Cycle of Insurgency: The realities of “Martial Law”

Washington, DC (TFC) – The term “martial law” is thrown around so much that it seems to have lost its meaning. Martial law is military control of normal judicial functions. It doesn’t mean a curfew is in effect. It doesn’t mean the militarization of police. It requires military involvement. The threat of martial law is a cornerstone of many theories about designs for the United States.

Martial law will not occur in the United States. Period. The number of troops required to enact martial law is astronomical. In a recent article, the number of troops necessary to establish counter-insurgency operations in the United States was discussed.

“It took deployment numbers of 170,000 US troops to (fail to) pacify Iraq’s insurrection. That number doesn’t include coalition forces, allied Iraqi troops, or the massive number of military contractors that traveled to Iraq. Iraq has a population of about 33 million. The United States is almost 10 times that. If the Department of Defense deployed every single member of the Army and the Marines including the clerks, cooks, carpenters, truck drivers, and so on, it could only field about 750,000 troops. That’s about one million troops shy of the needed number to match the effectiveness of Iraq’s counter-insurgency operation.”

The number of troops necessary to maintain martial law would be exponentially larger. During counter-insurgency operations, the military merely has to target insurgents. Normal police functions are still conducted by civilian organizations. It’s impossible to provide a realistic estimation based on historical data because there has never been a martial law implementation on that scale. A best guess would be to simply add the number of current officers in the United States. That’s more than a million. So to attain a true martial law scenario in the United States, you’re talking about adding another million on top of the 1.7 million needed to control the inevitable insurgency. Almost three million boots on the ground. That’s about 400% of the total staff of the the Army and Marines. Even if the the military took every airman and sailor and used them on the ground, The needed numbers are double the entire manpower available to DOD. In short, martial law is simply not feasible with the current size of the US Military.

People immediately raise the image of UN troops scouring the countryside. The United Nations currently has about 100,000 uniformed personnel. As discussed above, this is hardly a formidable fighting force. More importantly, Almost all of those troops and police are already committed to operations all over the world. The prominent idea of UN invasion is simply not feasible. For the UN to attain the number of troops needed, it would mean the size of the UN uniformed forces would have to increase to 30 times their current size. That kind of escalation would not go unnoticed.

Of course, the fact remains that when people say “martial law”, they mean “totalitarian control”. So what fighting force is capable of implementing that in the United States? There’s really only one organization that has the infrastructure and personnel to implement a crackdown like people imagine: The Thin Blue Line.

Image: Public Domain

Image: Public Domain

Your local police department continues to militarize, and they continue to show they do not care about the citizens they have sworn to protect.

Many will object and point to the promise to keep their oaths. Their oaths are worthless. Did they object when a child’s face was mangled by a concussion grenade? Did they object to civil asset forfeiture? Did they object to the use of stingrays? Did they object to any of the violations of your rights? What makes you think they will object later? If they can’t stand against small infractions, they will not stand against the large. These officers will follow orders. When tyranny comes to the United States, it will be the Thin Blue Line that enforces it.

Many of the militias on the right are swearing to back up the police during a conflict with people who are asking not to be shot. Members of those groups should ask themselves if the unwarranted killings, searches, and violations were being conducted by people wearing blue helmets instead of blue uniforms if they’d still feel the same way. If the answer is no, it’s clear that you are not standing on principle, but on conditioning to accept the authority of a badge.

If you stand with those who are violating the rights of the people, you cannot cast yourself as a protector of freedom. It’s time for Americans of every race, religion, and creed to make a decision. Will you stand with those who would violate the so-called inalienable rights of the population, or against them. Only you can decide.