There has also never been a nation armed to the teeth with literally uncounted millions of scoped deer rifles capable of “minute of man” at 500+ yards. Never.
In some ways it’s easier to occupy Iraq, than it would be for our military to enforce a tyranny here in the USA.
In Iraq, our forces live in protected firebases. THeir families are thousands of miles away, safe at home in America.
If the military tried to stamp out a hypothetical insurgency here in the USA, it would get very messy. THose troops have homes and dependents mingled among the population they would be trying to suppress. THey can’t live buttoned up inside of tanks and APCs.
It would get old, living “on base” 24.7, afraid to go to the shopping mall, or the civilian golf course etc. It would be a long walk in the open across the parking lot at Walmart for the off-duty State Security goon.
I sincerely hope we never have the opportunity to test either sides of that equation.
That goes to my point. The notion of the civilian populace defeating the military is a forlorn fantasy. In that unlikely and nightmarish extreme, the role of the rebels would be to hold out long enough to convince the military, or elements of it, to flip to the other side.
The Reserves and Guard would flip first. They don't usually live on base, and are fully integrated into civilian life. If things are cast in us-and-them terms, they're more likely to consider themselves one of the "them."
I sincerely hope we never have the opportunity to test either sides of that equation.
Amen.
It's not just the military. Without an army of desk jockeys, the enforcement apparatus of a government falls apart. Somebody has to process the purchase orders for all the stuff, and cut the paychecks for all the people
There was a book a few years back, "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross, that covered this scenario. Recall the chaos that the DC sniper created. Now visualize a few dozen serial killers stalking federal bureaucrats...