Retired Major General Paul Eaton Issues A Chilling Warning

[DemocratSinceBirth]

“Project 2025 made no secret of the plan to purge the general officer corps of any senior General/Flag Officers deemed insufficiently loyal to the President. The executive order being considered establishes what it would call a ‘warrior board,’ but in reality, gives Trump anything but. It would, however, give him what he said he wanted – Generals like Hitler had, who do not challenge him, do not tell him what he doesn’t want to hear, and do not stand in the way of using the military to crush his political opposition. Unless somehow stopped or talked out of this plan, it will be remembered as the first step in remaking the military from an apolitical force loyal to the Constitution into a MAGA Military, pledging fealty to Donald Trump.

“I suggest folks take a look at Stalin’s officer purges in early WWII that resulted in the Soviet, now-Russian Army, enduring incompetence and the use of its rank-and-file troops as cannon meat. The American military is the envy of the world’s militaries, given its efficiency for military effect and stunningly low casualty count. Probably a good model to keep.”

https://votevets.org/press-releases/statement-of-votevets-senior-advisor-major-general-ret-paul-eaton-on-wall-street-journal-exclusive-on-trumps-plans-to-purge-the-militarys-upper-ranks

[Irish_Dem]

1. Trump is allied with Putin who wants the US military degraded, even destroyed.

Trump started working on this goal right away.

[Cosmocat]

4. yep

checking Putin's to do list is a top priority for DT.

[Farmer-Rick]

45. Trumper Dumper

Can't afford to have any more reminders in Moscow newspapers about his obligations to the person who put him in the seat of power.

Is he afraid of falling out of a window if he doesn't deliver America's military to Putin? Will our soldiers be dying in the Ukraine war for Putin?

[jaxexpat]

12. He's doing it if he's not stopped. What we consider the American military will be Trumps personal revenge slave army.

It will happen. As certain as gravity, he will do it.

[Irish_Dem]

13. No one will stop him.

That said, screwing over the Pentagon may not be as easy as Trump hopes.

[Orrex]

18. Maybe someone with certain skills and a desire to see the country survive will weigh in

Perhaps in a brief face-to-face with Trump.

[Irish_Dem]

31. Oh no, that won't work.

They will be fired on the spot.

Besides that is not how the military works at all.

The jackwad politicians come and go, Pentagon just waits them out.

[liberalgunwilltravel]

64. You misunderstood the post.

I believe what was being suggested wouldn't allow Trump to fire anyone or anything.

[hootman]

66. I shared the same opinion earlier. Its bound to happen if he goes too far.

I'd give it a 75% chance.
The secret vote for Senate leader shows that MOST Senators DONT back trump 100%. But how many will/would step forward to openly say "This is WRONG"?
Another question; is it legal?

[Irish_Dem]

71. I did not misunderstand the post.

Person suggested a face to face confrontation by the military with Trump.

I do not think that idea will work.

[Eliot Rosewater]

77. And by targeting, publicly, our SS and Medicare along with ALL govt institutions most of us will be far too

distracted to care or notice that Putin is taking over. That our military is a private army.

[Irish_Dem]

78. Becoming a Russian colony was not on my bucket list.

Yes Putin/Trump will have their SS Troops.

[jaxexpat]

19. So then, the term "commander in chief" will be revealed as only an empty title.

The military and some political cadre would take over the government. How S. American that will be, eh?

[mdbl]

21. Just as Dump is doing to the presidency and the office's oath to protect and defend the constitution.

There has to be line drawn somewhere.

[KS Toronado]

27. I have no problem with

"The military and some political cadre would take over the government."

That's a lot better than Putin & TSF taking over the United States and the world

Time President Biden used his new immunity powers for the good of the Country.

[Irish_Dem]

33. This is why Trump has to get the military under his thumb right away. First thing.

He owns them, not the other way around.

[Magoo48]

29. "Nobody will stop him", is the part that I find disconcerting.

Given that nearly every kind of enforcement agency you can think of has tiptoed and shuffled around him, head and eyes down,, while he bellowed across America committing crimes faster than an army of Bonnie and Clydes every where he went. It seems like everyone in charge of protecting Our common welfare is mesmerized by him.

[Irish_Dem]

32. Our entire huge government failed us and toppled like dominoes.

One institution after the other, folded like lawn chairs.

Everyone either complicit with Trump or terrified of him.

If it were a novel no one would believe it.

A crime syndicate full of ruthless psychopaths has taken over our country.
It will be a four year crime spree to drain the US of all assets and destroy the country.

[Magoo48]

35. Yup.

[MadameButterfly]

42. We hope only 4 years. And one person specifically could have prevented this

Merrick Garland.
Or Biden appointing Doug Jones.

[Irish_Dem]

43. Yes and yes

We pray only 4 years.

Yes Garland failed his country and the American people.
He let a ruthless criminal psychopath back into power to destroy our democracy.

[Fish700]

55. The secret is not to vote him into the most powerful position in the world

If the voters did their job then there would be nothing to do about it.

[Irish_Dem]

72. We The People failed horribly as well, yes.

[jaxexpat]

57. Correct, except for the 4-year part. They'll never disappear once installed.

[hootman]

67. IMO Vance wil 25th him after the midterms.

HE & his backers dont want to wait till '28

[jaxexpat]

68. A likely scenario. The outrageousness will never stop with this ship of fools.

[Irish_Dem]

73. Good point. They hit the jackpot and won't leave easily if at all.

However the pattern is for the GOP to steal the country blind and take a wrecking ball to it.

Them they have to let the Dems back in up to do mop up and refill the US Treasurey.

[cstanleytech]

24. And how would you say we go about that exactly? He won the election.

The Republicans control most of the rest of the government so impeachment isn't going to happen so to be honest there is little that we can do except ourselves except to hope people defy him and refuse if he orders then to commit a crime.

[jaxexpat]

56. Martial law, arrest co-conspirators. It's a special time and requires special acts to preserve the nation.

[cstanleytech]

82. And who can authorize that? Biden won't and for good reason because that would definitely cause a civil war.

No the best way we can probably do it is to get good lawyers and find good arguments batter rock solid and constitutional to stop anything no matter what judges on the bench.

[jaxexpat]

88. Okay, I've been advised that my ideas are unacceptably kooky. I sit corrected.

So, I'll back off after I've left one thought with you. I believe an actual civil war has been ongoing for about 44 years, maybe even 52 years. It has never been too obviously bloody (so long as you don't count the two Iraq invasions) but it has never de-escalated. It has been intentionally and incrementally ramped up by Republicans whose trademark is total rejection of progressive democracy and whose only aspiration is oligarchic rule. They further escalated the conflict on November 5th, placing them a rather large step toward their victory.

I remembered being ostracized and ridiculed in high school for some of the writing I did for our underground newspaper. I mostly harped on current events, equating the frenzy of football fandom, the rise of southern Republicans, the criminal conduct of the military in Vietnam and the American people's tendency to excuse or applaud brutality without so much as a blush before their all-knowing god. Needless to say, the consensus was that I was a hopeless radical, whose ideas were unhinged and alien to acceptable society. I lived through it and have now, unfortunately, seen virtually everything I suspected in 1969 come to pass or be confirmed in the court of honest retrospection.

[cstanleytech]

90. Of course we've been in one but It's been an ideology one and it should remain one.

We need and should shift more of our efforts at winning county and state level government positions, including rural one because by focusing so much on the cities we have lost to many elected state and county elections.
Remember, It's not the Federal government that's sets the districts it's the States and The Republicans exploited that and now have control of the House.

[jaxexpat]

91. What you're saying reminds me that the problem boils down to campaign financing.

So long as that remains the metric, progress will remain impossible. Education controlled by local boards financed by local taxes with curriculum ordained by local shills. Does the federal government have no valid interest in oversight? Stupid begets stupidity. Working class people cannot finance a war against Interests who profit from their engineered ignorance.

[cstanleytech]

92. Essentially, yes it is and even though it was a misjudgment that was made on where to spend the money it can be fixed.

It probably won't be fixed by the time I'm dead of course but it eventually could be done if we start now.

[jaxexpat]

93. Kinda reminds me of that last conversation many dinosaurs had.

Dinosaur 1: Wow, did you see that odd streak of light?
Dinosaur 3: Yeah, but now I'm hungry. We'll look into it tomor.................

[Eliot Rosewater]

76. Everything is gone. Everything.

[FirstLight]

2. I was wondering if any other career military were going to speak out...

I guess it's mainly retired ones at this point.... How many current active generals, etc have spoken out?

My thinking is if I was in high ranks in the military now, i might fake it to get through the purge, so that I could save some soldiers etc when bad orders came down. But I am not a military person and dont know if it works like that.

[haele]

9. Pentagon Bureaucracy is hard to overcome.

A "Warrior board" can just advise, it can't just purge a couple dozen three and four stars "right now" due to politics.
If that's the case, there were a shitload of Generals Clinton and Obama would have been happy to purge.
I'm not saying this won't have a chilling effect, but honestly, there's no "Ya Fired" in the Military. If the Officer hasn't committed a crime and doesn't want to go, there's little they can do about it until they can get some billets re-arranged. And Tuberville's little tantrum exposed how hard it is to move Military around for political reasons.

It would be easier for them to get rid of the senior Civilians than to get rid of military Brass. And the Pentagon is used to waiting out Congress and the President.

Haele

[Irish_Dem]

16. According to what I read, generals have 30 days to retire after a negative report from the warrior board.

Yes I agree, threatening the Pentagon may not be as easy as Trump hopes.

[haele]

25. And if they don't? It has to be irrefutable.

I know a 2 star who got a fitness board ruling overturned by proving without a doubt it was politically (religious) motivated rather than due to misconduct or complaints. And he maintained his command.

Ya, it goes on the record. But the proof in the appeal does also.

But "Woke" still has yet to be defined. What sort of policies are "Woke"? Long established Ethics policies? Sexual Assault Prevention? Anti-Suicide policies? The UCMJ?

And having a "Warrior Board" saying "Ya Fired" due to "Promoting DEI" policies prior to the official policy change is not a valid reason to discharge a General or Admiral.
They're sworn to uphold the Lawful Orders of their Commander. Promoting DEI policies that are in place is a Lawful Order.
When the policy changes, and they don't follow those orders (unless new policy require them to abuse subordinates not charged with a physical crime, which is against the UCMJ and is an defiantly an unlawful order) then those Generals and Admirals can be kicked out.

Pentagon Brass isn't stupid and for the most part, keep their particlar crazy to themselves. They may be venal or bigoted, but more than that, they're political sharks with their own empires to run. They aren't afraid of Presidents. Congress, yes. ($$$$$) Presidents (and Sec Defs), no.


Haele

[jaxexpat]

58. What, then, does the term "commander in chief" actually mean?

Are you saying that if the POTUS asks for a resignation from an officer in the US military, that officer can refuse? I don't think so. If that were the case, then the US is already too close to a military dictatorship. If Trump, as a sitting president, were to tell an officer he wanted that officer gone and that officer refused, what would prevent Trump from simply finding an officer that would remove them? Physically arrested if required.

We're about to see normal rules and customs sorely challenged in ways we've never experienced. Unless its nailed down it's going to be swept away. What I've noticed over the last 8 years is that there were no nails used on most things we all thought were secure. What the hell makes anyone think the pentagon will be any different? Do they live in another world with a different chain of command and constitution?

What happens when there is no line between good order and insubordination? When following a direct order means going against the good of the nation?

[haele]

63. President is only Commander in Chief during times of declared War.

Congress declares War, the President doesn't.
This debate occured during the second Iraq/Afghanistan War because Bush Jr. wanted a title.
A War has clearly defined aggressive Enemy States and Enemy State Actors.
Limited deployments or military actions outside a specified State are not Wars. Supporting an ally from a coup is not a War. The "war on Terror" is not a War. A "war on undocumented immigrants" or "war on drug abuse" is not a War.
The President is not Commander in Chief for those actions, the President can only ask the Agency or Departments to take action as they see fit to address a risk.
Otherwise, the President would be a Dictator who can use a standing Military for their personal agendas without Congressional oversight.

It's a separation of powers issue.

Haele

[jaxexpat]

70. Okay, and I understand that using the US military on American soil is against the law as well.

Never-the-less, is it not incumbent upon the president to safeguard and secure the nation against all enemies foreign and domestic? It all comes down to how the definition of enemy is wielded. For instance, I have no doubt that Trump will wield that accusation with impunity and persecute (with wholesale disregard to the rule of law) anyone he doesn't like. Do you doubt that?

I get it, we need to stay as close as possible within the boundaries of the law. This is new territory. Still, the option to do nothing is a horrendous and avoidable acquiescence to the certainty of domestic terrorism upon American citizens by their own government. First constitutional right to go (or at least what's left of it) will be the right to peaceful assembly. Do you or any thoughtful person doubt that?

[Irish_Dem]

14. Current active generals cannot speak out.

They speak through the retired generals.
That is how it works.

The American people do not seem to care what the generals are saying.

I don't know how the military is going to handle the purge.
They will not be happy about it.

[Dan]

26. The military will take care of its' own.

Like I said in an earlier post - Trump should have studied some history - about how the military deals with people/politicians that threaten their society.

[eppur_se_muova]

30. Trump ? STUDY ???? SRSLY ??

The man is fueled by resolutely determined ignorance as much as by pure venal hatred.

[jaxexpat]

74. What are you saying? What's their specialty, bribery, extortion, terrorist threatening? Surely you're not boasting?

If that's the case, I think we've found a good place to start when we ever get a chance to clean house.

[Dan]

80. What I am saying,

Is that the Military is a professional organization that promotes and maintains its’ professionalism thought a career wise vetting process. Their trademarks of Honesty, loyalty, professionalism combined with teamwork is essential to their brand.
When you ask a man to die or go into a situation where it is very possible that person will die, then there has to be trust (all of the above) and belief that man will do as ordered.

Yes, the military has civilian control so they (Military General Officers) will not speak out; as someone posted the Retired General Officers are speaking out to let those in power know what the thinking is - if they choose to listen.

We as voters have failed the nation by electing a known criminal (add your own adjectives) back to the highest officer after having been told that that man represented a threat to our nation and democracy. Our political leaders of the GOP have stated that their loyalty is to a man not the Constitution. Our Judicial has been compromised by having received their positions by an administration that hid their crimes.

So, what am I saying is this - the Military has as their first obligation their need to defend the nation, support our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. That is their duty and that I hope that they do.

Where the other things you allude to come from, I have no idea.

[jaxexpat]

85. I sense and respect your passion about the mission of the military.

I was asking, in an apparently insensitive way for which I apologize, how high moral character and devotion to duty will prevail in the face of purges which Trump will conduct, interminably, until he gets his way?

I was thinking about a hypothetical discussion I had with a colleague who was a career army Pioneer. I asked him if the "trigger-pullers" he worked with would fire into a crowd of Americans on an American city street if so ordered? His initial response was a look of confusion, and he told me officers would never give such an order. After further talk on the matter, he acknowledged that there were some officers with whom he'd dealt who would probably give such an order. So, I pursued the line of hypothetical and asked if he thought the ranks would obey such an order. He said they would not. I redirected with the caveat that it required only a single trooper to fire a single gun at that crowd per his superior's orders to define the crux of this hypothetical dilemma. He said, in a line of 50 men, at least one would probably fire his weapon. Further, he related there seemed to always be someone willing to obey an order, no matter what it was. That all sounded about right, given my experience with human nature.

[Dan]

86. Your friend was right.

And I should have made clear, if the Military succumbs to the will of Trump - then we as a nation will either split apart or fail as one nation.

[jaxexpat]

87. My wife's nephew refused a request that he re-enlist (he's a very smart guy with computers) because he'd been told to be

sure to cast his ballot by his lieutenant but only if he votes Republican. I'd heard about shit like that. He confirmed it.

That's why I've been probing the consensus regarding the concept, "commander in chief". I fear that definition will become exceptionally important, sooner than later. Unlike contracts, which theoretically attempt to create definition to ensure clarity to all parties for all parties, politics, of which all standing militaries are an extension, are often unilateral, easily triggered to reactionism and loaded with self-serving pre/misconceptions. The only facet of human interpersonal relationships which gives politics a chance to be workable is the perception of trust. Our soon-to-be executive is many things but trustworthy he is not. We should all be able calculate the outcome of that equation, if we dare.

[wnylib]

53. Active military brass do not speak out.

It is contrary to the political neutrality required of them. That is why only retired generals say anything political publicly.

[kerouac2]

3. Sadly this will only be seen by those like us

Were the ones who pay attention to, and care about, things like this. And reality. And facts.

And we lost.

If trump supporters weren't interested in what a sh#t-ton of former military guys - and Republicans - had to say before the election... They sure ain't going to care now.

[mdbl]

22. They will only notice when it's in their faces

and it will be sooner or later.

[localroger]

5. So what becomes of this TFG-loyal MAGA military corps...

...when TFG finally swallows a hamberder the wrong way and shuffles off this mortal coil? I can't think of anyone who is positioned to inherit that loyalty in any kind of consistent way.

[wnylib]

54. Vance will succeed Trump. The MAGA movement is.beyond

cult worship right now. They have swallowed the MAGA message completely and will be loyal to anyone who carries the Trump torch.

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. I seem to recall Republicans blocking promotions of hundreds of officers for over a year

Wonder if Dems can do the same.

[Lasher]

47. That was GOP Senator Tuberville.

He put holds on holds on senior military promotions. And yes, a single Senator could and still can do that.

Here is an article that will jog your memory:

Sen. Tuberville drops remaining holds on senior military promotions

December 19, 2023

After months of delay, 11 four-star level military promotions have been approved by the U.S. Senate.

They had previously been blocked by Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville over unrelated objections about Pentagon abortion policy.

Tuberville had blocked all military promotions since February in what he said was a protest against a Pentagon policy that pays for service members' travel to seek abortion care.

Earlier in December, he dropped his holds for everyone nominated for promotions other than to four-star general without securing any policy concessions.

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/19/1220492250/tuberville-drops-blockade-military-promotions

You wonder if Dems can do the same. That is a good question. Yes we can, under the current Senate rules.

[Farmer-Rick]

49. That doesn't stop the military

They will frock the officer until the paperwork catches up with them. When I first went into the Navy my promotion to LT was delayed because of some stupid Senator holding stuff back. But I still wore the rank and did the job of an LT. They do it for Generals and Admirals too.

Attempting to force an officer to swear allegiance to a person could be considered a violation of their constitutional rights and could face legal challenges. It may even be punishable under the UCMJ, depending on who you are swearing allegiance to.

The first General to be forced out because he refused to swear alligance to Dumper Trumper, will have a great chance of sueing the pants off of everyone on that loyalty board or whatever it's called.

Purges have been tried before. They usually fail because it opens up everyone involved to lawsuits. Trumpy Dumpy may have immunity but who on that board that makes up the purge list will have immunity? They will be sued. They will be dealing with some very rich and powerful men.

[jaxexpat]

59. Rick, are those rich and powerful men, you refer, more powerful than those who installed Trump?

I'm afraid that's where the "rubber meets the road" of this whole "King Trump" situation. Our only institutions of recourse are judges and their purview. I keep hearing "going to be sued" bandied about as if that has any meaning or ability to subdue or reroute Trump's intentions. We've seen, oh so clearly, how toothless our justice system is over the last 8 years. The barn door was open for decades before anyone noticed the escape of stock, now long dead and gone.

[Clouds Passing]

7. President Biden has a constitutional duty to protect our constitution. I suggest he use it.

[Rebl2]

28. Absolutely

[Jit423]

8. He is speaking to probably the most historically ignorant citizenry our country has known in generations.

Most of the MAGAs and Trump supporters mock education, learning, critical thinking, science, and reality so why would Stalin or even Hitler mean anything to them. Trump will protect them. Right

[Otto_Harper]

10. The MAGA Warrior Board

?tr=w-1600,c-at_max

[Ysabel]

11. Thanks for the warning...

Major General Eaton...

It's kind of scary getting a warning like this this from a Major General but still I'm glad he said it...

[Kablooie]

15. Here are some things that Generals talked Trump out of in his previous administration.

This is what we can expect in the near future:

Deployment of Active-Duty Troops Domestically

Troop Withdrawals from Europe

Military Action Against Iran

Use of Nuclear Weapons

[Farmer-Rick]

50. I would add

A grand military parade down DC streets to honor Putin's visit.

[ffr]

17. The genie's out of the bottle. Too late, because of her emails. No, wait, b/c Democrats needed to be punished.

Whatever the stupid single issue voter decision, it's now upon us, all of us. Democracy dies in January.

[jaxexpat]

60. Exactly so, there are only a handful of weeks available to resuscitate the victim.

Executive timidity and/or disorganization is our sole enemy at this time.

[Initech]

20. The Heritage Foundation is a terrorist organization. They are the enemy from within.

The Federalist Society too. Fuck all of them They can go shove Project 2025 straight up their asses!

[KPN]

23. We know who's shit list Major General Eaton is noe

and forever on. He is a true patriot, unlike “der fuehrer’s’’ sycophants.

[Cha]

34. TY Kick for Retired Major General Paul Eaton. 💙

[lees1975]

37. If you've taken an oath to defend and protect the constitution

and you see fascist stuff like this coming out, what's the obligation to defend? What exactly does that mean? At what point does that oath of loyalty come into real conflict with a would-be dictator? That's always been hypothetical discussion, but now, here we are.

Meanwhile, most Americans will sit back, focused on their social media and entertainment and just let it all go without giving a damn.

[Hekate]

38. Second person today using the feudal word "fealty" instead of "loyalty" -- pay attention

Last edited Wed Nov 13, 2024, 10:23 PM - Edit history (1)

John Bolton
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219715454

[jaxexpat]

61. The distinction is lost on too many. At their/our peril, I'm afraid.

[Turbineguy]

39. ".... good model to keep"

Not if you are working for Putin.

[Passages]

40. Stunning how ineffective Kellys warning were and he was not alone.

Distrust in how government functions is so much worse than I ever imagined.

[AdamGG]

41. Would have been nice if he'd said this at the DNC

and publicly and in swing state ads for Harris BEFORE THE ELECTION.

[NNadir]

44. The Military Swears an Oath, as Miley Noted, to the Constitution. If the Constitution is destroyed, as is clearly...

...underway, so too, is civilian rule of the military.

These dunderheads may be chewing off a bit more than they can chew, since they clearly risk a military coup. No one thought that possible in America, but no one ever thought a man with Trump's record could be in a position to destroy the country.

Trump and the modern Republican Party despise patriotism.

This could get very ugly very fast, with American citizens caught in the cross fire. The last time the American military fired on American citizens was not to support a dictator, but as a part of a Civil War, 1861-1865.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

75. As president, Trump will have sworn a similar oath to the Constitution.

Since it's Trump, oaths are meaningless.

[NNadir]

79. Is that true of everyone else?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

81. Is what true of who?

Lots of government employees swear a similar oath, especially high-ranking officials. Most take it seriously.

I took "the oath" almost sixty years ago, don't remember ever "un"-taking it. That was the day I became the draftee Army Private Bozo.

[NNadir]

83. I think you answered the question yourself

You said:

Lots of government employees swear a similar oath, especially high-ranking officials. Most take it seriously.

You took it seriously; Trump is aberrant; but we all, at least here, know that, don't we?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

84. A majority of the people who take the oath seriously are members of what I call "Civil Service". ...

... you know, the ones that Trump calls "Deep State".

Qualified, educated, dedicated people who take their jobs seriously. We can't have that!

[Blue Owl]

46. The Russian Invasion is coming from INSIDE THE HOUSE

[Takket]

48. i can't tell you how mad i am that the 5% or so who pay 0 attention to anything but voted to put drumpf over the top

because "something something my aunt said about eggs" probably have NO IDEA any of this is even going on.

[C Moon]

51. When will US citizens begin falling out of windows?

[dlk]

52. Putin will advise Trump how to thoroughly decimate the US military

The guardrails are completely off.

[Joe_Gadway]

62. Dictators need absolute control over the military. And Trump dreams of being a dictator.

[BobTheSubgenius]

65. Peter Zeihan used an apt description of Russia's military.

"They aren't an army. They're a mob with guns."

American militia groups should take notice; their Russian counterparts have upped the cosplay games to a level they cannot even HOPE to compete with, and the Russians are still near-useless. Oddly, I think the amazing effectiveness and professionalism of the US military would serve the country well. Even if that nightmare scenario of the 101st Airborne lining the streets of your city; they are FAR less likely to go trigger-happy and Kent State the civilians.

Hopefully, enough of them will remember the Constitution and revere it enough that it will turn out like the Bolivian attempt to control the Cochabamba Water War - their citizens' uprising against Bechtel claiming ownership of even their rainwater. It ended in mere days because the Bolivian national police refused to leave their barracks to wage war on their fellow citizens for the benefit of an evil foreign corporation and the dreadful IMF who set the stage for that debacle..

[RobinA]

69. I Don't Trust

the military one bit when it comes to thwarting a dictator on their own soil. Yes, they are professional and effective at what they do. But people in the military have thrived in an authoritarian institution. I don't see them becoming freedom fighters all of a sudden. The colonists and the Red Coats were completely different animals.

[BobTheSubgenius]

89. I can see now that the phrase "serve the country well" was quite poorly chosen.

"More disciplined than a well-armed mob" was more the theme I was going for. I totally understand your aversion to leaving the military to police the country - there are good reasons for the Posse Comitatus Act.

Mea culpa.