(TFC) – The West is seeking to undermine the government of Venezuela. Attacks against the government are linked to the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States. The Central Intelligence Agency appears to be poised to trigger the downfall of…
Due to the continued plunge into “The War on Terror” and the different conflicts the West has started, become involved with, or prolonged; a series of terms have lost their meaning. The meanings are important. It is fundamentally impossible to understand the nature of many of today’s conflicts because the terms defining them are muddled and lead people to believe a cookie cutter response is appropriate.
The response that may destroy an organization engaging in guerrilla warfare will strengthen a terrorist group. In some cases a certain response can turn a guerrilla group into a terrorist group. The tactics used to disrupt a terrorist group will typically have little or no impact on a mature guerrilla group. Understanding the definitions of political violence are essential to understanding a world steeped in it.
One of the overriding questions when discussing an insurgency within the United States has always been the debate over how the military would respond. Those who hope for the military to break ranks and join the resistance will be disappointed. Those who would believe the military will employ surgical strikes to remove dissidents through technology will be surprised. The American people don’t have to guess how the US military would respond any longer. Two respected academics chose to war game a scenario using the United States Operating Concept (2010) as a guide.
The first thing to understand about an insurrection is that it isn’t terrorism. The terms are often used interchangeably by the media, but there is a significant difference.
In light of the recent unrest across the country, the debate over police militarization has reached an all time high, but the discussion brings the reader face to face with another and more frightening question: would US troops really open fire on the public?
The best place to begin a prediction of the future is in the past. Historical examples are often discounted for various reasons. A mention of Nazi Germany is immediately discounted because “those people were just evil.” Situations in Eastern Europe are discounted because of the communist or totalitarian regimes that existed there in the past. Bringing up the times militaries in the Far East, Africa, or Latin America opened fire on their citizens triggers the unconscious racist part of some brains that says “well those countries aren’t white.” Instances from US history are dismissed because they were “isolated incidents” or the patriotism gene kicks in and somehow “the citizens deserved it.”
An allegedly armed suspect was shot and killed after reportedly fleeing from officers. Riots break out. For those who have been following this series of articles, this should come as no surprise. It appears as though the response from citizens has died out, but the importance of this event cannot be understated. Had other cities joined in the rioting, this could have been the incident that sent the US into the final stage of the cycle of insurgency, which is widespread and open insurrection.
For those just joining this series of articles, a brief recap is in order. The series began in the immediate aftermath of the Ferguson riots. It outlined cycle of insurgency and explained how insurgencies form, mature, and erupt. The series provided milestone events, which would need to occur prior to open rebellion taking hold. They have all occurred. The cycle of insurgency is a historic pattern that has repeated itself throughout history and will continue to do so. The stages are:
In a move symptomatic of the current debacle, the White House is considering lifting the ban on transferring weapons of war to police departments nationwide. After Ferguson, the administration banned the transfers. Now it’s rethinking the move.
Political posturing is behind the announcement and decision. One of the major reasons officers are being gunned down in the streets like never before is because of the “warrior cop” mentality departments across the country have adopted. They are given the tools of war from the Department of Defense, but do not have the training to use them. So, concussion grenades maim children, rifles are used to shoot unarmed people, and MRAPs are used to violate the Constitutionally-protected right to peaceably assemble.
All over the country, departments are on high alert. They know the next attack on police officers is right around the corner. They’ve changed security procedures, they’ve advised their loved ones of the risk, and they’re on the lookout for any information or tips about who will be behind the next attack on cops. In the interest of public safety, The Fifth Column is publishing the names of some of those who will be responsible for the next attack.
These are the names of those who are creating violent attitudes in the populace and whose actions are likely to lead to the next attack, even though they won’t pull the trigger, drop the brick, or plant the bomb themselves. Their names are:
This article was prompted by a reader question. It was a simple question, but the phrasing of the question made me take notice. So much of what I write in regards to tactics is for people who already have a good base of knowledge. This wasn’t a question about how to perform a technically advanced maneuver. It wasn’t posed by a militant. It was posed by a mom. “Will you write an article on how to survive an insurrection?” The question isn’t about how to fight and win an insurgency. It wasn’t about how to overthrow a government or complete some revolutionary goal. It was simply asking how to make it through.
These guidelines are for people who don’t want to become involved. They are for those who are simply getting caught in the crossfire of the revolutionary fervor circling the globe. Many of those I asked for input for this article were a bit snippy. Statements like “they should get training” or “they need to pick a side” were common. As I have pointed out repeatedly in articles dealing with insurgency, untrained or undedicated people do one thing really well in combat: die. It’s not our place to force people into conflict. More importantly, we need to remember why these revolutions occur and why militants take the stands they do. A John Adams quote springs to mind:
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’s important to understand the stakes as people cheer on the attacks in Dallas. I’m very critical of law enforcement’s brutality and I can’t bring myself to condemn the shooter wholeheartedly because I can understand the origin of the frustration and anger. At the same time, I’ve seen violence, I’ve helped people fleeing countries in the throws of insurrection, and I’ve witnessed man’s inhumanity. An insurrection in the United States is not something to hope for. We’re closer to it than we’ve been since the Civil War.
Sadly, I don’t know a way out. This attack set a chain of events in motion that placed the nation on a crash course with insurgency. This attack will cause officers to fear for their safety. They will, in turn, be more jumpy and trigger-happy. They will kill more innocents. This will lead to more attacks and the cycle will continue. Eventually, a spark will cause widespread rebellion.