A military coup can't happen here, correct? After all, America is not Pakistan or some Latin American 'banana republic'. We have the world's greatest and most respected Constitution, one well thought out with its renowned 'checks and balances' to stand in the way of any attempt to internally usurp the 'peoples' power over their government. No, it can't happen here- correct?

That is the attitude Americans in general tend to cling to as a virtually unwritten 'patriotic religious political tenet.' Unfortunately, it is also that very same determined belief that brought us Pearl Harbor and 9-11. Yes my fellow Americans, it can indeed happen here in the good old U.S.A.

We must however take note of what has happened in Pakistan as warning that the not likely can quickly become the possible. In Pakistan at present, its leader, who himself came to power in a coup in October of 1999, has blatantly suspended the country's constitution, relieved its Supreme Court of their office and duties, shut down all privately owned newspapers and television stations, arrested and detained not only news reporters, but his political opposition as well - by declaring a 'state of emergency' (the imposition of Martial Law).

Now he's stated that he intends to allow free elections in a few months, but will continue the 'State of Emergency' until after the elections (in which he will be a candidate for president), which, obviously with his rivals in prison or under house arrest, he is more than likely to win. Clearly, this leader intends to remain in office.

America Is Heading in the Wrong Direction

Do I think that such an event is about to take place in the United States? As matters stand presently, I would have to say - no! There are, however, events taking place, right out in the open that do give me pause for concern.

For instance, I do not like the virtual loss of my Constitutionally given right of 'habeas corpus', in the name of a dubious War on Terror that remains - to this date - not clearly defined. For we must remember that under the new Homeland Security laws, even as an American citizen, I too can be scooped up off the streets and held 'incommunicado' - without being charged for an indeterminate period of time, as a 'suspected' - enemy combatant. I also do not like the idea of an American embassy complex, the largest in the world, being constructed in a country that we are 'supposed' to be leaving in a few years. I am extremely uncomfortable with the existence of a paramilitary corporation like Blackwater USA, having self contained facilities in every quadrant of this country.

Nor I do not like having a vice president, Dick Cheney, who believes fervently in what many refer to as an 'imperial presidency.' And most certainly am I uncomfortable with a president who has demonstrated a destructive tendency to follow dangerous far reaching foreign policies - at the behest of his vice president, a secretive inner circle of questionable advisors and his God.

That said, I will let those concerns ride the currents of time and chance for the moment.

The Mechanics of a Military Takeover

Contrary to the opinion of most Americans, the internal take over of a country, militarily, does not require one hundred percent control of the country's territory. In fact, as has been vividly demonstrated in Pakistan, all that is required is military isolation and control of specific centers of government command. And most people would be surprised at just how easily a disciplined paramilitary force of moderate size could accomplish such a feat with just a little bit of strategic planning.

This point was brought out in a 1984 fiction novel by writer Edwin Corley entitled "Siege." The book revealed that New York City's key borough, the Island of Manhattan, could be isolated and taken control of by a well armed paramilitary force. They could accomplish this feat by simply by blowing up the five bridges link the island, for all intents and purposes, to the outside world.

Of course the taking of an entire country would require a much larger force, but they would only have to establish presence over the center of government, (Washington D.C.), a healthy percentage of National Guard arsenals, a few key power-grids and specific communications arrays, and they would have gained effective control. Like in Pakistan, there would be no need to occupy every single state or square foot of land. Yes, logistically it's that easy. It is, however, the swiftness of surprise and the 'citizen' factor that makes the telling difference - success.

History has taught us by example that there are only three factors likely to be involved in the sudden change of a democratically elected government: special elections, congressional or parliamentary coups (with military backing) and a direct military coup. In Pakistan you have a government that came into power via a military coup, and its established leader who desires to retain his position as president via a parliamentary coup.

The safety net established at the foundation of this country to prevent such an event taking place in the United States, is that our forefathers had the wisdom to declare the military be 'citizen' based, and not a professional standing army. Unfortunately, time has eroded that intended military structure. We now have a volunteer army which over time has come to of include a large percentage of 'career soldiers.' And as to be expected, many of these career-citizen soldiers may harbor the potential to favor a multiple political allegiance to general, politician of favor and country, rather than strictly to country alone. This random uncertain factor is the 'threat in the wind' of American politics - more so now than ever.

An American Military Coup as Theory

I am not one prone to the abuse of my free speech privilege by running into a crowded theater and shouting - Fire! Nor however am I one to avoid the existence of a potential possibility, simply to enforce a very comfortable long-held belief. The idea of an American military coup is not new. In fact, it has been envisioned and explored many times in fictional detail over the years, by novelists, science fiction writers and film makers. And in my opinion, although dated, the best produced work in film that. still stands up is 1964's "Seven Days in May".

Based upon a novel by Fletcher Knebel & Charles W. Bailey II, "Seven Days in May" is a well constructed political thriller that hasn't aged badly. The plot and political dynamics are still scarily applicable to the modern world. Kirk Douglas plays Col.Martin "Jiggs" Casey, who works under Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen.James Mattoon Scott (Burt Lancaster). Gen. Scott and most of the American public object to the imposition of a proposed nuclear disarmament treaty with the Russians. The treaty is one in which America would 'completely disarm its nuclear arsenal - first' as a show of good faith. This risky diplomatic venture is favored by the politically Liberal oriented U.S. President Jordan Lyman (Frederic March).

In the midst of this debatable diplomacy, it's business as usual in Washington, D.C. Until, that is,Col. Casey is continuously confronted with the unexpected appearance of several hard to ignore happenings that make no immediate sense. However, as it all begins to come together, he begins to suspect that Gen. Scott and several of the other Joint Chiefs may be planning to forcibly overthrow the American government. The story from this point hinges on what, if anything, can be done to stop the coup.

The writing and acting skills displayed in this film must be applauded for the very limited resort to on screen violence: but despite its quiet restraint, menace is everywhere and so thick you can, virtually, cut it with a knife. Writer Rod Serling skillfully crafted a screenplay with just about every angle of every conceivable argument delivered with articulate fervor, creating characters with complex, contradictory notions about loyalty, duty and honor.

Lancaster is excellent and believable as Gen. Mattoon, the soft-spoken warrior who's sure he is right, and March is as effective as the aggrieved Chief Executive, President Lyman. And dashing about in the haze of political intrigue surrounding the unthinkable suspect plot, Douglas' acting is brilliant, as is his character portrayal of Col. "Jiggs" Casey, who remains sane and sober in his evaluations and projections. But clearly, he is visibly troubled as he struggles between loyalty to an admired general and friend, his beloved army and his deep patriotism for his country.

However, despite it's highly effective script and positive energy the film remains, at best, only an impressive work of 'speculative fiction.'. Or is it? Nightmare scenario be damned, can such an act of treason ever take place in America? That haunting question colors the thinking process of the most rational minded individual, quite simply because as a curse of the 'thinking process' - it is unavoidable.

When "Seven Days in May" hit the movie theater screens in 1964, we as a people were in the throes of the 'Cold War.' We were a generation of raw nerves spawned on fear of nuclear annihilation from the moment our arch enemies, the Communist Russians, detonated their first atomic device in August 1949, followed by an even more feared H - bomb in 1953.

America then went on to live through the building of Civil Defense Fallout Shelters, mandatory 'take cover' drills and alerts in our schools, and the constant threat of airborne missile attack from the skies. And to be certain, the American public was not all that settled in the circumstances that had so suddenly removed global distance and protected skies as a shield from foreign aggressor attack. So the government brought forth the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) as a sort of cold psychological comforting factor for the Cold War, but the fear still remained in the minds and nightmares of the public at large.

This fear of the Soviets heightened when, unexpectedly, they beat America into space by the surprise launching of their Sputnik satellite in 1957. And the frenzy brought on by this development reached its apex during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

Although many may debate and question my contention, it is my personal opinion that this very period of time in these United States gave birth to the severe, sharp divide of Left and Right politics we now suffer in this country. At this point, Conservatism and Liberalism came out of their respective corners - punching.

A Theoretical Assessment From A Military Mind

In 1992, General Colin Powell, chairman of the joint chiefs, awarded the prize for his strategy essay competition at the National Defence University to Lieutenant Colonel Charles Dunlap for The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012. His cautionary tale imagined an incapable civilian government creating a vacuum that drew a competent military into a coup disastrous for democracy. The military, of course, is bound to uphold the constitution. But Dunlap wrote: "The catastrophe that occurred on our watch took place because we failed to speak out against policies we knew were wrong. It's too late for me to do any more. But it's not for you." . (Click here for complete article)

The Great American Paranoia: 1949 - 1964

Therefore, when the riveting film, "Fail Safe", psychologically anchored in the day to day events of the time also debuted in 1964, it served as a catalyst to the building panic. The well made film, quite realistically, detailed how both sides, nuclear armed to the teeth, could become co-victims to a tragic 'technical' error of cataclysmic proportions. Be it chance or not, at this moment in time, we were just beginning to be distracted by the U.S. entry into the Vietnam Conflict. The Vietnam Conflict introduced the average American on the street to the Domino Theory, which prophesied a global Communist takeover of the world by the steady defeat and conquest of one country at a time. So it was reasoned that we had to defeat them in Vietnam to stop their onward march.

It is important to note here, that the American public has always shown a decided tendency to react to cinematic and other theatrical presentations as though they were to some degree - real. This point was brought home on October 30, 1938 (Halloween) when actor/producer Orson Well's famous Mercury Theater of the Air broadcast the now famous radio version of H. G. Well's science fiction classic, about an invasion from another planet, "War of the Worlds."

So be it that by the time "Fail Safe" was presented to us, our national euphoria over winning World War ll had ceased to have any national calming effect. In fact, if anyone has ever held the belief that Americans are incapable of making determined evaluations for themselves, this film ended that debate forever. The fictional president's (Henry Fonda) final decision to avoid a nuclear holocaust was so divisive and controversial, that there were many newspaper accounts of fistfights among patrons exiting the theaters in which the film was shown. Americans take their fiction seriously.

At this juncture in time we had become a nation so paranoid about Communism and nuclear destruction, we began to see or suspect both were just around every proverbial corner. In essence, we were ready to believe just about any proposal or theatrical fantasy, no matter how far fetched, that involved these two possibilities in theoretical conflict with our national safety.

So at this point, the film "Seven Days in May" stood before us as a virtual demand to reaffirm our belief in and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America. And that demand required us, as a nation and people, to answer the question no one wanted to contemplate much less think about, namely, could a military coup ever come about in America?

Confession of a Citizen Above Suspicion

In 1964 as all of these events were taking place, I was a 24 year-old working night-college student, who had been moved by my political convictions to switch allegiances from the Democratic to the Republican Party. And I would remain so aligned [politically] until 2004, when circumstances developing within the country compelled me to drop out and become an Independent. I state these very personal facts because there is a need for the reader to know my state of mind at the time I viewed the film "Seven Days in May."

At the conclusion of the film I found myself struggling against my moral sense and identification of self and patriotism. In the end, as much as I tried to resist the temptation and the resultant decision it forced upon me, I found myself siding with the leader of the planned coup, General James Mattoon.

If the reader finds this revelation to be shocking, image how it affected me at the time. I was a child of the 1940's - 50's, and all of my imbedded morals, sense of ethics and learned attitude toward my country were molded by that generation. In effect, I was not only reared moralistically by my parents and neighborhood, I was also reared by the displayed moral codes of the likes of Gene Autry, Roy Rogers, the Lone Ranger and John Wayne. And though it was a decision that took place 'only in my mind', its emergence was, nevertheless, a complete surprise to me and it shattered all of the belief's of my own character to that point. Who was I?

Who was this person?..., I would think as I regarded myself in the mirror while shaving the next morning. I was still me, but I had briefly visited another side of my personality in that darkened movie theater the previous night. And like it or not, that person was still there, lurking somewhere in the shadows at the back of my conscious mind, ready to emerge and, possibly, takeover at that very important strategic moment chosen by fate for that critical decision - the forever decision: the one we don't get a second chance at.

As I see it, the reasoning behind such a change in the nature of an individual who considers himself to be a good citizen, and a patriot, is that moral codes as well as a sense of patriotism is an evolutionary process that has to change - ever so slightly - over the years. The hard reality is, like it or not, the America I grew up in is, for all intents and purposes is itself fading - ever so slightly - over the years. And we must always remember this one fact; no country's constitution, no matter how well drawn up and thought out, is not a guaranteed inoculation against such internal acts as a parliamentary takeover or military coup. The only true preventative is the 'united' will of its people to resist such challenges to their freedom. Unfortunately, at the present time, we as a nation are politically polarized and incapable of such a united resistance.

Therefore, my conclusion is: yes, a military coup is possible in the United States of America, because the power to do so is not so much in the hands of the military or a rogue administration to pull it off, as it is in ourselves, as citizens, to allow the attempt to be successful. Now that revelation is really frightening!

Your comments - The voices of our readers

Hello Mr. Duffis, I am going to make this short and sweet, because i don't want to add to the sort of panic in print I think people like you are trying to stir up. There is not going to ever be a military or any other kind of overthrow of the US government. That's what your trying to allude to and its a load of crap. Added to that comment, may I state here and now that I am going to give up reading your editorials. Personally I think you are a traitor and not a real conservative. And I think you should join the rest of your leftist buddies in print and be honest about your self. Bet you won't post this comment in your online rag. BSG (no name given), Chicago, IL