Dannielle Blumenthal, Ph.D. – What recourse does the U.S. government have when when an enemy infiltrates the government, installs its leaders and declares the occupation “official?”
Is it possible that our military and civilian leaders, throughout centuries of history, failed to anticipate such an eventuality? Of course not.
So where in our military or civilian legal doctrine is such a scenario addressed? How about in international law?
A military invasion is warfare, by definition: Why do we assume that the totality of our response must be public? Isn’t it obvious that in such a situation, the military might be divided, and loyalists to the occupied country will use all available means at their disposal to defend the Nation, including keeping secrets from the occupying party?
Is it possible that we could be fighting off an invasion, that the military knows but the people do not?
We hear about The Insurrection Act, Continuity of Government, and so on. How would we know if these were invoked? Are we sure that the public would get that information? If we were living through a national security emergency, why do we think that?
Does anybody really know why there are troops in DC?
We hear accusations of fraud with regard to the election. Maybe it happened and maybe not.
What happens if proving the fraud involves divulging state secrets, and so the people who know about it must keep the information to themselves?
How do you raise the alarm bell about something like this and not have the country descend into civil war, achieving exactly what an invading force would want anyway?
I believe that the Office of the Presidency is sacred. You have to listen to the President, you have to follow the government, unless their actions violate the law.
But at the same time, I also understand that there are things I do not know or understand, that other people do.
If indeed we are being invaded by a foreign nation, right now, it is unreasonable to expect our military experts to discuss responsive plans in public. More than that: it would be irresponsible, counterproductive, and could even result in a mass fatality situation, God forbid.
But what about the experts you see on social media right now? Given all that we know about psychological operations at play on the Internet, it seems wise to treat all information shared publicly as potentially misinformation, disinformation, or propaganda.
Of course, living with so many unknowns is painful for us. And so, as a coping mechanisms, our brains say one of two things:
* “It’s not true, because we don’t know for sure.”
* “It’s true, even if we don’t know for sure.”
But the reality, of course, is that “unknown” remains “unknown” no matter which way you slice it.
At the same time, unknown is not untrue.
If you think about it, it is obvious that military plans necessarily mean keeping the enemy unaware for as long as possible.
This is why it is so important to have a citizenry that is aware and awake, watching for signs of potential incursion well before they occur, either on their own or in some sort of partnership with law enforcement.
Self-defense isn’t just a personal mindset, but a national one.
As a corollary, anyone who tells the American people not to defend themselves is assisting the enemy.
Regardless of your views on any particular issue, it is simply not credible to argue that the United States military has no plan on hand, no governing law or doctrine, that is responsive to attempted invasion.
It is not credible to argue that invasion by election is impossible.
As individuals we control very little.
But we can at least operate with free and rational minds.
This includes being calm about the fact that we don’t know many things–we don’t know most things.
Sometimes you just have to wait and see what happens.
SF Source Dannielle Blumenthal Jan 2021