Tuesday, December 30, 2008

What would you do if your country was invaded?

You would not surrender even though the soldiers promised a wonderful new government and lots of perks. You would either fight or sabotage their efforts. The occupying military would always be invaders, never friends.

At the time of the invasion, you would not overthrow your own government but hold tightly to it no matter what. You would not be so stupid as to invite even more instability, thus even if you hated your own administration, you would rally behind it. The more the soldiers demanded you give up your support of your government, the more you would protect it.

Two stories come to mind. The police often say that answering a domestic disturbance is one of the most dangerous calls to make. Fighting couples immediately join together to attack the third intrusive party, even if they hate each other. Disagreements are temporarily forgotten.

The second is an old allegory of the sun and the wind having a competition: The sun and wind bet each other they could remove the coat of the man walking far below across the meadow. The wind inhaled deeply and blew and blew. The man gripped his coat tightly and wrapped his arms about himself. As the wind tugged at his coat, the man bent almost double but the wind could not rip the coat away. At last the wind gave up. Then the sun tried. The meadow grew warm and bright. The man straightened up and opened his coat. The sun shone more strongly still. The heat rose from the earth and the air shimmered. The man removed his coat.

What you want cannot be taken by force but must be given by choice. If you take peace by force, it will not be peace. Diplomacy not military might will be the thing that saves the day.

Israel cannot force the Palestinians in Gaza to forsake Hamas when they were the ones building schools and answering their needs. Demanding Palestinians submit to the will of Israel will make them cling more tightly to Hamas. The brutalization of Palestinian innocents by Israel exposes Israel for the thug it has become.

Pakistan and India will not be able to destroy enough of each other so that Kashmir can be claimed, they cannot undermine the other because the blowback comes straight into their cities. And both of them have nukes. Just how far are they willing to go before their political dangers become destabilizing for themselves?

And how about ourselves? How about if our military is turned on us?:
EL PASO -- A U.S. Army War College report warns an economic crisis in the United States could lead to massive civil unrest and the need to call on the military to restore order.

Retired Army Lt. Col. Nathan Freir wrote the report "Known Unknowns: Unconventional Strategic Shocks in Defense Strategy Development," which the Army think tank in Carlisle, Pa., recently released.

"Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities ... to defend basic domestic order and human security," the report said, in case of "unforeseen economic collapse," "pervasive public health emergencies," and "catastrophic natural and human disasters," among other possible crises.

The report also suggests the new (Barack Obama) administration could face a "strategic shock" within the first eight months in office.

Fort Bliss spokeswoman Jean Offutt said the Army post is not involved in any recent talks about a potential military response to civil unrest.

The report become a hot Internet item after Phoenix police told the Phoenix Business Journal they're prepared to deal with such an event, and the International Monetary Fund's managing director, Dominique Strauss-Khan, said social unrest could spread to advanced countries if the global economic crisis worsens.
So many times in the last eight years the things we thought would never happen have happened. Preventive war, the destruction of Habeas Corpus, torture.... so who is to say the military will not be turned on American civilians?

What would you do if your country was invaded?

7 comments:

mapaghimagsik said...

Poor is the new terrorist.

Bryan said...

US civilians have more firearms than the US military.

The people with the most weapons among civilians, are the same people who suspect the government of plotting against them.

There is no guarantee that the US military will be willing to fire on the US population. There is not guarantee that the National Guard or local police will stand on the side lines and allow the military to act.

A lot of people will die over a stupid concept.

The easiest way to defuse tensions is a good stimulus package that puts people to work. That is what should have been done in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion. That is what the manual tells you to do. People who are tired from working and well-fed don't riot.

mapaghimagsik said...

The civilian population might have more guns, but the military has the good toys.

China was very successful in using its troops on its own. We're not that different.

ellroon said...

US civilians are armed to the teeth but all we'll do if it comes to fighting is shoot each other. It will be hard to identify the bad guys...

But as to using the military to fire on American civilians? These articles arouse suspicion.

Sorry, Bryan. The Bush administration has made me completely paranoid.

ellroon said...

Yeah, Map. Like the puke ray and the zap ray thingie that overheats people.... all crowd control items. When they had the youtube of the heat ray, they showed the soldiers aiming at WAR PROTESTERS. Not hostile soldiers nor terrorists nor angry ninjas.... war protesters.

Lovely.

mapaghimagsik said...

Oh, another thing. Sure, the civilians have a lot of weapons, and a good third of them will happily turn them on their countrymen, because in a country of prisoners and guards, its *much* better to be one of the guards.

ellroon said...

Painfully true, Map. Weird they never play the other side out in their fantasy games.