Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Is this a Chamberlain Moment or Zen at the Oregon Standoff?

Just musing, but what can one forecast about the Bundy militia standoff in Oregon? Well the weather forecast for the next four days calls for a good chance of snow with low temperatures in the low 20s. That won’t do it. If the weather is to play a factor in ending the standoff, we need lows around and below zero and highs below freezing. We need them to burn up their fuel and get miserably cold.
Forecasting other things? Chancy, but don’t we all have our thoughts? I think the power company should rewire the junction that is shared with ranchers. Isolate the wildlife refuge’s power and shut ‘er down. Surely the government has not been allowing truck loads of wood to the militia. Or, God forbid, a propane truck. 
But who knows? The feds are not leaking to the press or announcing to the public and I won’t complain about that. They obviously want a peaceful solution, but in the long run is that possible? As I said in my previous blog some future militia (or armed group of whatever name) could have the county sheriff’s office siding physically with them. Everybody wants to be a hero. Is this a Chamberlain Moment?

So I forecast this: The government will cut the electricity. Disallow anything or anyone coming in unless it is a driver with food and medicine. No arctic clothes; no coats. The counties allied together will block the road; federal officers, SWAT, etc will stage from wherever the strategists think best (not to would be insanity). An Arctic coldfront will hit. As freezing people approach the staging areas bullhorns will blast out the conditions: Keep your guns out of your hands. You will keep your guns. You will be served with charges and escorted out of state. You may go home.

That’s what I predict. It’s hard to imagine my government just let them walk, but… as long as I’m musing I’ll predict what the militia will do. The Bundy group will come out peaceably; outside militias are another story. In my scenario of how cops and feds, etc. (National Guard?) are deployed, the rear could become a new front. Roads come in and roads go out. Outside armed people are coming to “help.” It’s already happened. Won’t they be stopped? If all of them are allowed in to talk to Ammon Bundy then I can’t fathom the minds of the feds, but that could happen because of reluctance on the part of our government to use armed force? Or else the plan is pure Zen – let them all cage themselves in and fester? The more the merrier? Forever? 
No, no, then send in the whiskey.

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

Can another Bundy break the law and walk away from it?

Political tactical perspectives I would expect in the Oregon standoff:

1. The Federal government can’t let another Bundy break a law and just walk away.
Because No Justice; No Peace
2. If the Bundy Brothers refuse to surrender to any writ or warrant or anything there will be escalation.
Because what can the Fed do? Build a wall around it and let it fester? Hmmm.
3. Escalation will create martyrs and fuel other militias.
Because militias demand utter capitulation from government or, in their minds, they must fight on. Also, because (see number one).

Musing, what if the Bundy Brothers are taken into custody or die in the Oregon standoff? Daddy Bundy has motivation to plan a new battle. It’s not that they could ever win in a battle with a truly motivated Federal government. It’s how big a ruckus they can stir up. If they ask for death forcefully enough the militias might get some.

Chilling thought: What if the Bundy Brothers expect to die and Daddy’s in on it? Revolution seems to be their business. 

Monday, January 4, 2016

There is no tactical depth in the Bundy Brothers takeover of a federal building

It may well be that the best federal response to the federal building takeover in Oregon is to be low-key and slow to act. This is not acceptable to anyone who supports Black Lives Matter or to anyone who has ever been harassed while protesting. At least the differences must be duly noted, the most cogent being that the Bundy militia is white.
My main interest in the event is in the on-going anti-government movement and, especially, it’s strange ties to government itself. Right now in the United States there is a movement among some law enforcement personnel in the Oathkeeper’s association. Most Oathkeepers, who swear to not uphold federal gun laws should they become more restrictive, are in the employ of county sheriffs. It just so happens that the sheriff of Harney County is not an Oathkeeper. I base this on the quote from the Guardian today (link to story here):  “These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers when in reality these men had alternative motives, to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States,” said Harney County Sheriff David Ward.
With no apologies to the Bundy brothers, I predict that the big battle will occur when a militia stands up in such an illegal manner in an Oathkeeper county. Then the feds will be up against a fully armed sheriff’s department, possibly armed with military grade equipment from “Homeland Security.” Then they will be in a county populated by enough right-wingers to keep that OathKeeper county sheriff in office. From what I have read the majority of the populace are not supporting the Bundy militia.
Methinks the Bundys wanted action and didn’t think the whole thing through tactically. Or, the chilling possibility exists that they expected to be dead by now.
The truth probably lies in between, but the Feds have created a tactical situation by allowing the standoff to begin, by not acting immediately.

The onus is on the militia to finance and staff a standoff, to not fire a weapon, start a fire, or misbehave at the grocery store.