By: Marilyn Assenheim
Friday was Valentine’s Day. It is somewhat paradoxical that The Telegraph reported a news item that had an emotional impact but didn’t inspire love: “The U.S. Army has built a 300 acre ‘fake city’…in order to train for unspecified future combat scenarios.”
Constructed at a cost of $96 million the site, located in Virginia, was completed in less than two years. Early critics of such expenditure cite Virginia’s plethora of abandoned properties which could have provided ample opportunities for practicing occupation as well as bringing money into those areas. Britain’s Daily Telegraph provided additional details: “The 300 acre ‘town’ includes a five story embassy, a bank, a school, an underground subway and train station, a mosque, a football stadium, and a helicopter landing zone…the realistic subway station comes complete with subway (cars) and the train station has real train (cars). The subway (cars) even carry the same logo as the (cars) in Washington DC…” All of the streets and businesses sport signage written in English and the town is American in every aspect. What is causing skepticism are the somewhat muddled justifications offered up by the Army for such a “city.”
Colonel John P. Petkosek is the commander of the U.S. Army Asymmetric Warfare Group. The Telegraph offered his reasoning: “This is the place where we can be creative, where we can come up with solutions for problems that we don’t even know we have yet…This is where we’ll look at solutions for the future–material solutions and non-material solutions…The things that we do here at this facility will have a direct and lasting impact on our entire army.” It is the last part of that statement that is of concern. Certainly the United States military’s ability to perfect techniques against the possibility of terrorist incursion into America is something no one would complain about. Questions arise, however, regarding exactly who the U.S. military considers “terrorists.”
Not so long ago, the news carried reports that the United States military was instructed to add what are largely considered Conservative groups to their definition of “domestic terrorists.” According to Infowars.com: “The increasing demonization of domestic political groups as extremists has prompted numerous scenarios where commentators have suggested that U.S. Army and National Guard personnel could be needed to quell civil unrest. In 2012, an academic study about the future use of the military as a peacekeeping force within the United States written by a retired Army Colonel depicted a shocking scenario in which the U.S. Army is used to restore order to a town that has been seized by Tea Party ‘insurrectionists’. The study…revealed plans for the military to carry out ‘Civil Disturbance Operations’ during which troops would be used domestically to quell riots, confiscate firearms and even kill Americans on U.S. soil during mass civil unrest.” Soldiers at Fort Hood were being indoctrinated, by their superior officers, that Christians, second amendment supporters, Tea Party advocates and anti-abortion activists presented a “radical terror threat.” There is no word that this order has ever been withdrawn. Infowars.com points out that this is language endorsed by the Department of Homeland Security. Homeland Security added ‘liberty lovers’ to the list of domestic extremists, turning domestic terrorism into a rather broad endeavor.
Just a year ago, former Navy SEAL Ben Smith warned that The Lyin’ King’s regime was interrogating top military brass, questioning whether or not they would be willing to disarm and fire on American citizens. This past week the Ohio National Guard conducted training exercises against “second amendment supporters” and the Department of Homeland Security placed its largest order to date for ammunition. Executive orders have significantly broadened and relaxed the laws governing martial law. Now The Lyin’ King’s regime will unleash the military “to be creative,” to make blueprints for “solutions” that “will have a direct and lasting impact on our entire army.”
Didn’t similar “solutions” transpire in WWII Germany?