Charlie's Diary

Who put Philip K. Dick in charge of the reality machine?

Charlie, you're thinking too far ahead. The 1st BCT will be needed immediately post election, when Obama's supporters riot after McCain wins the electoral count.

Oh, and I wouldn't really pay any attention to anything Naomi Wolf says. She's hysterical, in many meanings of the word.

You're overreading it. It's not a good precedent, but it's not an imminent military coup. A brigade combat team is about 2000 men. That's not nearly enough to handle a coup in a nation of 300 million.

It's a terrible precedent, if actually used. And an unneeded one since we already have the National Guard.

Total@3: It's a good f****g start though!

Considering what the Iraq war has done to the morale of American troops, I don't think many of the people actually carrying guns will be enthusiastic about keeping the Republicans in power past the constitutional deadline.

"Sir! No, sir! Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, sir!"

Also, the infilitration and harassment of radical left groups is certainly not an innovation of the Bush 2 regime; you can trace it right back to COINTELPRO in the 60s and 70s, a period when only the silly would have said AmeriKKKa was on the verge of fascism.

You could argue that the USA isn't as different from Latin America as it might at first appear; creole elites, a history of slavery, populism in mass politics - these are all features of politics and society north and south of the Rio Grande. But the US has never shown any tendencies towards the golpe de estado; the Silver Shirts conspiracy against FDR is unknown, AFAICS, for the simple reason that it was never a viable plan, no matter how much the ruling class may have hated Roosevelt.

Charlie: this would be the same Naomi Wolf who advised Gore to wear more earth tones? Writing in the Huffington Post?

I'm beginning to see...oh wait, I just can't finish that.

This would be 8000 troops:

http://www.stewart.army.mil/3didweb/1st%20BCT/1stBrigadehom.htm

Still, I wouldn't want to be the one to tell them to fire on American Civilians-- that is a good way to be shot by a patriotic soldier.

Charlie, that tinfoil hat is way too tight. Let's maybe bring the hysteria down a notch?

Citing the Huff post as your only source seems a bit too credulous for your normal reaction to things.

They might not fire on 'American civilians' . . . but would they fire on 'swarthy looking enemies of the people'?

I seriously doubt if that question will ever be put to the test, however.

Implicit "please cite" @ 10:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

Will, I was citing the Army Times for the news, the HuffPost for some of the analysis (hint: it doesn't matter how it looks to you, if you're a Bush or McCain supporter: the significance of the action depends on how it looks to the opposition, who will respond accordingly).

Lycan, in the immortal words of the man in black, "never happened".

So far you've posted two debunked conservative conspiracy theories in as many days. What do you have planned for tomorrow?

Seth @ 6: Most of the soldiers I've met or spoken with tend to be pro-Bush and pro-War. It's an all volunteer army, and after 5 years of war you don't join if you don't think the possibility of going to Iraq sounds good.

Not that I think they'd be willing to fire on Americans unless things were beyond crazy...

They're not being "moved into position" are they? The US Army doesn't spend literally all its time deployed, although these days you'd be forgiven for thinking otherwise; as far as I can see, all that changes is that 1 BCT/3 Div is going to be assigned to NORTHCOM rather than FORCES COMMAND during the period it spends in its home garrison.

Regarding the numbers, the explanation is in the text - it was 6,500 strong including a total of 10 battalions placed under command, but in the sidebar you'll see links to the 5 units that make up the BCT itself. 6500/2=3250.

@Charlie - I read the Army Times piece - no indication of troops recruited from conservative areas - the unit's home base is in Georgia, but unlike Nat Guard units, Regular Army units aren't staffed based on regional affiliation.

I'd lend more credence if they were bringing home just National Guard units from JesusLand, but even then I still think it's paranoid fantasy.

To your point that it's how it looks to the opposition, I'd answer 'to a point'. I'm a very moderate McCain supporter. I'm concerned about the erosion of our civil liberties and government intrusion into our lives. Do I think it is the first step in a concerted plan to impose a police state - absolutely not - although vigiliance is critical.

Frankly, I'm disgusted by the vitriol coming from both sides of the spectrum - and the bloggers (IMHO) make it worse. Unlike regular journalists, there's nothing to hold them accountable, so like the yellow journalists of earlier days, the more lurid the story, the more pageviews they get (and potentially the more books they sell). Instead of figuring out where there's middle ground or how to fix our problems, the focus is on demonizing the opposition (calling McCain a fascist or implying that Obama is a secret muslim terrorist) - as if that's going to sway moderates.

@Charlie - I read the Army Times piece - no indication of troops recruited from conservative areas - the unit's home base is in Georgia, but unlike Nat Guard units, Regular Army units aren't staffed based on regional affiliation.

I'd lend more credence if they were bringing home just National Guard units from JesusLand, but even then I still think it's paranoid fantasy.

To your point that it's how it looks to the opposition, I'd answer 'to a point'. I'm a very moderate McCain supporter. I'm concerned about the erosion of our civil liberties and government intrusion into our lives. Do I think it is the first step in a concerted plan to impose a police state - absolutely not - although vigiliance is critical.

Frankly, I'm disgusted by the vitriol coming from both sides of the spectrum - and the bloggers (IMHO) make it worse. Unlike regular journalists, there's nothing to hold them accountable, so like the yellow journalists of earlier days, the more lurid the story, the more pageviews they get (and potentially the more books they sell). Instead of figuring out where there's middle ground or how to fix our problems, the focus is on demonizing the opposition (calling McCain a fascist or implying that Obama is a secret muslim terrorist) - as if that's going to sway moderates.

The only part I'm missing is the North American river that corresponds to the Rubicon.

Fungi@14: in the immortal words of Ricky Roma: "You never open your mouth until you know what the shot is."

Go back to yesterday when the comments ponged Stan L around once or twice. You may then notice today me deliberately parroting; a weak attempt at humour. Then I recommend writing on the chalkboard 100 times: "I will not open my mouth until...etc"

Debunked? They weren't even decanted. Noticed, maybe. Commented on, barely. Relevant, not necessary. Which is fine. I'm here through Sunday.

FungiFromYuggoth: I'm waiting for Lycan's third strike before I rule him out and ban him.

Strategically, do you really need more than 2000 soldiers? California could tear itself apart, but you really only need to secure the DC area, right?

s vryn n th Lft ths frggn' prnd nd nsn?

Paranoid much? The Army Times article says that they'll be on call, not that they'll be directly policing anything in violation of Posse Comitatus. The Army occasionally has legitimate domestic roles - witness Hurricane Katrina or the 1992 LA Riots. 2000 soldiers on call for such an event seems appropriate to me. If there were 200,000, I might be worried.

I would say that there is a fair chance that there will be riots if McCain wins, but that's all the more reason to have something ready to stop them.

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that one reason Bush was elected was that Republicans staged riot-protests with staffers to halt vote counting.

Those suggesting the left is paranoid... have you forgotten so quickly that only a few weeks ago reporters were being arrested on trumped-up charges and people were being arrested on political charges before they'd done anything illegal?

I'm waiting for Reichstag Fire, myself... rather than a crossing of the Rubicon.

dpd @#23

What Left?
And paranoid and SANE ....

All you need is ONE incident at the right time and place.
( Godwin's Law violation warning )

Reichstag Fire, maybe?
And, if properly handled, and located, 8000 troops is PLENTY.

Alternatively:
McCain "Wins"
Drops dead/dies of cancer within 2 years.
Palin becomes president.
Republic of Gilead

Game over.

No, the US Military is not going to support a Bush/Rove coup. The military isn't the bunch of mindless automatons that fiction often makes them out to be. I'm sure that, as with any group of several million people, you can find plenty of counterexamples and nutjobs if you really want to, but the overwhelming majority are good people who take their job very seriously. I would say that 95% wouldn't even consider the possibility for a nanosecond, and in the end you'd only wind up with a fraction of a percent that actually go along with it. And you'd need to hold a lot more than just Washington. You'd have to subdue the entire country, large portions of which are exceptionally well-armed. Besides, have you seen Bush lately? That dude wants out of office so bad he can taste it. It's been an 8-year kick in the balls for him (often deservedly so).

The thing that I hate is that I wrongly breathed a sigh of relief after the 2004 election thinking that was the worst choice between two fucktards I'd ever have to make in a US presidential election. No, no, no, we've actually done worse this time around. An old cranky dude (in fairness, his family's life expectancy seems to be 20 years over average) with a VP candidate who strikes me as a decent and yet horribly inexperienced human being versus an even more inexperienced presidential candidate with deep ties to every rotten corner of the slimiest political machine in the US (Chicago) paired up with a guy who's run for the big show a few times but never gotten more votes than any household pet could.

Fortunately I live in a "winner-take-all electoral votes" state whose outcome won't even be close, so I'm free to vote for a third-party candidate without any fear of negative effects.

Folks: dpd has just been disemvowelled, and future appearances here will be deleted just as soon as I spot them.

(There is a line. Lycan hasn't quite crossed it yet, but dpd just blew right through.)