Yougov - A law professor at West Point
was forced to hastily resign
after it emerged that he had authored a number of controversial
articles. In one he suggested that legal scholars defending the rights
of suspected terrorists could be considered legitimate military targets,
while in another he examined a potential military coup in the United
States, arguing that officers may have a duty to sieze control of the
federal government if the federal government acted against the interest
of the country. The United States military has long embraced the idea of
civilian control of national affairs, and apart from certain rare
moments the American officer corps has faithfully followed the orders of
their civilian superiors.
YouGov's latest research shows, however, that officers in the
military are held in much greater esteem than their civilian superiors,
and that they are widely viewed as having the best interests of the
country in mind instead of their own selfish concerns. 70% of Americans
believe that military officers generally want what is best for the
country. When it comes to Congressmen, however, 71% of Americans believe
that they want what is best for themselves, along with 59% for local
politicians.
29% of Americans could imagine a situation in which they would
support the military seizing control of the federal government, while
41% could not imagine such a situation.
Republicans (43%) are more than twice as likely as Democrats (20%) to
say that they could conceive of a situation in which they would support
a military coup in the United States. Independents tend to say that
they could not (38%) rather than could (29%) imagine supporting a coup.
The proportion of the country that would support a military takeover
increases when people are asked whether they would hypothetically
support the military stepping in to take control from a civilian
government which is beginning to violate the constitution. 43% of
Americans would support the military stepping in while 29% would be
opposed.
5 comments:
The military mind, and the police mind (as heavily conditioned by career choice and subsequent training, to say nothing of early life experience leading to compensatory life behaviors) is a mind to be wary of. No matter how "high" the ideals, or "noble" the commitment to "protecting" everyone, this composite mind is at root an enforcing, rigid mind. It is more often than not only superficially committed to genuine peace making.
Begs the question, what situations could 43% of GOP imagine justifying a military coup? In Australia in 1975 the CIA didn't like the head of state and got the British governor to fire him. Similar oustings in the US never involved the generals taking charge. The retired generals got Rumsfeld ejected from DOD. Take the case that a President refuses to resign at the request of the generals after being elected with a mandate to break up the CIA and commence disarmament. Congress, similarly elected, refuses to impeach. But of course this is fantasy because elections suppress such potential popular uprisings and any candidates who would be traitors to the MIC. There is no realistic situation where the generals would ever have to take over short of patriot laws already in place. Generals might run for office as is traditional since Washington (Jackson, Taylor, Harrison, Polk, Grant etc. etc.) but there are so many safeguards built into the system that the Constitution would never need to be tossed out. At the worst there would be an quick election where a popular general is elected as President.
Congress and the President constantly violate the Constitution, hence laws are struck down by the Court. The framers preferred this to get straightened out in the next election, not by the Court. The President gets impeached over violations. No need for a coup, it's handled by law. But the most likely scenario for a coup is if the government did strictly follow the constitution leaving no legal means for removal.
We are in a heap of trouble
That 71% of Congress wants what is best for themselves, is a half truth. They raise funds for the party not themselves, systemic corruption. They are selfless in the same sense as a gang of bank robbers who split the take. Yes they get their share of the take, but subject to the whim of the party leader.
Post a Comment