It’s not a civil war if the Army is only on one side. That’s called a slaughter.
I have always taken the position that none of the outrages of the central government could lead patriots to anything other than slaughter AS LONG AS THE ARMY WAS ON THE SIDE OF THE GOVERNMENT and the chain of command remained undivided.
I’ve never seen a CW II scenario that was even slightly plausible until I read about Mary McCord trying to organize #resistance among the officer corps in the event that Trump was inaugurated. Given the changing composition of the officer corps and the drastic falloff in white male enlistments, together with the way the Deep State reacted to Trump 1.0, I can EASILY see refusal to propagate lawful orders along the chain of command, appointment of an unconfirmed SECDEF with some commands loyal to the legal Executive and some to Obama (PLEASE stop the “Biden did this” posts) leading to open warfare around DC and at the ports.
The sergeants have the keys to the arms lockers and the motorpools and have -by far- the biggest influence over the enlisted men.
My guess is that any attempt to use US troops against Americans would result in about the same results as in 1860: 1/3 would obey, 1/3 would desert, and 1/3 would go over to the other side.
I am a retired Army Field Grade Officer. Every officer serves at the pleasure of the President and can be fired or brought up on charges in a heartbeat by the President. He can also recall to active duty retired or released officers for the purpose of legal action like courts martial proceedings. Officers who cross the President take a very serious risk.
I agree with your assessment. It will be interesting to see what happens with Texas and the border situation.
Wars are just for people who want to get themselves killed without making a big difference. Asymmetric warfare, on the other hand ...