You can infer I'm a coward, or unwilling to stand up for what is right. I'm willing to accept that. I am not willing to watch my nation turned into Kosovo, Beirut, or some other hell hole.
You've read something into my earlier statements that I never inferred. I've never imagined or suggested a scenario in which the citizens would mount a campaign of aggression against the federal government. Not even close.
Okay, that may be true. When you used some examples of what 15,000 terrorists in Iraq could accomplish, it did give me pause to think you were envisioning something of a 'peoples revolt'. If that's wrong then I appreciate the mention.
My position has always been, that if the government were to try to use military force against several states that were determined to peacefully separate themselves from the union, that they'd be biting off more than they can chew.
As long as those states held an election, or at the least had their elected officials come to a determination to separate, I could see your scenario playing out a lot more like you have laid it out. I will say, this sort of thing should be have to stand a popular vote, but in some states I'm not sure that would be a wise idea either. You get one of your Leftist states wanting to leave the union, and even the most righteous governance could cause them to separate.
I've maintained from the beginning that it's not feasible to militarily subdue a population with as high a rate of gun ownership as we have in this country. Most especially in those states which would be most likely to take that path.
Gun ownership, even of the highest types of military style rifles would be no guarantee of the right side prevailing. To prevail you have to stand up to an organized military operation with it's command and control aspects working as they have. A state leaving the union might have some highly trained people participating, but it's not the same thing. It would not have the command and control logistics set up, tested, and firing on all cylinders. You could be right, but I do have serious misgivings.
I've said that, based upon historical precedent, that at least 10% of able bodied gun owners in the secessionist states would physically resist any effort by the federal government to squelch a purely political realignment through sheer force. It could be much higher.
If this were to occur after a popular vote, you could be correct. "Could be." You'd certainly get some loyalist eager beavers, but I don't know how deep the ranks go on that alone. It's my take that certainly Texas and California should be able to leave the union, since they were first Republics on their own before joining the Union. Texas for a longer period than California. I believe Texas was a Republic for months, while California was only a Republic for around 24 hours.
Because there would be no federal government and no standing military to speak of (besides National Guard units) in these secessionist states, the rest of the country would be looking at the untenable prospect of using the most powerful military force on earth against lightly armed civilians. And not just any civilians -- Americans -- many of them in political sympathy with the blue states.
Okay, I hear you. I'm just not sure how much that buys you. How many states do join in? Do they wind up contiguous?
It's unrealistic in this day and time to believe that the federal government would find the political will (or cover) to mount a campaign of military aggression against a collection of states who simply chose to bow out of political union with the rest.
While I can see the possibility of this, I"m still not convinced that the Federal government just says, "Okay, well good-bye then.", when states break away. In an Obama administration, it would be all out war. And it's my take that a guy would have to be about as bad as him to move states to do it. The scenario would seem to almost have to involve a Leftist head of government vs a Right wing break away state.
But let's say that they did. Let's imagine for a moment that they found (or created) just the sort of 'false flag' incident that would give them cover to launch some sort of military show of force. To compel several secessionist states to come back into the fold through force, such a show would have to be orders of magnitude larger than the Waco incident.
Yes, we're not talking the same type of operation. It would have to be a broad military operation. Waco was merely a local (although the feds were involved) police operation. Perhaps 'isolated' is a better term than 'local'.
Now what sort of response do you think that would create on the part of the civilian population on both sides? How do you think blue state Americans would feel, watching federal troops blowing up schools, Safeways, and shopping malls? What would they think, seeing images of American women and children bloodied and made homeless by such violence?
It really depends. How would you see it if an avowed Marxist state decided to leave the union? Would you feel pangs of grief seeing those who hated our Constitution and Founding Father's norms get taken to the woodshed in the above manner? I've got to tell you, I'd be rather angry at them for trying to destroy our unified nation based on Marxist philosophy.
The media would be key. The causal events would be key. Even a good cause with an idiot for a leader could cause problems. Damn if I'd want to see a George Bush leading a break-away. A Ronald Reagan explaining it, okay. A guy that couldn't convince people water was wet, no..
Do you think they'd feel some sort of pride in watching their government smashing their neighbors' political will through brute force, mass destruction, and death?
I think not.
And I suspect you would be right "IF" those breaking away could make a good case that they merely wanted to follow our Founder's and Constitutional principles. I don't think the rest of the populace would be sold on the idea that Marxists were justified in trying to break the cohesion of our union.
I also think that such scenarios have been war gamed many times by our military, and that those planners have concluded that such an exercise would be fruitless. In fact, bringing force into such a situation would do nothing but harden the resolve of those who you're attempting to control, and would likely result in a stalemate at best. It could also escalate into a bloodbath unseen in modern times, which could consume the entire country. Don't think that military planners haven't already thought all this through.
I don't. I do have to tell you though that I don't think avoidance is what military planners think of in this eventuality. It would be my take that the planning would center around putting down a rebellion in the most rapid and effective manner.
We both could make a case for the military needing to stand down, but I don't think that would be the case. The military serves the United States. Break away states would garner no loyalty from the military of the U. S. If you wish to object, it's a valid point of view. I'm just not sold on you being correct if you do. Is it possible? I suppose. Would military leaders who refused to follow orders to take action remain in their posts? No. New officers would be appointed. Desired action would follow..
Back to the top...
After reading your last two posts to me, it appears that you're arguing against an armed revolt against the federal government. Again, I've never advocated such a thing, and haven't spent much time imagining how such a scenario might play out. That would be a topic for another day.
Okay, well your comments here are the closest we have come to having opinions close enough that would debate the issues.
There could come a time when we would be faced with such a situation. Some states are going to have to make a determination on these matters in the next few years, because changing population demographics will make it next to impossible for a state to make a unified decision to break away. Texas' population is going to change a great deal over the next five to twenty years. As it does, you have more and more people who may wish to defeat such a break-away movement.