OT: Seriously????

[Schone23666]

At first I thought this was a joke, then discovered....yes, the conspiracy theorists have REALLY lost it this time, and it seems they now have friends...

The Governor of Texas has instructed the Texas State Guard (which I find confusing....don't they already have the National Guard??) to monitor the U.S. Army as they conduct a military training exercise code named Jade Helm 15 involving Special Operations forces to "safeguard civil liberties" and monitor for any signs of a possible "military takeover or invasion".

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.c...takeover.html/

It admittedly does have a bit of a "Milgov vs. CivGov" feel to it, but this is real life, not a game.

I really can't wrap my mind around this level of stupidity, ignorance and paranoia some Americans, particularly the conspiracy theorists, Alex Jones among them, have sunk to. I'm sorry, I can't. Can any of our fellow board members in Texas shed some light on this?

[pmulcahy11b]

I heard this and the first thing that came to mind was OMFG...

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I heard this and the first thing that came to mind was OMFG...

I thought of that quote in your signature, and wonder how it might apply to this.

On another note, my reaction can be best summed as this:

[Webstral]

I will try to shed some light on this event, to whatever limited degree I can, without rationalizing anyone’s decisions.

The Texas State Guard is the truncated form of the states’ militia that existed in the state constitutions of the original 13 states and in a number of the states that have come into existence more recently. I can’t guarantee that every state is entitled to a militia because I haven’t gotten to that point in my research. In any event, the National Guard is a federal reserve that the states get to use when the federal government doesn’t need the National Guard. The states and the federal government split the bill down the middle, but the federal government is very much the senior partner.

The Militia Act of 1903 finalized the transition of the National Guard from something that was sort of, kind of, like a states’ militia into the system we know today. In reality, the states’ militia as the Framers of the Constitution knew it in 1787 had been undergoing a slow transformation from a collection of state forces into a federal force since 1792 or 1793. The reality of this situation dawned on the states in WW2, when the National Guard was federalized and deployed overseas, leaving the states with no military forces of their own, state constitutions notwithstanding. The State Guard movement was born at this time. For the most part, the State Guards died of malnutrition once the National Guard came home.

Texas has the country’s most well-developed State Guard by far. This force is organized more-or-less like its federal counterparts but answers solely to the Governor of Texas.

There has been a reasonably large scale exercise happening in the Southwest lately. The exercise is billed as being practice for managing large scale civil unrest overseas. Not everyone believes this version of the story. States’ rights types are inclined to believe that this exercise is a practice run at martial law in the United States. In keeping with the character of Texas, the Governor of Texas is ordering forces loyal to the government in Austin to keep an eye on forces loyal to Washington D.C. while they operate in Texas. Provided one accepts the premise that the federal government is preparing to impose martial law, then having forces loyal to the State of Texas keep an eye on federal forces has a certain logic. If one does not accept the premise, then the logic fails.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Provided one accepts the premise that the federal government is preparing to impose martial law, then having forces loyal to the State of Texas keep an eye on federal forces has a certain logic. If one does not accept the premise, then the logic fails.

Except if you want to train for a potential mission, likely or not.

I am sure someone somewhere in the US Army has had a training exercise which modeled a US invasion of Canada. Do I think that such an invasion is likely no. Do I think it is in the wide realm of possibilities yes (Maybe in response to Quebec Separatists).

Such a training mission's purpose would be flex your leadership and logistical muscles, and to feel confident that should a mission with any small thing in common with this one occur, you would be better prepared for it.

Yes this seems like political gamesmanship and a product of the "Don't mess with Texas" ethos, but training for a potential mission, does not seem illogical to me.

[Cdnwolf]

Originally Posted by kato13

Except if you want to train for a potential mission, likely or not.

I am sure someone somewhere in the US Army has had a training exercise which modeled a US invasion of Canada. Do I think that such an invasion is likely no. Do I think it is in the wide realm of possibilities yes (Maybe in response to Quebec Separatists).

.

And I don't think most Canadians would even notice lol. Read a book called Exxoneration which featured an invasion by the US into Canada to take over its oil resources written about the time of the Twilight2000 books (maybe late 70's.

But I agree with you Kato.

[stormlion1]

The funny thing is that decades ago military exercises did happen in clear view of the public and were barely commented on. My old man used to tell storys of army troops invading the town and setting up roadblocks for a few hours and then packing up and leaving. Its only in the last few decades that the practice has fallen out of use.

[swaghauler]

I have seen an operation like this conducted before. Before the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh. The military will put out a "threat alert" to local law enforcement and then see if any of their "operators" get caught. This is actually good training for both the operators (evasion training) and local law enforcement (counter terrorist training).
It was (still is?) also a common practice for SF operators to try and "break into" various government facilities like nuclear plants and research facilities in order to test the security subcontractors who guard it.

[Webstral]

Point of order: the federal troops' potential mission of invading and occupying Canada is supported by Jade Helm, whereas having the Texas State Guard monitor the federal troops in Texas only really makes sense if Austin believes Washington is up to no good in Texas. I suppose the Texas State Guard might learn something about federal procedures by observing them, but I would think direct participation would be more practical if the goal were to impart some useful knowledge to the Texas State Guard.

Every so often I do hear the idea of annexing Canada floated. I've even heard a theory that 10th Mountain is based in northern New York so that the division can be in Ottawa before the Canadians can react. It seems to me that millions of liberal Canadians would be a hard mouthful for conservative Americans to digest, all other considerations aside.

[stormlion1]

There is about as much chance of Invading Canada as there is of me being President of the USA. Of course if I was President of the USA I would so totally invade Canada and make it a territory.

Its just a large scale military exercise. There is more chance of the events happening in the North East effecting the country than Jade Helm.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Webstral

whereas having the Texas State Guard monitor the federal troops in Texas only really makes sense if Austin believes Washington is up to no good in Texas.

Or they believe that Washington, at some point, has the potential to be up to no good (an attitude i expect the Founding Fathers would be proud of). They may look at this as an ounce of prevention reminding DC that Texas would be a hard pill to swallow.

Look I don't fully understand the Texas ethos, but they are different and this ruffles their feathers. I also realize that there is also clearly some political appeasement of some core group of voters, but as long as they are following the rules I have no issue with it.

Heck if the federal forces ever put the techniques of Jade Helm into action internationally (as is the stated overall mission), they might have UN, Russian, Chinese, or other forces monitoring them, so in a way it makes the training more realistic.

Edit.

I should make it clear that I am not a supporter of the Black Helicopter crowd. When I see a flight of helicopters my first thought is "Neat!", not "What are they up to?". Today for example I saw something with a totally different sound from a helicopter over Lake Michigan and was really hoping I might get my first in person glimpse of a M/CV-22. Did not see it long or close enough to identify, but it was certainly more interesting to me than concerning.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

The DoJ and federal law enforcement has been pushing a narrative for 7 or 8 years now that "right wingers" are the new enemy of the state; they consider groups that use "constitutional" and "patriot" in their names or charters to be dangers to be watched and prepared against.

I can see why there'd be a push-back against shit like that.

[unkated]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

The DoJ and federal law enforcement has been pushing a narrative for 7 or 8 years now that "right wingers" are the new enemy of the state; they consider groups that use "constitutional" and "patriot" in their names or charters to be dangers to be watched and prepared against.

I can see why there'd be a push-back against shit like that.

Let's see what there complaints include...

"Lastoria, in response to some of the questions from the 150 who attended, sought to dispel fears that foreign fighters from the Islamic State were being brought in or that Texans’ guns would be confiscated, according to a report in the Austin American-Statesman."

Nope, sorry, that's ungrounded idiocy.

Everyone's allowed thir opinion, but that level of paranoia mixed with weapons may be dangerous to anyone else.

I suspect Gov. Abbott's stand has more to do with his wishes for the next election than any concerns about Washington.

Uncle Ted

[Cdnwolf]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Every so often I do hear the idea of annexing Canada floated. I've even heard a theory that 10th Mountain is based in northern New York so that the division can be in Ottawa before the Canadians can react. It seems to me that millions of liberal Canadians would be a hard mouthful for conservative Americans to digest, all other considerations aside.

First off... you are welcome to have Ottawa... but leave the hookers of Hull alone...

Do you really think the rest of the world would stand by and let the US invade Canada? You forget it is part of the British Commonwealth (Targan would send in the trained Crocs) and closely allied with some interesting friends (ie China, Russia, France, Germany, the rest of the EU.)

The thought of the US getting its hands on some of the vast natural resources (like the oilfields) would scare the rest of the world.

And besides our perceived niceness... you don't want to get us pissed off. We all have a hockey stick beside our bed (even toddlers) and we know how to use them.

[unkated]

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

Do you really think the rest of the world would stand by and let the US invade Canada?

Who'd know? Canadians are too polite to say anything loud or rude like "stop that.'

Beside, if we promise to remove the GST, most Canadians would cheer.

Uncle Ted

[kato13]

The plan is we take over during the Stanley Cup playoffs.

We just need to wait until two Canadian teams are playing.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by kato13

The plan is we take over during the Stanley Cup playoffs.

We just need to wait until two Canadian teams are playing.

My cousin is starting Basic this summer. He'll be a sergeant major before the invasion gets underway.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by unkated

Who'd know? Canadians are too polite to say anything loud or rude like "stop that.'

The last thing a number of US soldiers would hear is "Sorry, eh!" over a bullhorn before the sniper's round struck home.

[Cdnwolf]

Originally Posted by kato13

The plan is we take over during the Stanley Cup playoffs.

We just need to wait until two Canadian teams are playing.

Even better.... when Toronto Maple Leaf's are in the Stanley Cup final...

because Canadians would be too much shock... and hell would have froze over...

You guys would have a long long long wait.


BTW GO HABS GO!!

[NanbanJim]

Texas, Florida, and New York all have State Guard forces. Given that they exist, it is then appropriate for them to monitor military activities in their AOR. What exactly is your problem?

[Webstral]

The State Guard movement appears to be gaining traction nationwide. This link goes to the State Guard Association, which links to State Guard sites:

https://www.sgaus.org/

I think we can credit the Global War on Terror and its associated mobilization of National Guard units for the states' realization that the National Guard is a federal reserve under control of the states only when the feds don't need the National Guard. Now that the immediate need for the National Guard overseas appears to be diminishing, I expect enthusiasm for the State Guards will recede somewhat. It's too bad. We have a need for them.

Anyway, the states are well within their rights to monitor federal military activities in the given states. The militia was mentioned in the Constitution specifically as a strategic counterbalance against a the professional force. Laughable as that idea may be at the present, the fact remains that the states each were intended to have their own military force from the founding of the nation.

Naturally, this doesn't guarantee wise use. Were I the Governor of Texas, I would have had the State Police or the Texas Rangers monitor Jade Helm. Mobilizing the Texas State Guard, or a portion thereof, smacks more of political statement to a portion of the governor's electorate than prudent measure.

[RN7]

Is there any mention of state guard forces in T2K?

The State Guard forces are fairly sizeable...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

Surely they would have been used after the National Guard was federalised and most of it was sent overseas, and very useful in emergency relief and law and order duties after the nuclear attacks and the Mexican invasions of the South-West.

[Webstral]

The State Guard has been discussed, though not lately. There's a lot of wiggle room for interpreting what kind of number's we're talking about here, along with efficacy. In short, it seems unlikely that very many states would catch on to the fact that the National Guard is going to be deployed until 1996. Once the first National Guard formations start being called up for training and don't come home in 2 weeks, a few forward-thinking politicians might develop the right idea. There not being very many forward-thinking politicians, I doubt very many states would give the matter careful thought until October 1996, when the first REFORGER units started going to Germany. This does not give much time to build State Guards before the nukes start flying.

An argument could be made that Operations Desert Shield & Storm in the v1 chronology might raise awareness of the National Guard problem. The need to backfill USAEUR formations being deployed to the Persian Gulf with National Guard units earmarked for Germany (or alternatively the need to backfill in CONUS those III Corps units deployed to Europe to take the place of VII Corps) might cause more politicians to wonder what would happen in the event of a general mobilization than might otherwise be the case. In this event, State Guards might be significantly further along than if the states get started in 1996. A year is not very long for a reserve formation to find its footing, but 5-6 years is a fair amount of time.

[Ancestor]

Okay, so we are in Ancestor's wheelhouse.

First, I am familiar with the State Guards in TX and NY. They seem to be pretty squared away, kind of like a Civil Air Patrol on steroids. Many retired plus a minority who want to "serve" but are not able/do not want to raise their hands (not a disparaging comment - they just want to do their duty as Americans without leaving home, which I fully support). For the latter, I remember a guy who was a comedian in New York who joined the NG state guard after 9/11 writing an article about in National Review.

Second, as of 2008 Louisiana had a "state militia". When our state sent an augmentation team down there for Hurricane Gustav OPS my warrant's new BFF was the LA State Militia Historian. (My warrant, let's call him "Indiana Jones", was Vietnam era and this was his last hurrah-my first crack when he introduced the historian to me was "I'm glad Indy found someone who is interested in his recollection of the Battle of New Orleans"). At any rate, Indy, being the awesome guy that he is, traded his "US ARMY" velcro patch for the "LOUISIANA" patch the militiaman was wearing on his ACUs (yes, they wore ACUs). The real problem was the next morning, when Indy showed up to help me get ready to brief the two star but was still wearing his "LOUISIANA" patch. I let hilarity ensure among the staff before I corrected him. He and I have traded enough shots/beers/insults that it was all in good fun.

What does this mean to T2K? My state has a robust WWII era statutory foundation on the books for a state militia. It's about 1/2 actual "let's keep the peace on the home front" and 1/2 "if this whole Axis and Allies thing goes to hell then we need to be ready for Missouri to invade again, just like the stories grandaddy tells."

From a legal standpoint its a decent militia code. However, during the "oh shit, were in this for the long haul" phase of OIF (2004-2006), there was a big grass roots move to reinstate the State Guard due to our propensity to suffer natural events. From where I sat, it seemed very sincere, albeit simple-minded. Nonetheless, it was dispatched with extreme prejudice by state leadership. While practical reasons were cited (and they were indeed legion), I suspect that the real motivation was political.

So, in a T2K world, I suspect that you would have the gamut. States with a well developed and traditional State Guard (SG) may be a robust force for supporting civilian authorities. Conversely, such a force could be politically exploited by a Governor for nefarious political purposes, a mafia or praetorian guard. In a state without an active SG a Governor (or Legislature) could invoke long forgotten police powers under militia statutes dating to WW2 or even the 1918-19 flu pandemic IOT either lawfully restore order or deputize the local bosses friends as law enforcement/tax collectors/henchmen.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the idea of state guards in a Twilight 2000 campaign is a GM's dream.

[RN7]

As a matter of interest Ancestor was your state guard outfit armed and with what were they armed with? Did you use the same rifles etc as the Army and National Guard or just hand me downs?

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by Webstral

The last thing a number of US soldiers would hear is "Sorry, eh!" over a bullhorn before the sniper's round struck home.

There was a web comic where a sniper shoots an invading U.S. soldier, then "Sorry!" is heard from the woodline.

[Ancestor]

Originally Posted by RN7

As a matter of interest Ancestor was your state guard outfit armed and with what were they armed with? Did you use the same rifles etc as the Army and National Guard or just hand me downs?

I apologize, I didn't clarify the fact that my experience with state militias was as a traditional Guardsman working in Title 32 status with them during a response, not as a member. I know for a fact that the Louisiana State Militia is not armed, at least not the ones that I met during post-Gustav OPS. As I recall, the NY State Guard is also unarmed. I cannot speak for Texas' State Guard as I was dealing with more of a familiarization type meeting than an operational event and the members that I met were not armed (at least not obviously!)

I can say that in my state (KS) provisions exist in the militia code that officers must supply their own weapons. My old boss (MDay) actually used it to write off the purchase of his civilian M9 as a "business expense". Even though the Army issued him his own M9 for NG purposes both the IRS and KS Dept of Revenue never contested the issue. Without researching the issue for each state, I suspect that most militia codes have similar provisions. Many were written in the 19th century with similar provisions and, when updated immediately prior to or at the outbreak of either WWI or WWII, these were incorporated either by reference or via a specific new statute with the same language. As the Dick Act, which created the modern NG after the Spanish-American war and requires some level of standardization with active Army with respect to training, doctrine, and equipment, applies only to the National Guard and not State Guards, I suspect that in the Twilight world one would see a hodge-podge of both hand me down issued weapons (or, as the Small Arms Guide states, low rent weapons such as the M16 EZ) and personally owned weapons.

Hope that helps and sorry for the confusion!

[RN7]

Thanks for all that Ancestor and I am surprised that state guard forces are unarmed. I would have thought that they would have access to state armouries, even hand me down weapons like the M14. I live (part of the year) in the Kansas City area in Johnson Countr, what part of Kansas are you from?

[Ancestor]

Originally Posted by RN7

Thanks for all that Ancestor and I am surprised that state guard forces are unarmed. I would have thought that they would have access to state armouries, even hand me down weapons like the M14. I live (part of the year) in the Kansas City area in Johnson Countr, what part of Kansas are you from?

Goodland (if you are ISIS)...JoCo if you are not...

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by RN7

Thanks for all that Ancestor and I am surprised that state guard forces are unarmed. I would have thought that they would have access to state armouries, even hand me down weapons like the M14. I live (part of the year) in the Kansas City area in Johnson Countr, what part of Kansas are you from?

There is still legal debate between the Federal Government and the States about the legality of militias. The Federal Government says that the only authorized militias are National Guard units and that all militias should be regulated by the US government as outlined by the Constitution. Their assertion is the clause that states the Government shall not use the Army to police its citizens in the main body of the document prohibits such organizations. The States claim "State's Right's," and say that such militias are authorized for the STATES under the Second Amendment (as a hedge against Federal aggression). I'm guessing that the Supreme Court will eventually have to make a ruling on this. It is only an issue with a handful of states (mostly southern border states) who have used these militias to assist local law enforcement (mainly along the Mexican border). It does set up an interesting political issue for the Milgov/Civgov debate. The power of a local militia could sway control of a region. Could "friction" between militia and US military or LE units create a problem (this is already happening occasionally in Southern Texas) that "devolves" into open warfare?