Yesterday, the conservative, often controversial (and even more often debunked) media organization Newsmax published an article by John L. Perry that describes how a coup d'etat against President Obama might occur. Newsmax quickly disowned the article, removing it from its Website and issuing a statement (per Media Matters):
In a blog posting to Newsmax John Perry wrote about a coup scenario involving the U.S. military. He clearly stated that he was not advocating such a scenario but simply describing one.
After several reader complaints, Newsmax wanted to insure that this article was not misinterpreted. It was removed after a short period after being posted.
Newsmax strongly believes in the principles of Constitutional government and would never advocate or insinuate any suggestion of an activity that would undermine our democracy or democratic institutions.
Mr. Perry served as a political appointee in the Carter administration in HUD and FEMA. He has no official relationship with Newsmax other than as an unpaid blogger.
As MediaMatters states, it is notable that Newsmax disingenuously mentions Perry's work in the Carter administration to intimate he is not one of them and describes his relationship with them as nothing more than an "unpaid blogger." Perry has been writing for Newsmax since 1999 and was once a senior editor for the site. For anyone who wishes to read this fear-mongering treasonous trash, luckily MediaMatters copied it before Newsmax attempted to whitewash it out of existence.
As much as Newsmax and their supporters would like to pretend Perry's article no longer exists, it is important to examine it in the context of the other movements out there--the birthers, deathers, teabaggers, gun nuts, militia movements, FEMA concentration camp believers, and fantasy assassins responsible for a 400% uptick in presidential death threats since Obama took office, etc. As I have written before, this is a concentrated collective effort by the extreme right wing--or as Bill Clinton calls it, a "vast right-wing conspiracy--to portray Obama as a threat to America that must be vanquished by any means necessary. Has there ever been such a hateful and violent reaction to a democratically elected leader of the United States of America in the first 8 months of his tenure in office? Those behind this movement know a popular revolution or a military coup is next to impossible; they secretly hope to inspire a lone wolf to target their prey.
Let us inspect Perry's "describing" of the possibility of a coup d'etat in the United States, beginning with his opening:
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic. America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn’t mean it wont." Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:
Perry does not elaborate on just how "remote" this possibility might be or why he it is remote. Nor does he describe how the prospect of a coup is "gaining" momentum. This complete lack of substance of facts to support his musings is a reoccurring theme throughout Perry's article. His reference to the "Obama problem" telegraphs his rampant bias and belief (or hope) that others perceive the situation similarly.
To assume that an American coup would be "civilized" is born of the philosophy of American exceptionalism. Perry goes on to say "that [a coup] has never happened doesn't mean it won't." What an interesting contradiction. First, Perry offers the profound assumption that an American coup will be civilized, then follows it up by demonstrating there is nothing in the American experience that lends validity to this assumption. One could easily argue that coups in "Third World" countries are more likely than coups in America to transpire quickly because they lack a stable government with checks and balances or an enforced constitution. American governmental institutions are so established and ingrained in our society, a coup could be more difficult and longer lasting and, consequently, bloodier; at any rate, a far cry from "civilized." Not to mention, people in many Third World countries are often so universally desperate (poor, hungry, downtrodden) that there is little incentive to organize opposition. The perception is often that the new government is not likely to improve upon the old.
Perry suggests the U.S. military is inclined to take a most literal view of the Constitution:
Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."
This may be one of the few truths in Perry's seditious screed. At the same time, Barack Obama was democratically elected in accordance with the Constitution they are sworn to protect. Isn't it therefore logical that protecting the Constitution requires protecting the legitimate outcome of exercising our voting rights under the Constitution? It also bears noting that the Constitution, penned by the "founding fathers" some in this country worship, designates the president as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States (see article 2, section 2 of the United States Constitution). To anyone serving in the military--officer and enlisted, alike--the president is a superior officer. To disobey a superior officer constitutes insubordination; to attempt to replace a superior officer is mutiny. Of course, Perry fails to mention any of this and assumes his audience, like he does, is among the minority of Americans who view Barack Obama as an enemy attacking the Constitution rather than the country's duly elected president/Commander-in-Chief.
Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.
Who are these "top military officers?" What branch of service do they represent? Do they regularly confer with Perry, "a Newsmax blogger?" Once again, Perry offers no finer details, only broad strokes. As for the Constitution being "trampled," where was this outrage when President Bush expanded the executive branch powers well beyond their Constitutional jurisdictions, along with other examples of unconstitutional behavior by his administration?
The "institutions and enterprises" Perry claims are being "nationalized" are the ones that went to the government, hat in hand, and threatened that the economy would collapse if they did not get sizeable handouts. How soon they forget that the gargantuan bank bailout was passed in 2008 under President Bush. Neither Bush nor Obama woke up one morning with a dream of carrying out the politically unpopular nationalization of American businesses. The Republicans viewed the financial failing of these "institutions and enterprises" as a win/win situation: if Obama refused to bail businesses out and the economy continued its downward trajectory, they could blame him for that just as readily as they blame him for the bailouts. Perry, however, feels no need to offer facts to support his assessment of the situation, because he is confident that his readers believes as he does, facts be damned.
They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.
Who are these "alarmed" Americans? Perhaps Perry refers to the self-identified conservatives in New Jersey who believe Obama is the anti-Christ? Perhaps he means the 100,000 people (average crowd of a Saturday football game at the University of Texas or Florida) who arrived in Washington D.C. on September 12 for a group "teabag." Maybe he means the featured nightly guests on Fox "News." Perry must not realize that the military has never been beholden to public opinion; if it were, one wonders what might have occurred when Bush's approval ratings plummeted into the 30s and then 20s.
Perry goes on to explain the right time to act, which, quite troubling, is before any of these events transpire:
So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?
Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?
If it were not such a serious matter, the thought of Obama being responsible for bungling Afghanistan would be laughable, considering Bush spent more than 7 years in the country. Perry's leap of logic from the war in Afghanistan to radical Islamists' acquisition of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is puzzling. Perhaps Perry believes the Taliban will re-conquer Afghanistan and then Pakistan? Once again, he provides no insight or factual support regarding his assertions.
Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran’s nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?
In 1981, when Israel struck Iraq's nuclear reactor the Middle East did not "explode"--assuming by "explode," Perry means all-out war. The Arab world has gone to war with Israel many times since 1948. Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and others have made various failed attempts to defeat Israel militarily and have often suffered tremendous losses (think Six-Day War). Even assuming that the countries in today's "Middle East" operate as a singular entity (which they do not), one wonders how they would manage to "subjugate the Free World" when they cannot even defeat Israel. I do not believe I have ever read anything that so blatantly demonstrates the writer's ignorance of history and international relations as this brief passage in Perry's article. Then again, such an obvious lack of knowledge is irrelevant when your audience is at least as ill-informed as you are.
I was fortunate enough to come across this 2006 article from Harper's Magazine in which a roundtable of military officials and academics discuss the hypothetical situation of a coup d'etat taking place in America. I recommend reading it in its entirety, but I offer a few notable excerpts. Regarding a coup, Edward Luttwak, a senior adviser at the center for Strategic and International Studies, said the following:
It just wouldn't work here. You could go down the list and take over these headquarters, that headquarters, the White House, the Defense Department, the television, the radio, and so on. You could arrest all the leaders, detain or kill off their families. And you would have accomplished nothing.
You would sit in the office of the Secretary of Defense, and the first place where you wouldn't be obeyed would be inside your office. If they did follow orders inside the office, then people in the rest of the Pentagon wouldn't. If everybody in the Pentagon followed orders, people out in the military bases wouldn't. If they did, as well, American citizens would still not accept your legitimacy.
Richard Kohn also took part in the discussion; Kohn was chair of the curriculum in War, Peace, and Defense at the University of North Carolina. He said:
I've raised this point before with military audiences: Do you really think you can control New York City without the cooperation of 40,000 New York police officers?
Kohn's statement is insightful; how does Perry reconcile conflicting views between the military and law enforcement? Andrew Bacevich, who was a professor in international relations at Boston University and served in the army from 1969 to 1992, shared his observations:
And this comes back to the federal system. As Edward pointed out, even if you seized Washington, Americans are willing to acknowledge that Washington is the seat of political authority only to a limited extent. The coup plotters could sit in the Capitol, but up in Boston we're going to ask, "What's this got to do with us?""
The professional ethic within the military is firmly committed to the principle that they don't rule [the country].
The discussion does a great job of examining the possibilities and theories regarding a military coup in the United States. Suffice it to say, these experts would disagree with Perry's mind-numbingly asinine assumptions. In closing, let us examine one final passage from Perry:
Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America’s military leadership is lost in a fool’s fog.
In making this gross assumption, Perry again illustrates his belief that he has the power to read the minds of "America's military leadership." Does this excerpt really resemble a benign attempt to "describe" the situation? And if it were so benign, why did Newsmax take it down? I doubt this is the first article that has generated complaints from some readers. The one thing Perry surely knows is what constitutes a "fool's fog," since he obviously lives in one and seeks to expand its borders so that it swallows others.
(Cross-posted at http://debunkerhill.com)