Conspiracy Cafe

Conspiracy, alternative news, history, intelligence agencies



Posted by George Freund on May 28, 2011 at 4:59 PM


Extract from:

National Defense University National War College Washington, D.C. 20319-6000

The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012

Submitted by Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., Lt Col, USAF Class of 1992

Major General Charles J. Dunlap, Jr. Author


Cover Page


Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and

murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. John Adams

The end for which a soldier is recruited, clothed, armed and trained, the whole object of his sleeping, eating, drinking and marching is simply that he should fight at the right place and the right time.

Carl von Clausewitz

Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

John Harrington


The following is a work of fiction. Hopefully, it will remain one.


Unified Armed Forces of the United States

Directorate of Internal Security Special Prisoner Branch

Prisoner Dossier No: 222305759 Date Confined: 19 MARCH 2012




Unified Armed Forces of the United States Unified Security Forces Washington, D.C. 20319-6000

30 June 2012

From: USF/CC

Subject: Prisoner 222305759

To: General E. Thomas U. Brutus The White House Washington, D.C.

1. As you know, in the last few months since the President’s death and the abrupt retirement of the Vice President, there have been some instances of public unrest. I fully appreciate that the threat of disorder occasioned by the absence of a Chief Executive precipitated your assumption of power as Commander-in-Chief, UAFUS, and your designation of yourself as permanent Military Plenipotentiary of the United States. It is obvious to me that strong leadership is needed in these troubled times. Indeed, I am convinced that it was inept civilian leadership that caused our defeat in the Second Gulf War. 2. Despite the approval of your actions by The Referendum, it was still necessary to make several arrests for acts of sedition. One of these traitors, I am sorry to say, is a retired officer and a 1992 graduate of the National War College. The officer, Prisoner 222305759, has been convicted by court-martial and is awaiting execution. In violation of my standing orders, the prisoner was allowed writing materials. Somehow he managed to draft a letter to a fellow alumnus chronicling what he calls the "Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012." By hand-writing the letter he defeated the electroscriber scanners we placed in his cell. Fortunately, our security forces were still able to intercept it. 3. Because of its potential interest to you, a copy of the prisoner’s letter is attached. As the document indicates, the prisoner evidently had secreted into the stockade old notes, articles, and newspaper clippings he saved from his War College days. These documents were recovered in a search of the prisoner’s cell. For your edification, I have had an intelligence agent analyze them and annotate your copy of the letter with endnotes citing these references where appropriate. 4. Upon receipt of your order affirming the sentence of the court, Prisoner 222305759 will be executed in accordance with applicable directives. /s/ Ben N. Dykarnilt General, UAFUS


Commander Unified Security Forces 1 Atch Ltr., dated 25 June 2012 w/atch


Unified Armed Forces of the United States Directorate of Internal Security Intelligence Division Special Analysis Branch

25 June 2012


Subject: Analysis -Letter of Prisoner 222305759


1. Per your request of 18 June 2012 this organization evaluated the letter authored by Prisoner 222305759. The human-assisted computer analysis cross-referenced assertions in the Prisoner’s letter with compuscanned notes and other papers seized from his cell. Numeric annotations have been inserted into the letter as requested. All of the referenced documents were dated 1992 or earlier. Additionally, the document has been paginated for your convenience. 2. It is our opinion that the views expressed in the letter are detrimental to military security. Accordingly, we recommend the immediate deletion of the referenced materials from the National Information Data Base under the Prevention of Mobocracy Decree of 2012. Furthermore, we recommend the prompt enforcement of the Prisoner’s adjudged sentence. A proposed action effecting that sentence is attached. /s/ Trece S. Shunn, Major, UAFUS Chief, Special Analysis Branch

3 Atch 1 -Letter, 17 June 2012 2 -Analysis 3 -Proposed Action


17 June 2012

Dear Old Friend,

It’s hard to believe its been 20 years since we graduated from the War College! Remember the great discussions, the trips, the parties, the people? Those were the days!!!

I’m not having quite as much fun anymore. You’ve heard about the Sedition Trials? Yeah, I was one of them--convicted of "disloyal statements," and "using contemptuous language toward officials."{1} Disloyal? No. Contemptuous? You bet! With General Brutus in charge it’s not hard to be "contemptuous."

I’ve got to hand it to Brutus, he’s ingenious. After the President died last February, he somehow "persuaded" the Vice President not to take the oath of office. Did we have a President or not? A real ’Constitutional Conundrum’ the compupapers called it.{2} Brutus created just enough ambiguity to convince everyone that as the senior military officer, he could--and should--declare himself Commander-in-Chief of the Unified Armed Forces. Remember what he said? "Had to fill the ’power vacuum.’" Brutus showed he really knew how to use power: he declared martial law, "postponed" the elections, got the Vice President to "retire," and even moved into the White House! "More efficient to work from there," he said. Remember that?

When Congress convened that last time and managed to pass The Referendum Act, I really got my hopes up. For once they didn’t do what their military assistants told them to do. But when The Referendum approved Brutus’ takeover, I knew we were in serious trouble. I caused a ruckus, you know, trying to organize a protest. Then the Security Forces picked me up. My quickie "trial" was a joke. The sentence? Well, let’s just say you won’t have to save any beer for me at next year’s reunion. Since it doesn’t look like I’ll be seeing you again, I thought I’d write everything down and try to get it to you. I convinced one of the young guards to let me keep my pen and paper. (I don’t think he knew what the stuff was--the kid’s probably used a Voistronic electroscriber his whole life!)


I want to write the "Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012." I think it’s important to get the truth recorded before they rewrite history. If we’re going to get our freedom back, we’ve got to understand how we got into this mess. People need to understand that the armed forces exist to support and defend government, not to be the government. Faced with intractable national problems on one hand, and an energetic and capable military on the other, it can be all too seductive to start viewing the military as a cost-effective solution. We made a terrible mistake when we allowed the armed forces to be diverted from its original purpose.

I found a box of my notes and clippings from our War College days--told my keepers I needed them to write the confession they want. It’s amazing; looking through these old papers makes me realize that even back in 1992 we should have seen this coming. The seeds of this outrage were all there, we just didn’t realize how they would grow. But isn’t that always the way with things like this? Somebody once said that "the true watersheds in human affairs are seldom spotted amid the tumult of headlines broadcast on the hour."{3} And we had a lot of headlines back in the ’90’s to distract us:{4} The economy was in the dumps, crime was rising, schools were deteriorating, the environment was in trouble, and political scandals were occurring almost daily. Still, there was also a little good news: America’s recent victory over Iraq as well as the end of the Cold War.

All of this and more contributed to the situation in which we find ourselves today: a military that controls government and one that, ironically, can’t fight. It wasn’t any single cause that led us to this point. It was instead a combination of several different developments, the beginnings of which were evident in 1992. Here’s what I think happened:

Americans became exasperated with democracy. We were disillusioned with the apparent inability of elected government to solve the nation’s perplexing dilemmas. We were looking for someone or something that could produce workable answers. The one institution of government in which the people retained faith was the military. Buoyed by the military’s obvious competence in the First Gulf War, the public increasingly turned to it for answers to the country’s problems. Americans called for


an acceleration of trends begun in the 1980s: tasking the military with a variety of new, nontraditional ’missions,’ and vastly escalating its commitment to formerly ancillary duties.

Though not obvious at the time, the cumulative effect of these new responsibilities was to incorporate the military into the political process to an unprecedented degree. These additional assignments also had the perverse effect of diverting focus and resources from the military’s central mission of combat training and war-fighting. Finally, organizational, political, and societal changes served to alter the American military’s culture. Today’s military is not the one we knew when we graduated.

Let me explain how I came to these conclusions. In 1992 not very many people would’ve thought a military coup d’etat{5} could ever happen here. Sure, there were eccentric conspiracy theorists who saw the Pentagon’s hand in the assassination of President Kennedy,{6} President Nixon’s downfall,{7} and similar events. But even the most avid believers had to admit that no outright military takeover ever occurred before now. Ever since Washington’s admonitions about the dangers of overgrown military establishments in his Farewell address,{8} Americans generally viewed their armed forces with a judicious mixture of respect and wariness.{9} For over two centuries that vigilance was rewarded,{10} and most Americans came to consider the very notion of a military coup preposterous. Historian Andrew Janos captured the conventional view of the latter half of the 20th century in this clipping I saved:

[A] coup d’etat in the United States would be too fantastic to contemplate, not only because few would actually entertain the idea, but also because the bulk of the people are strongly attached to the prevailing political system and would rise in defense of a political leader even though they might not like him. The environment most hospitable to coups d’etat is one in which political apathy prevails as the dominant style.{11} However, when Janos wrote that back in 1964, 61.9% of the electorate voted.{12} Since then voter participation has steadily declined.{13} By 1988 only 50.1% of the eligible voters cast a ballot.{14} Simple extrapolation of those numbers to last spring’s Referendum would have predicted almost exactly the turnout. It was precisely reversed from that of 1964: 61.9% of the electorate did not vote.


America’s societal malaise was readily apparent in 1992. Seventy-eight percent of Americans believed the country was on the "wrong track."{15} One researcher declared that social indicators were at their lowest level in 20 years and insisted "something [was] coming loose in the social infrastructure.{16}" The nation was frustrated{17} and angry about its problems.{18}

America wanted solutions and democratically elected government wasn’t providing them.{19} The country suffered from a "deep pessimism about politicians and government after years of broken promises."{20} David Finkle observed in The Washington Post Magazine that for most Americans "the perception of government is that it has evolved from something that provides democracy’s framework into something that provides obstacles, from something to celebrate into something to ignore.{21}" Likewise, politicians and their proposals seemed stale and repetitive.{22} Millions of voters gave up hope of finding answers.{23} The "environment of apathy" Janos characterized as a precursor to a coup had arrived.{24}

Unlike the rest of government, the military enjoyed a remarkably steady climb in popularity throughout the 1980s and early 1990s.{25} And indeed it had earned the admiration of the public. Debilitated by the Vietnam War, the U.S. military set about re-inventing itself.{26} As early as 1988 U.S. News & World Report heralded the result: "In contrast to the dispirited, drug-ravaged, do-your-own-thing armed services of the ’70s and early ’80s, the U.S. military has been transformed into a fighting force of gung-ho attitude, spit-shined discipline and ten-hut morale." After the U.S. military dealt Iraq a crushing defeat in the First Gulf War, the ignominy of Vietnam evaporated.{27}

When we graduated in 1992, the armed forces were the smartest,{28} best educated,{29} and best disciplined{30} in history. While polls showed that the public invariably gave Congress low marks,{31} a February 1991 survey disclosed that "public confidence in the military soar[ed] to 85%, far surpassing every other institution in our society."{32} The armed forces had become America’s most{33}--and perhaps only--trusted arm of government.

Assumptions about the role of the military in society also began to change.


Twenty years before we graduated, the Supreme Court confidently declared in Laird v. Tatum that Americans had a "traditional and strong resistance to any military intrusion into civilian affairs."{34} But Americans were now re-thinking the desirability and necessity of that resistance. They compared the military’s principled competence with the chicanery and ineptitude of many elected officials, and found the latter wanting.{35}

Commentator James Fallows expressed the new thinking in an August 1991 article in Atlantic magazine. Musing on the contributions of the military to American society, Fallows wrote: "I am beginning to think that the only way the national government can do anything worthwhile is to invent a security threat and turn the job over to the military." He elaborated on his reasoning:

According to our economic and political theories, most agencies of the government have no special standing to speak about the general national welfare. Each represents a certain constituency; the interest groups fight it out. The military, strangely, is the one government institution that has been assigned legitimacy to act on its notion of the collective good. "National defense" can make us do things--train engineers, build highways--that long term good of the nation or common sense cannot.{36}

Just about a decade before Fallows’ article appeared, Congress initiated the use of "national defense" as a rationale to boost military participation in an activity historically the exclusive domain of civilian government: law enforcement. Congress concluded that the "rising tide of drugs being smuggled into the United States...present[ed] a grave threat to all Americans."{37} Finding the performance of civilian law enforcement agencies in counteracting that threat unsatisfactory, Congress passed the Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act of 1981.{38} In doing so Congress specifically intended to force reluctant military commanders{39} to actively collaborate in police work.{40}

This was a historic change of policy. Ever since the passage of the Posse Comitatus Act{41} in 1878, the military had distanced itself from law enforcement activities.{42} While the 1981 law did retain certain limits on the legal authority of military personnel, its net effect{43} was to dramatically expand military participation in anti-drug efforts. By 1991 the Department of Defense was spending $1.2


billion on counternarcotics crusades.{44} Air Force surveillance aircraft were sent to track airborne smugglers; Navy ships patrolled the Caribbean looking for drug-laden vessels; and National Guardsmen were searching for marijuana caches near the borders.{45} By 1992 "combatting" drug trafficking was formally declared a "high national security mission."{46}

It wasn’t too long before 21st century legislators were calling for more military involvement in police work.{47} Crime seemed out of control.{48} Most disturbing, the incidence of violent crime continued to climb.{49} Americans were horrified and desperate: a third even believed vigilantism could be justified.{50} Rising lawlessness was seen as but another example of the civilian political leadership’s inability to fulfill government’s most basic duty to ensure public safety.{51} People once again wanted the military to help.

Hints of an expanded police function were starting to surface while we were still in school. For example, District of Columbia National Guardsmen established a regular{52} military presence in high-crime neighborhoods not far from the War College.{53} Eventually, people became acclimated to seeing uniformed military personnel patrolling their neighborhood.{54} Now troops are an adjunct to almost all police forces in the country. In many of the areas where much of our burgeoning population of elderly Americans live--Brutus calls them "National Security Zones"--the military is often the only law enforcement agency. Consequently, the military was ideally positioned in thousands of communities to support the coup.

Concern about crime was a major reason why General Brutus actions were approved in The Referendum. Although voter participation by the general public was low, older Americans voted at a much higher rate.{55} Furthermore, with the aging of the ’baby boom’ generation,{56} the block of American voters over 45 grew to almost 53% of the voters by 2010.{57} This wealthy,{58} older electorate welcomed an organization which could ensure their physical security.{59} And when it counted, they backed Brutus in The Referendum--probably the last votes they’ll ever cast.

The military’s constituency was larger than just the aged. Poor Americans of all ages became dependent upon the military not only for protection against crime, but


also for medical care. Again we saw the roots of this back in 1992. First it was the barely-defeated proposal to use veterans’ hospitals to provide care for the non-veteran poor.{60} Next were calls to deploy military medical assets to relieve hard-pressed urban hospitals.{61} As the number of uninsured and under-insured grew,{62} the pressure to provide care became inexorable. Now military hospitals serve millions of new, non-military patients. Similarly, a proposal to use so-called "underutilized"{63} military bases as drug rehabilitation centers was implemented on a massive scale.

Even the youngest citizens were co-opted. During the 1990s the public became aware that military officers had the math and science backgrounds{64} desperately needed to revitalize U.S. education.{65} In fact, programs involving military personnel were already underway while we were in War College.{66} We now have an entire generation of young people who have grown up comfortable with the sight of military personnel patrolling their streets and teaching in their classrooms.

As you know, it wasn’t just crises in public safety, medical care, and education that the military was tasked to mend. It was also called upon to manage the cleanup of the nation’s environmental hazards. By 1992 the armed services were deeply involved in this arena.{67} As predicted,{68} that involvement mushroomed. Once the military demonstrated its expertise, it wasn’t long before environmental problems were declared "national security threats"{69} and full responsibility devolved to the armed forces.

Other problems were transformed into "national security" issues. As more commercial airlines went bankrupt{70} and unprofitable air routes dropped, the military was called upon to provide "essential" air transport to the affected regions. In the name of national defense, the military next found itself in the sealift business.{71} Ships purchased by the military for contingencies{72} were leased, complete with military crews,{73} at low rates to U.S. exporters to help solve the trade deficit. The nation’s crumbling infrastructure was also declared a "national security threat." As was proposed back in 1991,{74} troops rehabilitated public housing, re-built bridges and roads, and constructed new government buildings. It became common in practically


every community to see crews of soldiers working on local projects. Military attire drew no stares.

The revised charter for the armed forces was not confined to domestic enterprises. Overseas humanitarian and nation-building assignments proliferated.{75} Though these projects have always been performed by the military on an ad hoc basis,{76} in 1986 Congress formalized that process. It declared overseas humanitarian and civic assistance activities to be "valid military missions"{77} and specifically authorized them by law.{78} Fueled by favorable press for operations in Iraq, Bangladesh, and the Philippines during the early 1990s,{79} humanitarian ’missions’ were touted as the military’s "model for the future."{80} That prediction came true. When several African governments collapsed under AIDS epidemics{81} and famines{82} around the turn of the century, U.S. troops--first introduced to the continent in the 1990s{83}--were called upon to restore basic services. They never left.{84} Now the U.S. military constitutes the de facto governments in many of those areas. Once again, the first whisperings of such duties could be heard in 1992.{85}

By the year 2000 the armed forces had penetrated many vital aspects of American society. More and more military officers sought the kind of autonomy in these ’civilian’ affairs as they would expect from their military superiors in the execution of traditional combat operations. Thus began the inevitable politicization of the military. With so much responsibility for virtually everything government was expected to do, the military increasingly demanded a larger role in policymaking. But in a democracy policymaking is a task best left to those accountable to the electorate. Nevertheless, well-intentioned military officers, accustomed to the ordered, hierarchial structure of military society, became impatient in dealing on a daily basis with the democratic process. Consequently, they increasingly sought to avoid it. They convinced themselves that they could more productively serve the nation in carrying out their new assignments if they accrued to themselves unfettered power to implement their programs. They seemed to forget Lord Acton’s warning that all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.{86}

Congress became their seemingly unwitting ally. Because of the popularity of


the new military programs--and the growing dependence upon them--Congress passed the Military Plenipotentiary Act of 2005. This legislation was the legacy of the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act of 1986.{87} Among many revisions, Goldwater-Nichols strengthened the office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) and mandated numerous changes intended to increase "jointness" in the armed services.{88} Supporters of the Military Plenipotentiary Act argued persuasively that unity of command was critical to the successful management of the numerous activities now considered ’military’ operations. Moreover, many in Congress mistakenly{89} believed that Goldwater-Nichols was the basis of the military’s triumph in the First Gulf War,{90} and viewed the Military Plenipotentiary Act as a potent, improved successor to it.

In any event, convinced that more must be better, Congress decided further streamlining and added authority would reap still greater efficiencies. Lulled by favorable experiences with Chairmen like General Colin Powell,{91} Congress saw little danger in converting the office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff into the even more powerful Military Plenipotentiary. No longer merely an advisor, the Military Plenipotentiary became a true commander of all U.S. services, purportedly because that status could better ameliorate the effects of perceived interservice squabbling. Despite warnings found in the legislative history of Goldwater-Nichols{92} and elsewhere,{93} enormous power was concentrated in the hands of a single, unelected official. Unfortunately, Congress presumed that principled people would always occupy the office.{94} No one expected a General Brutus would arise.

The Military Plenipotentiary was not Congress’ only structural change. By 2007 the services were combined to form the Unified Armed Forces. Recall that when we graduated from War College unification was being seriously suggested as an economy measure.{95} Eventually that consideration, and the conviction that "jointness" was an unqualified military virtue,{96} led to unification. But unification ended the creative tension between the services.{97} Besides rejecting the operational logic of separate services,{98} no one seemed to recognize the ’checks and balances’ function service separatism provided a democracy obliged to maintain a large, professional


military establishment. The Founding Fathers knew better: "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition...experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary controls...[including] supplying opposite and rival interests."{99}

Ambition is a natural trait of military organizations and their leaders.{100} Whatever might have been the inefficiencies of separate military services, their very existence served to counteract the untoward desires of any single service. The ’roles and missions’ debates and other arguments once seen as petty military infighting also provided an invaluable forum for competitive analysis of military doctrine.{101} Additionally, they served to ensure that unscrupulous designs by a segment of the military establishment were ruthlessly exposed. Once the services were unified, the impetus to do so vanished, and the authority of the military in relation to the other institutions of government rose.{102} Distended by its pervasive new duties, monolithic militarism dominated the Darwinian political environment of 21st century America.

Why did the uniformed leadership of our day acquiesce to this transformation of the military? Much of the answer can be traced to the budget showdowns of the early 1990s.{103} The collapse of the Soviet Union left the U.S. military without an easily articulated rationale for large defense budgets.{104} Billions in cuts were sought.{105} One journalist put it bluntly: "winning a share of the budget wars...require[s] that the military find new missions for a post-cold-war world that is devoid of clear military threats.{106}" Capitulating, military leaders embraced formerly disdained assignments. As one commentator cynically observed, "the services are eager to talk up nontraditional, budget-justifying roles."{107} The Vietnam-era aphorism of "It’s a lousy war, but it’s the only one we’ve got" was resuscitated.

Still, that doesn’t completely explain why in 2012 the military leadership would succumb to a coup. To answer that question requires examination of what was happening to the officer corps as the military drew down in the 1980s and 1990s. Ever since large peacetime military establishments became permanent features after World War Two, the great leveler of the officer corps was the constant influx of officers from the Reserve Officers Training (ROTC) Program. The product of diverse colleges and universities throughout the United States, these officers were a


vital source of liberalism in the military services.{108}

By the late 1980s and early 1990s, however, that was changing. Force reductions decreased the number of ROTC graduates the services accepted.{109} Although General Powell called ROTC "vital to democracy," 62 ROTC programs were closed in 1991 and another 350 were considered for closure.{110} The numbers of officers produced by the service academies also fell, but at a significantly slower pace.{111} Consequently, the proportion of academy graduates in the officer corps climbed.{112}

It is an overstatement to say, as did one columnist back in ’90, that the heavy scientific and technical emphasis of the academy curricula{113} produced "engineering mentalities that tend toward authoritarianism."{114} But it is true that the rigorous service academy experience{115} created powerful bonds between graduates within the officer corps. These unofficial linkages intensified when a proposal{116} to unify the academies was adopted in 1995. Graduates of the Unified Armed Services Academy, no longer tempered by the social heterogeneity brought by separate service academies and large numbers of ROTC officers, formed vital elements of the cabal that put Brutus in power.

Moreover, the ROTC officers that did remain increasingly came from a narrower range of schools. Focusing on the military’s policy to exclude homosexuals from service, advocates of "political correctness" succeeded in driving ROTC from the campuses of some of our best universities.{117} In many instances they also prevailed in barring military recruiters from campus.{118} Little thought was given the long-term consequences of limiting the pool from which military leadership is drawn.{119} The end result was much more homogeneous military elite whose outlook was progressively dissimilar to that of the nation’s more broadly-based civilian leadership.{120}

The enlisted ranks changed as well. Just as was feared in 1992,{121} the drawdown diminished the pluralism which had characterized the All-Volunteer Force since its inception.{122} Paradoxically, while the opportunities for minorities and the disadvantaged lessened, a Pentagon study reported that "the children of the professional and managerial groups appear to be staying away from the military in significant


numbers."{123} True, many recruits continued to be drawn from the middle class, but the size of that group itself shrunk.{124} Additionally, fewer women chose to serve.{125} At the same time longer enlistments and higher re-enlistment rates facilitated bonding{126} among troops drawn from a steadily more atypical sector of American society.

Furthermore, well-meaning attempts at improving service life{127} led to the unintended insularity of military society. In a much reduced military force, military bases, complete with schools, churches, stores, child care centers, and recreational areas, became never-to-be-left islands of tranquility removed from the chaotic, crime-ridden environment outside the gates.{128} As one reporter put it in 1991: "Increasingly isolated from mainstream American, today’s troops tend to view the civilian world with suspicion and sometimes hostility."{129} Thus, a physically isolated and intellectually alienated officer corps was paired with an enlisted force likewise distanced from the society it was supposed to serve. In short, the military evolved into a force susceptible to manipulation by an authoritarian leader from its own select ranks.

What made this all the more disheartening was the wretched performance of our forces in the Second Gulf War.{130} Consumed with ancillary and nontraditional missions, the military neglected its fundamental raison d’etre. As the Supreme Court succinctly put it more than a half century ago, the "primary business of armies and navies [is] to fight or be ready to fight wars should the occasion arise."{131} When Iranian armies started pouring into the lower Gulf states in 2010, the U.S. armed forces were ready to do anything but fight.

Preoccupation with humanitarian missions, narcotics interdiction, and all the rest of the ancillary and nontraditional missions left the military unfit to engage an authentic military opponent. Performing the new missions sapped resources from what most experts agree was one of the vital ingredients to victory in the First Gulf War: training. Training is, quite literally, a zero-sum game. Each moment spent performing a nontraditional mission is one unavailable for orthodox military exercises. We should have recognized the grave risk. In 1991 The Washington Post reported that in "interview after interview across the services, senior leaders and noncommissioned


officers stressed that they cannot be ready to fight without frequent rehearsals of perishable skills."{132}

The military’s anti-drug activities were a big part of the problem. Oh sure, I remember the facile claims of exponents of the military’s counternarcotics involvement as to what "valuable" training it provided.{133} Did anyone really think that crews of an AWACS,{134} an aircraft designed to track high-performance military aircraft in combat, significantly improved their skills by hours of tracking slow-moving, light planes? Did they seriously imagine that troops enhanced combat skills by looking for marijuana under car seats? Did they truly believe that crews of the Navy’s sophisticated anti-air and anti-submarine ships received meaningful training by following lumbering trawlers around the Caribbean?{135} Tragically, they did.

The problem was exacerbated when political pressures{136} exempted the Guard and the Reserves from the harshest effects of the budgetary cutbacks of the early 1990s. The First Gulf War demonstrated that modern weapons and tactics were simply too complex for part-time soldiers to master,{137} however well motivated.{138} Still, creative Guard and Reserve defenders contrived numerous civic-action and humanitarian assignments and sold them as "training."{139} Left unexplained was how such "training" was supposed to fit with military strategies that contemplated short, violent,{140} come-as-you-are{141} expeditionary wars.{142} Nice-to-have Guard and Reserve support-oriented programs prevailed at the expense of critical active duty combat capabilities.{143}

Perhaps even more damaging than the diversion of resources was the assault on the very ethos of military service. Rather than bearing in mind the Supreme Court’s admonition to focus on war-fighting, the military was told to alter its purpose. Former Secretary of State James Baker typified the trendy new tone in remarks about the military’s airlift of food and medicine to the former Soviet republics in early 1992.{144} He said the airlift would "vividly show the peoples of the former Soviet Union that those that once prepared for war with them now have the courage and the conviction to use their militaries to say, ’We will wage a new peace.’"{145}

In truth militaries ought to ’prepare for war’ and leave the ’peace waging’ to


those agencies of government whose mission is just that. Nevertheless, such glib pronouncements--seconded by military leaders{146}--became the fashionable philosophy. The result? People in the military no longer considered themselves warriors. Instead, they perceived themselves as policemen, relief workers, educators, builders, health care providers, politicians--everything but war-fighters. When these philanthropists met the Iranian 10th Armored Corps near Daharan during the Second Gulf War, they were brutally slaughtered by a military which had not forgotten what militaries were supposed to do or what war is really all about.

The devastation of the military’s martial spirit was exemplified by its involvement in police activities. Inexplicably, we ignored the deleterious effect on combat motivation suffered by the Israeli Defense Forces as a result of their efforts to police the West Bank and Gaza.{147} Few seemed to appreciate the fundamental difference between the police profession and the profession of arms.{148} As Richard J. Barnet observed in the New Yorker: "The line between police action and a military operation is real. Police derive their power from their acceptance as ’officers of the law;’ legitimate authority, not firepower, is the essential element...."{149}

Police organizations are understandably oriented toward the studied restraint necessary for the end sought: a judicial conviction. As one Drug Enforcement Administration agent noted: "the military can kill people better than we can [but] when we go to a jungle lab, we’re not there to move onto the target by fire and maneuver to destroy the enemy. We’re there to arrest suspects and seize evidence."{150} If military forces are inculcated with the same spirit of restraint, combat performance is threatened.{151} Law enforcement is also not just a form of "low intensity conflict." In low intensity conflict the military aim is to win the will of the people, a virtually impossible task with criminals "motivated by money, not ideology."{152}

Humanitarian missions likewise undermined the military’s sense of itself. As one Navy officer gushed during the 1991 Bangladesh relief operation "It’s great to be here doing the opposite of a soldier."{153} While no true soldier relishes war, the fact remains that the essence of the military is war-fighting and the preparation for


the same. What journalist Barton Gellman has said of the Army can be extrapolated to the military as a whole: it is an "organization whose fighting spirit depends...heavily on tradition."{154} If that tradition becomes imbued with a preference for "doing the opposite of a soldier," fighting spirit is bound to suffer. When we first heard editorial calls to "pacify the military" by involving it in civic projects,{155} we should have given them the forceful rebuke they deserved.

Military analyst Harry Summers warned back in ’91 that when militaries lose sight of their purpose, catastrophe results. Citing a study of pre-World War Two Canadian military policy as it related to the subsequent battlefield disasters, he observed that:

Instead of using the peacetime interregnum to hone their military skills, senior Canadian military officers sought out civilian missions to justify their existence. When war came they were woefully unprepared. Instead of protecting their soldiers’ lives they led them to their deaths.

In today’s post-Cold War peacetime environment, this trap again looms large...Some today within the U.S. military are also searching for relevance, with draft doctrinal manuals giving touchy-feely prewar and postwar civil operations equal weight with war fighting. This is an insidious mistake.{156}

We must remember that America’s position at the end of the Cold War had no historical precedent. For the first time the nation--in peacetime--found itself with a large, professional military establishment that was not preoccupied with an over-arching external threat.{157} Yet the uncertainties in the aftermath of the Cold War limited the extent to which those forces could be safely downsized. When the military was then obliged to engage in a bewildering array of nontraditional duties to further justify its existence, it is little wonder that its traditional apolitical professionalism eventually eroded.

Clearly, the curious tapestry of military authoritarianism and combat ineffectiveness that we see today was just not yet woven in 1992. But the threads were there. Knowing what I know now, here’s the advice I would have given the Class of 1992:

1. Demand that the armed forces focus exclusively on indisputably military 15

duties. We must not diffuse our energies away from our fundamental responsibility for war fighting. To send ill-trained troops into combat makes us accomplices to murder.{158}

2. Acknowledge that national security does have dimensions that include solving our economic, social, educational, and environmental problems, but insist that such a classification doesn’t necessarily mean these difficulties are the responsibility of the military to correct. Stylishly designating campaigns to solve national ills as "wars" doesn’t convert them into something appropriate for the employment of military forces. 3. Readily cede budgetary resources to those agencies whose business it is to address the non-military issues the armed forces are presently asked to fix. We are not the DEA, the EPA, the Peace Corps, the Department of Education, or the Red Cross--nor should we be. It has never been easy to give up resources, but in the long term we--and the nation--will be better served by a smaller but appropriately focused military. 4. Divest the defense budget of perception-skewing expenses. Narcotics interdiction, environmental clean-up, retirement pay, and other costs tangential to actual combat capability should be assigned to the budgets of DEA, EPA, VA, and so forth. As long as these expensive programs are hidden in the defense budget, the taxpayer understandably--but mistakenly--will continue to believe he’s buying combat capability when, in reality, he is funding environmental clean-up or some other non-military activity at the expense of military readiness. 5. Continue to press for the elimination of superfluous, resource-draining Guard and Reserve units. Increase the training tempo, responsibilities, and compensation of those who remain. 6. Educate the public to the sophisticated training requirements occasioned by the complexities of modern warfare. It’s imperative we rid the public of the misperception that soldiers in peacetime are essentially unemployed and therefore free to assume new missions.{159} 7. Resist the unification of the services not only on operational grounds, but 16

also because to do so would be inimical to the ’checks and balances’ that underpin democratic government. Slow the pace of fiscally-driven consolidation so that the effect on less quantifiable aspects of military effectiveness can be scrutinized.

8. Reduce officer accessions from the service academies to correspond with overall force reductions, but maintain separate service academies. Keep ROTC on a wide diversity of campuses; if necessary, resort to litigation to do so. 9. Without compromising standards,{160} orient recruiting resources and campaigns towards ensuring that all echelons of society are represented in the military. Accept that this kind of recruiting may increase costs. It’s worth it. 10. Where possible, end the base-as-an-island syndrome by providing improved incentives for military families to live in civilian communities. Foster a ’citizen soldier’ attitude among the full-time professional soldiers of the increasingly U.S. based All-Volunteer Force. Finally, I would tell our classmates that democracy is a fragile institution that must be continuously nurtured and scrupulously protected. I would also tell them that they must speak out when they see the institution threatened; indeed, it is their duty to do so. Richard Gabriel aptly observed in his book To Serve with Honor that:

[W]hen one discusses dissent, loyalty, and the limits of military obligations, the central problem is that the military represents a threat to civil order not because it will usurp authority, but because it does not speak out on critical policy decisions. The soldier fails to live up to his oath to serve the country if he does not speak out when he sees his civilian or military superiors executing policies he feels to be wrong.{161}

Gabriel was wrong when he dismissed the military’s potential to threaten civil order, but he was right when he described our responsibilities. The catastrophe that occurred on our watch took place because we failed to speak out against policies we knew were wrong. It’s too late for me to do any more. But it’s not for you.

Best regards,

Prisoner 222305759


Intelligence Analysis: Annotations

1. These acts violate Articles 134 and 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), Manual for Courts-Martial. United States (Washington: GPO, 1984) Part IV, Paragraphs 12 and 72. 2. The Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that in the case of "death... the Vice President shall become the President." But Section 1 of Article II requires the taking of the oath before "enter(ing] the Execution of his Office..." 3. The quote is by Daniel J. Boorstin in "History’s Hidden Turning Points," U.S. News & World Report 22 April 1991: 52. 4. One newspaper editor put it this way: Crime rages on. Schools deteriorate. Roads and bridges crumble. The homeless huddle in our parks and doorways. Oil spills daily and unnoticed into waters that produce seafood and recreation. The level of U.S. public health is shameful for the rich and high tech nation.

Ernest B. Furgeson, "Can-Do vs. Won’t Do," The Baltimore Sun 6 March 1991: 11.

5. A coup d’etat is defined as the "overthrow of a constituted government by a small clique, usually formed within the country’s armed forces. Coups are rarely bloody, because one side or the other usually capitulates without fighting..." Edward Luttwak and Stuart L. Koehl, eds., The Dictionary of Modem War (New York: Harper Collins, 1991) 147. 6. Oliver Stone’s movie, JFK, is one example. See Joel Achenbach, "JFK Conspiracy: Myth vs. Facts," The Washington Post 28 February 1992: C5. 7. See Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin, Silent Coup (New York: St. Martin’s, 1991). 8. George Washington in his "Farewell Address" dated September 19, 1796 counseled: "[O]vergrown military establishments... under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty and... are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." As quoted in The Annals of America (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1976) 609. 9. Author Geoffrey Pertet expressed the traditional view as follows: "The antimilitaristic side of the American character is forever on guard. Americans are so suspicious of military ambition that even when the armed forces win wars they are criticized as robustly as if they had lost them." A Country Made By War (New York: Vintage, 1989) 560. 10. One example of the American tradition is related by columnist Art Buchwald: I was at the White House that night to hear [President Nixon’s] resignation speech, and what impressed me more than anything else was that while one leader of our country was resigning and another was taking his place, I did not see one tank or one helmented soldier in the street and the only uniforms I saw that night were two motorcycle policeman who were directing traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue.


Art Buchwald as quoted in Words on War, Jay M. Shafritz, ed., (New York: Prentice, 1990) 58.

11. Andrew C. Janos, "The Seizure of Power: A Study of Force and Popular Consent," Research Monograph No. 16, Center for International Studies, Princeton University, 39. 12. Mark S. Hoffman, ed., The World Almanac & Book of Facts 1991 (New York: Pharo Books, 1990)426. 13. Royce Crocker, Voter Registration and Turnout 1948-1988, Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service Report No. 89-179 GOV (Washington: CRS, 1989) 11. 14. Mark S. Hoffman, ed., The World Almanac & Book of Facts 1991 (New York: Pharo Books, 1990) 426. 15. E.J. Dionne, Jr., "Altered States: The Union & the Campaign," The Washington Post 26 January 1992: C1. 16. Fordham University researcher Marc Miringoff reports that the Index of Social Indicators fell to its lowest point in 20 years. He describes the Index, which is a amalgamation of social and economic data from government sources, as "sort of a Dow Jones of the national soul." See Paul Taylor, "’Dow Jones of the National Soul’ Sours," The Washington Post 16 January 1992: A25. 17. That frustration was the cause, according to columnist George F. Will, of a rising level of collective "national stress." George F. Will, "Stressed Out in America," The Washington Post 16 January 1992: A27. Another essayist described America’s querulous state as the "Fraying of America." Robert Hughes, "The Fraying of America," Time 3 February 1992: 44. 18. Columnist Charles Krauthammer asserted that "America is in a foul mood." See "America’s Case of the Sulks," The Washington Post 19 January 1992: C7. 19. A 1989 Harris poll revealed that 53% of Americans believed that Congress was not effectively fulfilling its responsibilities. See Robert R. Ivany, "Soldiers and Legislators: Common Mission," Parameters Spring 1991: 47. 20. Mortimer B. Zuckerman, "Behind Our Loss of Faith," U.S. News & World Report 16 March 1992: 76. Many believed that democracy’s promise didn’t include them. 91% of Americans reported that the "group with too little influence in government is people like themselves." See "Harper’s Index," Harper’s Magazine January 1991: 17. 21. David Finkle, "The Greatest Democracy on Earth," The Washington Post Magazine 16 February 1992: 16. 22. 43% of those that did vote didn’t see any important differences between the two major parties. See "Harper’s Index," Harper’s Magazine March 1992: 13. 23. One in eight Americans was so pessimistic as to conclude that the country’s domestic problems were "beyond solving." "Harper’s Index," Harper’s Magazine October 1991: 15. 19

24. In his book Coup d’Etat Edward Luttwak makes a similar point when he lists as one of his preconditions for a successful coup that "the social and economic conditions of the target country must be such as to confine political participation to a small fraction of the population." Edward Luttwak, Coup d’Etat (New York: Knopf, 1969) 24. 25. A ten-year rise in public confidence was reported by Tom Morganthau, et al., in "The Military’s New Image," Newsweek 11 March 1991: 50. 26. As White House planner James P. Pinkerton explained: "More than any other institution in the federal government, the Pentagon studied its failures, learned from them and reformed. As quoted by E.J. Dionne, Jr., "Martial Metaphors," The Washington Post 27 March 1991: A21. 27. As columnist Judy Mann put it shortly after the beginning of the air campaign: The armed services have been badly stung by the war in Vietnam, the Iranian hostage rescue failure, the invasion of Grenada and the arms procurement scandals. On Wednesday night they redeemed 20 years of bad history in less than five hours.

Judy Mann, "The Military Finally Wins One With a Technical Triumph," The Washington Post 18 January 1991: D3.

28. A survey of the 163 new Army brigadier generals revealed that their IQ was in the 92nd percentile of the population. See Bruce W. Nelan, "Revolution in Defense," Time 18 March 1991: 25. 29. In many instances the curriculum vitae of military personnel was more impressive than that of their civilian counterparts. For example, over 88% of brigadier generals had an advanced degree compared with 19% of top civilian business leaders. See David Gergen, "America’s New Heroes," 76. Similarly, 97% of enlisted personnel were high school graduates, the highest percentage ever. See Grant Willis, "DoD: Recruits in ’91 best educated, most qualified," Air Force Times 27 January 1992; 14. 30. For example, the "military had become practically a drug-free workplace." See David Gergen, "Bringing Home the Storm," The Washington Post 28 April 1991: C2. Military sociologist Charles Moskos explained that the reason for the great decline in disciplinary problems in the military is "simply better recruits." Peter Slavin, "Telling it like it is," Air Force Times 14 March 1988: 60. 31. Ivany 47. 32. David Gergen, "America’s New Heroes," US News & World Report 11 February 1991: 76. 33. See Grant Willis, "A new generation of warriors," Navy Times 16 March 1991: 12. 34. 408 U.S. 1, 17(1972). 20

35. At least one observer sensed the peril which arises when power and respect converge in the military: Our warriors are kinder and gentler, and have not shown the slightest inclination to lust for political power. But that potential always lurks where power and respect converge, and the degree of military influence in society is something to watch carefully in the years ahead.

Martin Anderson, "The Benefits of the Warrior Class," The Baltimore Sun 14 April 1991: 3F.

36. James Fallows, "Military Efficiency," August 1991: 18. 37. Civilian law enforcement agencies were intercepting only 15% of the drugs entering the country. See U.S. Code Congressional & Administrative News (St. Paul: West, 1981) 1785. 38. Public Law 97-86 (1981) codified in 10 U.S.C. 371 et seq. 39. Newsweek reports: "[T]he Pentagon resisted the [counternarcotics] mission for decades, saying that the military should fight threats to national security, and the police should fight crime." Charles Lane, "The Newest War," Newsweek 6 January 1992: 18. 40. See U.S. Code Congressional & Administrative News (St. Paul: West, 1981) 1785. 41. 10 U.S.C. 1385. 42. The original purpose of the Posse Comitatus act was to restrain Federal troops that had become deeply involved in law enforcement in the post-Civil War South--even in areas where civil government had been reestablished. See U.S. v. Hartley, 486 F.Supp. 1348, 1356 fn. 11 (M.D.Fla. 1980). The statute imposes criminal penalties for the improper uses of the military in a domestic law enforcement matters. Though technically applying only to the Army and Air Force, by regulation it also governed the Navy. See U.S. Code Congressional & Administrative News (St. Paul: West, 1981) 1786. 43. Additional amendments were added in 1988. See Public Law 100-456 (1988). 44. Although anti-drug spending will decrease in FY 93, the rate of decline is slower than that of the DoD budget as a whole. See William Matthews, "Counternarcotics request increased," Air Force Times 24 February 1992: 2. 45. Lane, "Newest War," 18. 46. "Combatting Drugs," National Military Strategy of the United States (Washington: GPO, 1992) 15. 47. Some were suggesting the need for greater military authority in 1992. See Dale E. Brown, "Drugs on the Border: The Role of the Military," Winter 1991-92: 58-59. 48. For example, in 1989 property valued at $13 billion was stolen. John W. Wright, ed., "Crime and Punishment," The Universal Almanac 1992 (Kansas City: Andrews and McMeel, 1991) 255. 21

49. The rise in the rate of violent crime continued a trend begun in the 1980s when such offenses soared by 23%. See John W. Wright, ed., "Crime and Punishment," The Universal Almanac 1992 (Kansas City: Andrews and McMeel, 1991) 255. 50. "Harper’s Index," Harper’s Magazine July 1991: 15. 51. George Will observed that "[u]rban governments are failing to perform their primary function of protecting people from violence on streets and even in homes and schools." George F. Will, "Stressed Out in America," A27. 52. Using Guardsmen in a law enforcement capacity during riots end other emergencies was not unusual, but a regular presence in a civilian community in that role was unusual in those days. Guard members usually performed law enforcement activities in their status state employees. This is distinct from their federalized status when they are incorporated into the U.S. military. See U.S. Code Congressional & Administrative News (St. Paul: West, 1988) 2583. 53. K.R. Clark, "Spotlighting the Drug Zone," Pentagram, 30 January 1992: 20-21. 54. Indeed, one of the specific purposes of the DC program was to "work with police to increase the uniformed presence in the neighborhood at night to cut down on illegal activity." See Clark 21. 55. For example, persons over the age of 65 vote at a rate 50% higher than that of the 18-34 age group. See George F. Will, "Stressed Out in America," The Washington Post 16 January 1992: A27. 56. The number of ’baby boomers’ in the population is expected to peak in 2020. See Marvin J. Cetron and Owen Davies, "Trends Shaping the World," The Futurist September-October 1991: 12. 57. Persons over 65 were estimated to constitute 18% of the electorate by 2010. This group, together with the ’boomers’ over 45 years old, would constitute 53% of the electorate by 2010. These percentages were computed from statistics found in the Universal Almanac 1992, "The U.S. Population by Age," John W. Wright, ed., (Kansas City: Andrews and McMeel, 1991) 207. 58. In 1992 Deidre Fanning wrote in Worth magazine: [I]n the next ten to fifteen years, the largest intergenerational transfer of wealth in U.S. history (will occur]. Simply put, baby boomers’ parents have amassed a lot of money over the years--a collective $8 trillion according to one economist’s estimate, or an average of $100,000 per boomer--and as they begin to die off, much of it will land in the laps of waiting kids..... In the next twenty boomers will inherit two-thirds of the nation’s wealth.

Deidre Fanning, "Waiting for the Wealth," Worth February/March 1992: 87,

89. 59. A 1990 poll of Americans aged 50 years and older showed that nearly 23% believed that use of the military was the best way to combat the growing problems of drug abuse and crime. 22

See Mark S. Hoffman, ed., The World Almanac & Book of Facts 1991 (New York: Pharo Books, 1990) 33.

60. "Plan to Open Veterans Hospitals to Poor is Dropped," New York Times 23 February 1992: 17. 61. Scott Shuger, "Pacify the Military," New York Times 14 March 1992: 25. 62. It was estimated that in 1987, 48 million Americans lacked health insurance for all or part of the year. See Spencer Rich, "Number Lacking Health Insurance Grows," The Washington Post 29 February 1992: A10. 63. Andy Tobias, "Let’s Get Moving!" Time 3 February 1992: 41. 64. U.S. News & World Report noted that "a third of the officers leaving the Army are qualified to teach high-school math, and 10 to 20 percent can teach physics." David Gergen, "Heroes For Hire," U.S. News & World Report 27 January 1992: 71. 65. U.S. school children ranked near the bottom in math and science skills in an international survey. See "Battle of the Brains," U.S. News & World Report 17 February 1992: 10. 66. For example, a District of Columbia National Guard unit entered into a "Partnership in Education" agreement with a local school district. Under the memorandum the Guard agreed to "institute a cooperative learning center providing tutoring in science, English, mathematics and other basic subjects." See "Guard enters partnership with school," 13 February 1992: 3. Likewise, in December 1991 the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency announced a "partnership" with Arlington (VA) schools. Under the agreement the Defense agency would provide "occasional access to its facilities, [and] will supply guest lecturers, mentoring and internship opportunities for students." "Arlington Schools Join Forces With Defense Department Agency," The Washington Post 12 December 1991: VA1. 67. The DoD budget for environmental clean-up for FY 93 was $3.7 billion. Anne Garfinkle, "Going Home is Hard to Do," Wall Street Journal 27 January 1992: 12. There were 17,482 contaminated military sites in the U.S. See Michael Weisskopf, "3,000 Military Base Sites Added to Toxic Cleanup List," The Washington Post 29 March 1991: A4. 68. It was predicted that DoD’s bill for environmental clean-up could "range from $20 billion on up." See Peter Grier, "US Defense Department Declares War on Colossal Pollution Problem," Christian Science Monitor 2 March 1992: 9. 69. At least one service saw this activity as a "vital mission" as early as 1991. The National Journal reported: Outside the Storm, a pamphlet heralding the Army’s post-Persian Gulf war "vital missions and important work," touches on the war on drugs and "protecting the planet Earth" (even reprinting a syrupy ode to environmentalism from the 1989 Sierra Club Wilderness Calendar).

David C. Morrison, "Operation Kinder and Gentler," National Journal 25 May 1991: 1260.


70. In February 1992 Trans World Airlines became the eighth major airline to go bankrupt since 1989. Martha M. Hamilton, "Trans World Airlines Files for Bankruptcy," The Washington Post 1 February 1992: C2. 71. By 1992 U.S.-flagged commercial shipping had virtually disappeared. See James Bovard, "The Antiquated 1920 Jones Act Slowly Sinks U.S. Shipping," Insight 6 January 1992: 21. 72. In the wake of Desert Storm, $3.1 billion was spent to build and convert ships for the military’s cargo fleet. Michael Blood, "An idea to use shipyard as a U.S. sealift base," Philadelphia Inquirer 16 February 1992: B-1. 73. The precedent for ’leasing’ military resources can be traced to 1992. Just such an arrangement occurred in Germany following reunification. The Air Force Times reported it this way: A shortage of German [air] controllers and their unfamiliarity with newly reunified Berlin’s busy skies prompted Germany to hire a squadron from the U.S. Air Force at a cost of $35 million for four years...It is the only U.S. military unit that guides civilian air traffic on foreign soil...

Soraya S. Nelson, "AF controllers in Berlin keep eye on civilian sky," Air Force Times 10 February 1992: 22.

74. See Shuger 25. Similarly, noting the growing obsolescence of the Guard’s combat role, a National Guard officer proposed an alternative: [T]he National Guard can provide a much greater service to the nation by seeking more combat support and combat service support missions and the structure to support them. Such units can participate in nation building or assistance missions throughout the world, to include the United States...Much of our national infrastructure, streets, bridges, health care, water and sewer lines, to name just a few, particularly in the inner cities of the United States, are rn disrepair. Many of the necessary repairs could be accomplished by National guard units on a year-round training basis.

Colonel Philip Drew, "Taking the National Guard Out of Combat," National Guard April 1991: 38.

75. Eric Schmitt, "U.S. Forces Find Work As Angels Of Mercy," New York Times 12 January 1992: E3. 76. Small scale civic projects are a custom for U.S. forces in overseas locations. For example, the U.S. Navy traditionally does a community project at its ports of call. See e.g. "U.S. sailors in gulf perform community projects," European Stars & Stripes 3 January 1992: 8. See also Thomas G. Weiss and Kurt M. Campbell, "Military Humanitarianism," Survival September/October 1991: 452-454. 77. See the legislative history of Public Law 99-661, U.S. Code Congressional & Administrative News (St. Paul: West, 1986) 6482. 24

78. Public Law 99-661 codified in 10 U.S.C. 401 et seq. 79. Ken Adelman, "Military helping hands," Washington Times 8 July 1991: D3. 80. Bruce B. Auster with Robin Knight, "The Pentagon Scramble to Stay Relevant," U.S. News & World Report December 30, 1991/6 January 1992: 52. 81. It was predicted that the AIDS epidemic would hit Africa especially hard with infection rates in some cities as high as 40% by the year 2000. See Marvin J. Cetron and Owen Davies, "Trends Shaping the World," The Futurist September-October 1991: 12. 82. Some experts predicted that African famine might present an opportunity for a military humanitarian mission. Weiss and Campbell 451-452. 83. Richard H.P. Sia, "U.S. increasing its special forces activity in Africa," Baltimore Sun 15 March 1992: 1. 84. Such long-term military commitments to humanitarian operations were recommended by some e

Categories: New World Order