander in chief in December. He doesn't need the military support in December. He needs it after his term technically ended and he should have stepped back.

I am thinking he would be more likely to use it in November- January possibly later, because:
1) He believes that the supreme court would ultimately decide the winner of the election if Trump isn't declared victory immediately, as he is planning on claiming the election was fraudulent and has been setting up his ability to do so now. This will take time, and go through a number of lengthy processes including ballot recount, electoral college processes, congressional actions, court decisions and appeals for it to even get that far, it very well could go on into January or longer due to how long all of these things actually take. We have never had it taken that far, but Trump has given every indication he intends it to.

2) Trump has encouraged armed insurrection if he doesn't win. He has claimed there would be violence if he doesn't win, which at minimum means protests and counter protests. Pro Trump militias could inflict violence upon the existing and continuing current protests going on about police violence as well.

3)Trump has already given the Military a heads up that he is planning on using them to " dominate the streets" to quell protesters. Which then can mean he uses the military against the "counter protesters" who confront Trump's protesters, or on the BLM protests already going on while these pro Trump vigilantes are already inflicting violence upon the BLM protesters, so they get even worse.

4) These militias could target " liberal officials" or people they perceive as " being the cause" of Trump's claimed " fraudulent election". For example, this militia here blames " urban elites" they may choose to target individual politicians here in Texas they feel are responsible, move on targets in our " liberal cities" here such as Austin, Houston, Dallas ect. and like you said, local police are not equipped to deal with something like this, and Trump would use it as an example of "liberal policies and officials failing to maintain control of their own cities" and claim" Liberal officials being a threat to the republic" to "undermine their authority" and give him a reason to declare a national emergency that would allow for a delay of " transfer of power". Transfer of power could possibly be delayed during a national emergency and if Trump is desperate enough there really is no card he won't try to play here.

Just thinking that something like this could even be possible in the US at all seems like madness, but then again Trump was something we didn't think possible in the US, so I never thought I would actually be having to consider the possible actions he could take given what he himself has actually said, so who really knows at this point. It seems crazy just to have to think about it at all really, but from what the president himself has stated, if he actually means any of it, it could escalate quickly to something this absurd.

 

[MrCalavera]

I disagree with this. The best example is probably the civil war in Iraq. The U.S. military was never able to put down the insurgency exactly because it was irregular. Or asymmetric as it was called in those days. Insurgents are also able to regroup, keep quiet and flare up at any given moment. It is why the insurgency flared up again in Syria as ISIS and continued as it's own 'state'. Even U.S. army generals were impressed with how well coordinated they were. They were only defeated because they didn't have any anti-air artillery and coalitian and Russian jets bombed the shit out of them. But imagine all the tremendous damage that preceded it and the reluctance to intervene and the subsequent geopolitical implications(divided Europe, reluctant U.S., assertive Russia, chemical attacks by the Syrian regime, fallout in international relations). It is well known the organization had some high ranking generals of former Mukhbarat(Iraqi secret service) under Al Qaida in Iraq and Levant and later ISIS. And it's like a plague they are still now regrouping elsewhere. Afghanistan is a similar quagmire. In asymmetric warfare you don't have to 'win' you just have to demoralize the enemy. Which is inevatible with mounting losses and no clear military objective. Even the European refugee crisis can be traced back to the time when some jihadis said ''fuck it'' in 2003 and took up arms. They might not 'win' in the traditional sense but their potential for chaos and severe destabilization is enormous. You can't solve that with military force. It's for that reason Afganistan have always been called ''the graveyard of empires''.

I've seen Iraq and Vietnam being invoked before in these debates, and yes, the partisans could hold their own in asymmetric warfare against the US.
However what i see being strangely overlooked when it comes to theories about american insurgency - the US Army would also fight on its native soil. With the blessing of direct access to their military bases, personnel etc. That and modern US falling into a Civil War would be much more concerning for the international players, than Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria etc. combined - like it or not. Perks of being a superpower. (With a huge nuclear stockpile)
It's not even close to a 1:1 comparison.

 

[gorfias]

How are you non partisan when their leader said they were preparing to violently fight urban liberals over the " green new deal". There is NOTHING non partisan about that.

One can be a conservative Democrat or a liberal Republican. Party matters less than ideology. I guess this leader is letting us know he doesn't care what party you are but what your ideology is.

Governance frequently requires degrees of harmonisation between entities that act in concert. Much of your average trade deal, for instance, is establishing common rules between the signatories. Federal departments make sense, because they should oversee relevant uniformity and compliance with national standards, even where core responsibility is largely down to the states. They may overreach of course, but that's a matter for routine political debate.



The key problem is the amount of money swilling around US politics, and that politicians overwhelmingly represent the upper middle classes, with concerns and social lives that almost entirely intersect with the business elites.

Bear in mind the quote from the UK conservative Edmund Burke: " Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays you instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion." You take away their staff, you impair their ability to exercise judgement.



The police just need to learn more in the way of community policing and less in the way of force-orientated militarism. I would be open to a police support unit of community officers - a sort of intermediate step with police training and regulations, to handle low-level responses and community relations. But I very much think they should be an arm of the regular police force rather than a subcontracted, independent militia.



Even extremists like to present themselves as reasonable people.

Fundamentally, the Constitution is a vague document that requires a lot of complex interpretation. That's what the government and SCOTUS are for. When an organisation says it adheres to the constitution that way, implicitly it means it thinks it knows better than the government and the courts. What right does it have - what is its public mandate? In essence, it's arguing the right to impose its will on the people without the slightest pretence of democratic assent or oversight. They are very heavily right wing: their interpretation of the Constitution is inevitably going to reflect right wing preconceptions that will interpret various left-wing policies as conveniently "unconstitutional". Their constant talk of civil war implies forcing their will by arms.

In actuality, they are tyranny waiting to happen.

In the USA, the whole thing about the right to complain to/about your government is that we know there are times they will not be acting in the public interest or within the boundaries of their duties, powers and obligations.

The Constitution and its interpretation by the USSC by itself has been a sore point.
Difficult for me in that I am often politically pleased by their decisions (sometimes not) but if I think they came to their decision through shenanigans, it's a problem.

Too often today, it's like the Russian dissident joke.."I had to leave Russia as there, man exploits man. I came to the USA and found it is the other way around."

I think these militias could be a curb on Government excess.

Bottom line: I think Trump was right not to condemn them.

 

[Buyetyen]

I think these militias could be a curb on Government excess.

Through what means? No matter which way you slice it, they are hopelessly, hilariously outnumbered, out-gunned and out of their depth.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Through what means? No matter which way you slice it, they are hopelessly, hilariously outnumbered, out-gunned and out of their depth.

Gorfias did say something about giving them semi-official status, so they'd be competing with existing authorities (somewhat), not opposing them. I still don't think it'd work, though.

 

[lil devils x]

One can be a conservative Democrat or a liberal Republican. Party matters less than ideology. I guess this leader is letting us know he doesn't care what party you are but what your ideology is.



In the USA, the whole thing about the right to complain to/about your government is that we know there are times they will not be acting in the public interest or within the boundaries of their duties, powers and obligations.

The Constitution and its interpretation by the USSC by itself has been a sore point.
Difficult for me in that I am often politically pleased by their decisions (sometimes not) but if I think they came to their decision through shenanigans, it's a problem.

Too often today, it's like the Russian dissident joke.."I had to leave Russia as there, man exploits man. I came to the USA and found it is the other way around."

I think these militias could be a curb on Government excess.

Bottom line: I think Trump was right not to condemn them.

Name " Liberal Republicans" currently in US congress.

 

[lil devils x]

Gorfias did say something about giving them semi-official status, so they'd be competing with existing authorities (somewhat), not opposing them. I still don't think it'd work, though.

And that it is a horrifically BAD idea to give any sort of credibility or authority to these vigilante groups in any way. Anyone who wants to start a civil war over " the new green deal" doesn't need to be encouraged.

 

[gorfias]

Name " Liberal Republicans" currently in US congress.

Depending upon where your Overton window is, they may not seem "Liberal" but to conservatives, they are called "Rinos" Republican in Name only.
I think this site is saying this fellow the most liberal currently serving in the house:

#200 Score 0.42: Rep. Kevin McCarthy [R-CA23]

Report Cards for 2019 - House Republicans - GovTrack.us

Year-end 2019 legislative statistics.

www.govtrack.us

I am finding sites stating you have not had a true liberal Republican in Congress since 2006 (Lincoln Chafee). I don't buy that. As a radical republican reptile myself, I found John McCain insufferable. Paul Ryan was pretty bad too.

 

[lil devils x]

Depending upon where your Overton window is, they may not seem "Liberal" but to conservatives, they are called "Rinos" Republican in Name only.
I think this site is saying this fellow the most liberal currently serving in the house:

#200 Score 0.42: Rep. Kevin McCarthy [R-CA23]

Report Cards for 2019 - House Republicans - GovTrack.us

Year-end 2019 legislative statistics.

www.govtrack.us

I am finding sites stating you have not had a true liberal Republican in Congress since 2006 (Lincoln Chafee). I don't buy that. As a radical republican reptile myself, I found John McCain insufferable. Paul Ryan was pretty bad too.

Yea, not liberal by like any definition.

 

[stroopwafel]

I've seen Iraq and Vietnam being invoked before in these debates, and yes, the partisans could hold their own in asymmetric warfare against the US.
However what i see being strangely overlooked when it comes to theories about american insurgency - the US Army would also fight on its native soil. With the blessing of direct access to their military bases, personnel etc. That and modern US falling into a Civil War would be much more concerning for the international players, than Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria etc. combined - like it or not. Perks of being a superpower. (With a huge nuclear stockpile)
It's not even close to a 1:1 comparison.

The principle stands that it would still be a war of attrition that can't be won through military means. Militaries were designed to deal with military threats, not the populace. It is why the struggle against terrorism persists. No one will sign a surrender on the USS Missouri. Not to mention the wider implications of the military turning against it's own people. It is unlikely there will not be dissent within the ranks. And even then, the consequence will be that the union will be put under military rule with the constitution de facto eliminated.

 

[Agema]

The principle stands that it would still be a war of attrition that can't be won through military means. Militaries were designed to deal with military threats, not the populace. It is why the struggle against terrorism persists. No one will sign a surrender on the USS Missouri. Not to mention the wider implications of the military turning against it's own people. It is unlikely there will not be dissent within the ranks. And even then, the consequence will be that the union will be put under military rule with the constitution de facto eliminated.

A guerrilla movement requires sufficient support from somewhere: it needs supplies of food, arms, ammunition, etc. It is highly unlikely that a government could take control without sufficient public support in the USA, consequently meaning rebels would have correspondingly modest support from the populace. There is unlikely to be an external supplier. The USA has a relatively high law enforcement infastructure to further block assistance to a guerrilla movement. It is thus extremely unlikely a guerrilla movement could be sustained - more likely after an initial burst, it would decline into occasional terrorist activities (akin to the IRA in Northern Ireland).

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[stroopwafel]

A guerrilla movement requires sufficient support from somewhere: it needs supplies of food, arms, ammunition, etc. It is highly unlikely that a government could take control without sufficient public support in the USA, consequently meaning rebels would have correspondingly modest support from the populace. There is unlikely to be an external supplier. The USA has a relatively high law enforcement infastructure to further block assistance to a guerrilla movement. It is thus extremely unlikely a guerrilla movement could be sustained - more likely after an initial burst, it would decline into occasional terrorist activities (akin to the IRA in Northern Ireland).

Yeah, but these militias have probably been stockpiling weapons and munition for a long time now and it's unknown how cooperative the wider populace would be to stop them. Espescially given the deep divisions. Law enforcement was also never intended for heavily armed militias. When it escalates it is also unknown what other fuse this chaos and civil strife might ignite.

There's also the problem of moving things into the USA even if you find a supplier. Unlike Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq the US doesn't share borders with destabilized states or states that wish the US grievous harm and the two land borders the US does have are pretty well monitored. So even if you could get Russia or China to start sending weapons, ammo and what not to a US insurrection you'd still need to find a way in that doesn't make it trivial for US customs, coast guard or border patrol to intercept you. Because moving hundreds of tons of weapons and ammo tends to be pretty notable and requires lots of trucks and/or big ships.

True like for example with Shia militias in Iraq or Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria which are all supported by Iran but the worst offender for civil war in Iraq was probably Al Qaida in Iraq and the Levant before it morphed into ISIS. This was of a sunni minority in a shia dominated country that hated their guts because of Saddam Hussein. Yet they were still able to dominate the conflict because of how ruthless they were and the experience of former Iraqi intelligence. Arguably they didn't really put up a fight in the 2003 invasion exactly because they could never win against the most advanced military on earth with regular tactics. That conflict lasted 3 weeks but what happened then, well it continues to haunt the world to this day.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

A guerrilla movement requires sufficient support from somewhere: it needs supplies of food, arms, ammunition, etc. It is highly unlikely that a government could take control without sufficient public support in the USA, consequently meaning rebels would have correspondingly modest support from the populace. There is unlikely to be an external supplier. The USA has a relatively high law enforcement infastructure to further block assistance to a guerrilla movement. It is thus extremely unlikely a guerrilla movement could be sustained - more likely after an initial burst, it would decline into occasional terrorist activities (akin to the IRA in Northern Ireland).

I mean the UK planned for guerrilla resistance group in World War II should Hitler invade and the estimation was if they weren't shot on raid they'd survive about 2 months if they stretched their supplies out. So with likely more supply stockpiles resistance stuff in the USA could probably last a bit longer even with modern military tech etc.

 

[Gergar12]

If any of you guys think the US military is going to be taking sides in a civil war, or even that they will take your side. You're wrong. An instructor in the naval war college told our class in a lecture that the US military would rather give Trump the White House vs dragging him out, and have Biden have an alternative Whitehouse in another location. The reason I guessed is that they are afraid of the chaos these right-wing militias will cause if the military drags him out.

 

[Agema]

Yeah, but these militias have probably been stockpiling weapons and munition for a long time now and it's unknown how cooperative the wider populace would be to stop them. Espescially given the deep divisions. Law enforcement was also never intended for heavily armed militias. When it escalates it is also unknown what other fuse this chaos and civil strife might ignite.

Troops run through ammo incredibly quickly in warfare. That stockpile isn't going to last that long (probably just weeks) without constant resupply, even if the military don't find any of them. Law enforcement is not there to take on militias, that's what the army is for. Law enforcement can, however, arrest sympathisers, break up illicit supply lines, etc.

We can guess how sympathetic the populace will be: at present, it's unlikely to be more than extreme Republicans and libertarians, and not even all of them. That's a very modest percentage of the population.

 

[Fieldy409]

These pictures we see these days of a bunch of dudes hanging off the back of a truck armed to the teeth with machine guns seems straight out of some Mexican cartel movie, except the boys are white, and people think this is normal but it just looks terrifying to me.

One day counter protestors will probably bring guns and there will be a firefight on the streets of the USA. Even if you're super pro gun, you gotta see it's just asking for trouble bringing them to town for protesting.

Oh for the days when the conservatives were sensible with their guns and Johnny Cash sang "don't take your guns to town."

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Troops run through ammo incredibly quickly in warfare. That stockpile isn't going to last that long (probably just weeks) without constant resupply, even if the military don't find any of them. Law enforcement is not there to take on militias, that's what the army is for. Law enforcement can, however, arrest sympathisers, break up illicit supply lines, etc.

We can guess how sympathetic the populace will be: at present, it's unlikely to be more than extreme Republicans and libertarians, and not even all of them. That's a very modest percentage of the population.

Only if you fight head on.

Hit and run attacks and taking down strategic targets doesn't use up that much.

I meal look how long it took to really defeat the like of Daesh even for an army with supply lines etc vs an enemy in a known location using Guerrilla tactics.