I understand your point, and as far as assessing motivations, I think you're spot on.
Still, they are constrained by political and operational realities. Like any other threat, they're not free to operate without consequences. As we used to say, "The enemy always gets a vote in your plan."
In a different world, where Obama and company were free to act without possibility of repercussion or failure, that would be one thing. This is not the case. In particular, the left has a major advantage and a major disadvantage. Their advantage is their reliable special interest voting blocks form a massive constituency that will politically back anything, and I fear that to be *anything*, that is done to keep their checks flowing. The disadvantage is that these loyal elements on the left are not soldiers, and cannot be mobilized. At best, they can be incited to protest locally or to attack their own neighborhoods.
That means that the left needs (a) and army, and (b) a context to use the army. The context being the more important of the two, because we have plenty of armies lying around. The context is what will allow the left to marshal the rank and file of the center-right security apparatus of the U.S. (law enforcement, military, national intelligence) against the far right (patriots, TEA party, Constitutionalists) that are their enemies.
The left has to turn the center-right against the far-right because the left has no army and no way to get one. All they have are dependent masses that will not question them or leave their side. That's a mighty advantage in most cases, but when push comes to shove, throngs of street protestors mean somewhat less than organized troops. The left needs force to back it's intentions up, and that force does not come without complications.
That's exactly why this scenario was written as DHS (center-to-center right) versus the TEA Party/Klan/terrorists (ostensibly the extreme right). The scenario's narrative is crucial because let them split the country along lines favorable to the fight they want to have. It's laughably inept, though, unless anyone out there is aware of a nascent neo-Confederate insurgency rising from the TEA Party that I'm presently unaware of. Sadly, the left may believe this twisted fantasy. This is the stuff that epic miscalculations are made of.
So, despite what our friends on the left would do if they could wave a wand and have their way, down here on earth, they have to play the cards they were dealt. Don't lose sight of the fact that any card they play can and will be countered.
Y’all are discussing this scenario of a “civil war”. Perhaps you should read some history to see what that means.
During the Revolutionary war, it meant Loyalists in towns dominated by Revolutionaries were were harassed and their houses were burned (and vice versa - look at the history of those who signed the Declaration of Independence). This occurred far from the battlefields.
During the War between the States, the war wasn’t just between the northern and southern armies - it was ‘Bleeding Kansas’ and the atrocities of the raiders in Missouri (both sides).
In Argentina, both sides had “death squads”.
We appear to be building towards a civil war, but the next civil war will not be limited to a militarized force surrounding a geographic area (e.g., town, city, State) — it will be nation wide, neighbor against neighbor. It will be between those who believe that the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of the FedGov, and those who believe it interferes with building a FedGov that will ensure Social Justice (and Environmental Justice, and ...).
After some instigating incident where the FedGov steps over the line and cracks down, all restraints will be discarded -— targets will not be limited to the militarized forces doing the cracking — it will include “soft targets” [there are more of them, and they are softer].
Liberals publicly advocating a crackdown on the right with armed forces, whether politicians, legislators, newspaper editors, columnists, TV News anchors, will become targets of retribution [you want a war, here it is]; and then the target list will grow to include bureaucrats enforcing liberal policies.
Consider - if a militarized FBI or EPA or IRS force stormed your friend’s farm, what would be more effective resistance - retribution against the individual members of that militarized force, or against the EPA/IRS bureaucrat that ordered it? It wouldn’t be a militia that did it (with their FBI infiltrators), it would be a harder to find lone individual.
It will be very bloody.