The Pentagon Wants Authority to Post Almost 400,000 Military Personnel in U.S

So does anyone know if NORTHCOM assets and training are still centralized in GA and possibly CO, or have they spread the wealth around. There has been alot of equipment shuffled here, there, and everywhere, but alot of equipment is being reset and sent to the middle east, so who knows where its all ending up when it's over. I live right on top of a major installation, but we see stuff come and go all the time.

reply to post by hotrodturbo7


Remember the last time the Fed tried to force the states to do something? I think the Civil War happened around that time.



I don't know it's really starting to heat up.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
You're talking as if the resistance were going to be using standard military tactics. In actuality, if Constitutional militias were involved, it would most likely be a guerrilla war, one which no US force has ever "won". After all, Francis Marion (alias the Swamp Fox) was an expert in guerrilla tactics.

No, I know what kind of fighting we will use. Guerrilla tactics have been about the only thing that has worked against our forces. That's why I don't think they would spread that 400k too thin. They'll need the numbers to take certain areas. Besides, we really have no other option but to use guerrilla warfare. We would be slaughtered in open combat.

I didn't say we would make it easy for them. Just that they might be able to pull it off with 400k.

OK, let me try this again.

According to the graphic here Army Global Commitments there are 1,043,000 Regular, Reserve, and National Guard in the Army. OK take out the National Guard because they are State controlled not Fed. So 691,000 personnel that have to be posted somewhere. And that does not count Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

Now there are 294,349 Regular and Reserve posted overseas leaving 396,651 Army personnel posted on American soil, which is pretty much that scary 400,000 number. Right now. Today. I mean there must be somebody on all those Army bases scattered around the county, mustn't there? Again we haven't counted Air Force or Navy and Marines.

If anything, it sounds like this is anticipating a REDUCTION in military numbers, not a ramp up to a military takeover.

So OK, putting your fear mongering aside, lets suppose this is a plan for deploying troops in reaction to a national or natural disaster. Wouldn't you expect the Pentagon to canvas the possible need for this? Wouldn't you be righteously p1ssed off if there wasn't a plan to deal with the results of, say, North Korea smuggling a nuke into San Fransisco harbor and setting it off? I know I would.

reply to post by burntheships


Yes and we were wondering when the real s*** from Bush and his Katrina fiasco would hit the fan. At least they are considering positioning US troops. This would somewhat counterbalance the Russians and Chinese already in place, n'est pas?

On a somewhat related note, just in case you still think the Bush and Obama administrations were'nt tag teaming the country:

Obama to New Orleans: Drop Dead?

The one "DB" holds us while the other kicks us in the ....... There's only one party folks and we're not invited.

IT is a fun topic isn't it, the whole idea of our own troops serving against us. wow just think about that for a second. OUR OWN KIDS POINTING A GUN AT US TELLING US TO STAND DOWN.what a laugh.

reply to post by Simon_Boudreaux

They'll need the numbers to take certain areas.

It is virtually impossible to hold an area that has been pacified. Once the occupying force leaves, it becomes contested again. The US is a vast land area, and 400.000 troops are a drop in the bucket.
The bottom line is that if the citizens support the rebellion, then no army, no matter how large will be able to succeed. Furthermore, in a guerrilla war , given the ire in the country today, targets would most probably include those institutions that people feel have hurt them, not the army.

Originally posted by rnaa
So OK, putting your fear mongering aside, lets suppose this is a plan for deploying troops in reaction to a national or natural disaster. Wouldn't you expect the Pentagon to canvas the possible need for this? Wouldn't you be righteously p1ssed off if there wasn't a plan to deal with the results of, say, North Korea smuggling a nuke into San Fransisco harbor and setting it off? I know I would.

While your example would definitely be a disaster, wouldn't that be better characterized as an "act of war", and not a "disaster"?

I've seen a barrage of military activity lately here in the Central Coast of California on the Highway 101, keep in mind I'm right by Vandenburg AFB and Fort Jones, along with a few other military installations around this area.

I've heard it's because some troops are coming back from the Middle East etc, but I must have seen atleast 3-4 *convoys* travelling on the 101 northbound the otherday.

Get ready for the worst =\

It might be to contain the lunacy expounded in sites like this??

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Good point.

I still honestly don't see our troops firing on us. We are all brother, sisters, mothers, and fathers. My personal opinion is it's to deal with the swine flu. But, it is also my opinion that it is the states' responsibility to make their citizens safe from pandemic, not the federal government, and that duty should stay with the states.

If it is for the flu then the governors should be the ones working with their state health departments in making these plans, not FEMA, and not the pentagon.

reply to post by daggyz

It might be to contain the lunacy expounded in sites like this??

No one forced you to join, did they?
Thanks for contributing to the lunacy.

reply to post by Simon_Boudreaux


I am not trying to show you any disrespect or degrade your comment, but no one ever expects a cop to taze a grandmother or shoot an unarmed kid.

reply to post by traderjack


If we spent our time looking at isolated incidents like the ones you described, then there would be a nation-wide campaign to ban the car after every vehicle accident.

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
I've seen a barrage of military activity lately here in the Central Coast of California on the Highway 101

I'm in Missouri and have seen an increase in military aircraft( mostly helicopters ), and humvees. The latest humvee sighting was on 8 highway last week. A convoy of 5 humvees each had a blue light attached to the driver side fender. I'm guessing MP humvees but they had no markings saying such. I've seen another convoy with what looked like transport or cargo trucks. The nearest military base to me is Ft. Leonard wood about 100 miles SW of me. There is a National guard building in Farmington but not sure if it's an armory or some kind of operations building. I'm surrounded by national parks and forest so it's possible they were around here doing some kind of training so I'm not thinking much of it right now it was only that we have noticed an increase in military vehicles in the area.

reply to post by Simon_Boudreaux


Without giving up too much info I live on top of a TRADOC facility and their class sizes are way up, and they are building new infrastructure, though that may be explained by recovery act (stimulus) spending.

One question, is Secretary Gates nuts? This is outrageous, if you think about it, there is not even 400,000 troops in theater in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Plus there is a little inconvenient law called the "Posse Comitatus Act." 400-hundred-thousand combat troops operating in the continental United States?

That is just plan insanity on a grand scale! All I can say is, tell your friends, family, co-workers, and everyone you know. This is tyranny right around the corner! Make sure when you are sharing these facts, show them the documentation as well. This proposal needs to be tossed in the trash bin immediately!

Originally posted by traderjack
reply to post by Simon_Boudreaux

 

I am not trying to show you any disrespect or degrade your comment, but no one ever expects a cop to taze a grandmother or shoot an unarmed kid.

No disrespect taken it's a good point. That's an incident of one individual acting on his own though. Getting a whole platoon of soldiers to taze a grandmother or unarmed kid will be more difficult. There will be some that will follow that order but there will be some that will disagree with the order and refuse.

It's a scenario I hope we never get to see play out. I may be one of the many now in this country with nothing left to lose and ready willing and able to fight but, I can't help but to think of the innocents that will be caught in the middle. I pray we all just have the tinfoil wrapped a bit too tight and this is all in our heads. I love my country, she is a very beautiful place to live. It would break my heart to see our future generations grow up without that beauty.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Simon_Boudreaux


A soldier is not allowed to disagree, that is why they are called soldiers not employees.

[edit on 093131p://31b8 by Ownification]