EDITORIAL: The Civil War of 2016 U.S. military officers are told to plan to fight Americans

Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.

At issue is an article in the respected Small Wars Journal titled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future.” It was written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army's University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It posits an “extremist militia motivated by the goals of the ‘tea party’ movement” seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, “occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest.” The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens. It’s a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.

I refer you to Afghanistan and Iraq.

The military would have a SOB of a time “crushing” any domestic uprising. The IRA never numbered more than several hundred. The Brits controlled the whole of northern Ireland with a very professional army. They had the insurgency basically confined to an island where they controlled all approaches. The British fought on for decades, and finally had to negotiate a peace.

1) First, a domestic uprising would only happen after extreme provocation, so people nationwide would already be on edge. The uprising would never happen unless something happened to convince people that all political remedies were futile, and the government would likely start the rebellion with some overt act that went “too far”.

2) a crushing response only spreads the movement.

3) Fighting in Iraq is one thing, doing it on you own logistical tail is quite another.

4) No insurgency would face them force on force. It would be another of those fights seen all around the world involving IEDs, blackmail, ambush, deceit, and military leaders would find their families targeted for kidnap, murder, etc. This recently happened when a Mexican Marine was killed fighting Cartels. They gave him a funeral with honors. Later that night, his mother, sister, and several others were all murdered.
History shows that political leaders who ordered and supported a US military attack on American citizens would also be personal endangered, bribed, blackmailed, and neutralized.
Imagine for example, a drone operator shot dead as he stopped for gas on his way home in Nevada, a thousand miles from the war zone. No military would be safe, anywhere. The crackdown would have to be nationwide, and wouldn’t stay local. The heavy handed actions necessary would anger people who were not involved to begin with. Resentment towards the government grows.

5) Our military uses the USA as a home base. Their bases, supply depots, maintenence activites, factories, air bases etcc are extremely vulnerable and scattered.

6) The Military would have to be extremely concerned about their troops loyalty. Often they will be sypathetic to the uprising. A classic example is found in Russia. When the tanks rolled into Moscow in 1991. They were supposed to crush the pro-Yeltsin crowd. In about a half hour they were hugging the crowd, sharing tea and bread, and started shelling the Russian government building on BEHALF of the crowd.

7) Our military is amazing when used against a foreign enemy. But if it was turned against the American people, here in America, you would quickly see it swallowed up into a nationwide chasm of national disorder. Our military just spent 10 years in Iraq which is about the size of Texas. It was bled white, and most units did 3, 4, or 5 tours.

8) In recent wars, the military could always rest and refit here. They knew their families were safe at home. They knew that in general the nation was behind them. Its a very different animal when none of that is true.

9) The chaos causes extreme business disruptions in our close coupled, just in time economy. This adds pressure to quickly negotiate. Politicians are under unbelievable pressure. The opposition party is seen as an alternative to the one that sparked the insurgency.

There won’t be a Gettysburg in modern insurgency. There will be a nasty insurgency, with a political component that would be as important as the killing wing.

This experience is best left to the imagination.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.