Townhall.com
Kurt Schlichter
March 12, 2018

It’s obvious that the central tenet of the Democrat Party platform is now hatred and contempt for Normal Americans. Taking their cue from the elites in Europe and Canada who are stripping dissenters of their free speech rights and religious freedoms, the leftist elite is moving to solidify its hold on power here with the eager assistance of tech companies and the moral support of the Fredocons who yearn to return to pseudo-relevance as the ruling class’s slobberingly loyal opposition. In California, the leftist government is practically firing on Fort Sumter. And nationally, these aspiring fascists are especially eager to disarm Normal Americans – doing so would be an object lesson in who’s the boss, as well as solving that frustrating problem of the Normals having the ability to resist.

Probably because I’ve spent time where they actually had a civil war, many people ask me – people whose names you know – whether I think this turmoil will all end in a Second Civil War. They are seriously concerned, and not without cause – the left’s hatred for Normal Americans and its dedication to totally stripping the people who are the backbone of this country of their ability to participate in their own governance is threatening to rip the country apart.

Do I think there will be a civil war? No, but there could be. This is the Age of Black Swans, and anything is possible – we could easily see the country split into red and blue. Civil war is unlikely, but never underestimate Democrat stupidity and hatred. The Schlichter family learned that lesson a century and half ago, the last time the Democrats decided to try to impose their hatred of basic human rights on the rest of the country, when an army of Democrats burned our family hometown.

Oh, they paid for it. And they would pay again. Democrats are 0-1 in insurrections, and if they went for another round, they would be 0-2. It’s a matter of terrain, numbers, and morale.

Democrats, who think history began when Obama was elected, don’t understand the dangerous game they are playing when they talk about how they want to impose their brown shirt vision upon red America. The keyboard commandos of the left seek to hand wave away the massive strategic challenge of imposing control by force upon a well-armed, decentralized citizenry occupying the vast majority of the territory, so they babble about drones and tanks as counterinsurgency trump cards. But there are no trump cards in war. There are men, with rifles, standing on patches of dirt, killing the people trying to push them off. That’s the ugly reality of war. And multiply the usual brutality of war by ten when it’s a civil war.

There are two Civil War II scenarios, and the left is poorly positioned to prevail in either one. The first scenario is that the Democrats take power and violate the Constitution in order to use the apparatus of the federal government to suppress and oppress Normal Americans. In that scenario, red Americans are the insurgents. In the second scenario, which we can even now see the stirrings of in California’s campaign to nullify federal immigration law, it is the blue states that are the insurgents.

The Democrats lose both wars. Big time.

Let’s talk terrain and numbers. Remember the famous red v. blue voting map? There is a lot of red, and in the interior the few blue splotches are all cities like Las Vegas or Denver. That is a lot of territory for a counter-insurgent force to control, and this is critical. The red is where the food is grown, the oil pumped, and through which everything is transported. And that red space is filled with millions of American citizens with small arms, a fairly large percentage of whom have military training.

Remember what two untrained idiots did in Boston with a couple of pistols? They shut a city down. Now multiply that by several million, with better weapons and training.

Let’s look at the counter-insurgent forces in the Democrat oppression scenario should they attempt to misuse our law enforcement and military in an unconstitutional manner to take the rights of American citizens. There are a lot of civilian law enforcement officers, but the vast majority of the agencies are local – sheriffs, small town police departments. They will not be reliable allies in supporting unlawful oppression of their friends and neighbors. The major cities’ police departments are run by Democrat appointees, so the commands would be loyal. But the rank-and-file? A small percentage would be ideologically loyal. More would be loyal because that’s their paycheck – they could be swayed or intimidated to support the rebels. Others would be actively sympathetic to the insurgents. This is true of federal law enforcement agencies as well.

And the military? Well, wouldn’t the military just crush any resistance? Not so fast. The military would have the combat power to win any major engagement, but insurgents don’t get into major engagements with forces that have more combat power. They instead leverage their decentralized ability to strike at the counter-insurgents’ weak points to eliminate the government’s firepower advantage. In other words, hit and run, and no stand-up fights.

For example, how do a bunch of hunters in Wisconsin defeat a company of M1A2 Abrams tanks? They ambush the fuel and ammo trucks. Oh, and they wait until the gunner pops the hatch to take a leak and put a .30-06 round in his back from 300 meters. Then they disappear. What do the tanks do then? Go level the nearest town? Great. Now they just moved the needle in favor of the insurgents among the population. Pretty soon, they can’t be outside of their armored vehicles in public. Their forces are spending 90% of their efforts not on actual counter-insurgency operations but on force protection. Sure, they own their forward operating bases, and they own a few hundred meters around them wherever they happen to be standing at the moment, but the rest of the territory is bright red. As my recent novel illustrates, American guerillas with small arms are a deadly threat to the forces of a dictatorship.

But the military is so big it would overwhelm any rebels, right? Well, how big do you think the military is? And, more importantly, how many actual boots on the ground can it deploy? Let’s put it in terms of brigade combat teams, which total about 4,500 troops each. There are about 60 brigades in the Army, active and reserve, here and abroad, and let’s give the Marines another 10 brigades, for about 70 brigades. Sounds impressive. But that’s deceptive.

Let’s put aside a big consideration – the existence of red states that would provide for an insurgent government structure and possibly attract the loyalty of some National Guard and even federal brigades. For example, if President Hillary Clinton put down her chardonnay long enough to sign a ban on privately owned guns, it’s not unreasonable to expect the governor of Texas to reject federal authority – after all, California just taught us that this is totally cool. But in this case, look for several brigades located there to hoist the Lone Star flag.

So, now the blue states are facing unconventional and conventional forces.

Let’s ignore that problem and focus on a different challenge. Even a normal unit has about 10% non-deployable members. Now, if these troops were assigned to combat operations against other Americans, you would have significant additional losses through desertion. Many of the senior leaders would participate – the Obama generation – and there is a certain type of junior officer only too happy to curry favor by sucking up in defiance of their oath (which is to the Constitution, not to some leftist president). You can identify them because they usually have “strategist” in their Twitter bios. But a lot of key, capable officer and NCO leaders, and enlisted troops, would vanish. That is proper. It is a violation of their oath to unconstitutionally oppress fellow Americans; their duty would be to refuse such unlawful orders.

So, you have significantly understrength units going in. Now, how many of the troops in a brigade are actually even front line combat troops? About a third – the rest are support. So a brigade is really about 1500 riflemen tops before you count losses. Cut those in half for sleep, training, and refitting at any one time (which is very generous) and your brigade is really 750 troops on your best day with everyone showing up. Realistically, it’s 300.

That holds one mid-sized town. And there are hundreds of mid-sized towns. Plus there are millions of Normal Americans who would fight back. Nothing would move without their permission – a few guys shooting up big rigs along the interstate would shut down the entire trucking industry. Bottom line: there simply are not enough military forces to clear and hold red America.

What about drones and bombers? Both are useful. But the minute a bombing strike kills some red civilians the families of counter-insurgent drone operators and pilots will be knocking at the base gates to be let inside. Now you’ll need many of those brigades to protect the civilians you now need to protect from retribution.

Civil wars are harsh. That’s why you avoid them.

How about the blue insurgency scenario? That goes even worse for the Democrats. You have the federal government apparatus in the hands of red America, and the insurgents are the opposite of decentralized and armed. They are conveniently centered in gun-unfriendly blue cities. In other words, the blue civilian population is much less of a threat.

A red counter-insurgency avoids the problem of a decentralized insurgency and insecure logistical lines. In the case of California, whose secessionist antics are approaching the point where President Trump could legitimately employ his power to crush insurrections, the tactical problem is relatively simple. For example, San Francisco is a hotbed of treason, but the populace is largely unarmed and is trapped in a confined area. You put a brigade on securing the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges, then put a brigade on the San Francisco Peninsula to cut off the I-280 and US-101 corridors. Next you go to the Crystal Springs Dam and cut off the water. Then you watch and wait as the tech hipsters run out of artisanal sushi rice and kombucha.

After about a week, they surrender. After all, you can’t eat and drink smugness. LA is just bigger in scope – more corridors to cut off, but in the end the population concentrations in large liberal urban areas that are their strength also make them extremely vulnerable to logistical pressure.

Then there’s another factor, an intangible but a crucial one. It’s commitment. The Democrat threat to peace is based on its policies designed to deprive Normal Americans of their right to speak freely, to worship freely, and to defend themselves and their rights with firearms. Make no mistake – millions of Normal Americans are willing to risk death to defend those rights. In fact, many swore to do so when they entered our military and law enforcement. But who is the leftist big talker willing to die to impose the fascist dream of censorship, religious oppression, and disarmament on Normal American citizens? Is the screeching SJW at Yale going to suit up in Kevlar? Is the Vox columnist going to grab a M4? Is the Hollywood poser going to switch her gyno-beanie for a helmet?

No. Hell, we just heard our liberal opponents explaining why a cop shouldn’t be expected to go fight a scumbag murdering kids because it’s scary. America might split apart, but it’s highly unlikely Team Kale n’ Vinyl would fight should their big talk finally push Normal America too far.

Link

Yamamoto was more succinct.

But, I did like it.

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
Yamamoto was more succinct.

But, I did like it.

He wasn’t being paid by the word.

quote:

What do the tanks do then? Go level the nearest town? Great. Now they just moved the needle in favor of the insurgents among the population. Pretty soon, they can’t be outside of their armored vehicles in public. Their forces are spending 90% of their efforts not on actual counter-insurgency operations but on force protection.

This happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan, and it was happening to us in Iraq until we enlisted the aid of some of the factions, i.e., the "surge."

It's an interesting thought exercise which I have thought about myself. I appreciate Kurt Schlichter's experience and writing.
However, for all the reasons he spells out, it likely won't come to that. It probably won't be a shooting war.

The scenario which will come first, and which we must consider, is what happens when California and Illinois can no longer pay their bills and can't borrow any more money?

What will we do then?

I don't believe there would ever be an actual war. The next Civil War will likely be fought in the courts.

State X succeeds, there is a federal court battle saying they can't, State X says that's great but we don't recognize your federal court...you get the idea. I don't think it will every go to armed conflict and eventually that state will be off on its own.

Besides, if a state like California wanted to succeed, I couldn't sign that deal fast enough! Blue states can't afford to leave the US. I think it will be a red state who is tired of subsidizing the blue states who eventually says, "we're out of here."

ETA, that meme is hilarious

We have friends and family in the army and police forces.

I asked the question about what they would do if ordered to fire on Americans.

TO A MAN!! They said they would refuse and would take up arms against a regime that had issued such an order.

There’s a NYC based comedian (Andrew Schultz) that had a joke that went along the lines of “if it came to another civil war liberals would lose...conservatives hunt and play with guns. They do cowboy shit. We can’t even eat gluten.” ....very funny but also very true.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
The scenario which will come first, and which we must consider, is what happens when California and Illinois can no longer pay their bills and can't borrow any more money?

What will we do then?

That's actually a very easy problem to solve, and solve within the parameters of the Constitution and the country's resources.

We control their exterior borders (the border with Canada, in Illinois' case, and both the border with Mexico and the Pacific Coast, in California's case). Then we create a nice, comfortable, hermetically sealed environment in which the state can completely collapse without getting any more federal support than any other state receives. Then we go in and rebuild once property values are low enough to unleash private enterprise in 'la reconquista'.

Do good, get rich and run liberal totalitarian airheads out of office - does that sound like fun? It sounds like the American Way to me.

quote:

Originally posted by esdunbar:
The next Civil War will likely be fought in the courts.

No offense, but that's not possible or even likely. Courts have no physical means of enforcing decisions against the state or federal governments. If either refuses to abide by a court order, then sooner or later someone has to use force or the threat of force to enforce the court's decision. As Andrew Jackson once said about the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Marshall, "Marshall has his decision, now let him enforce it."

At the same time, no state is going to "quitely go off on it's own". There's no reason for the federal government to allow that to happen, and there's no reason to believe that in a contest of force the federal government couldn't overpower any state.

quote:

Besides, if a state like California wanted to secede, I couldn't sign that deal fast enough!

Why in God's name do people keep insisting on surrendering territory to the mindless, childish and weak? "I hate California! Let's get rid of the state, nyerk, nyerk, nyerk!" Unless you have a serious psychological condition, you don't hate California so much as you're pissed off at some Californians. There's no reason to throw the baby out with the bong water just because you're lazy, mindless or get a thrill out of hyperbole.

From Western Rifle Shooters, a byline they had up the other day.

quote:

Why does the Left believe that Americans will be shooting at the military, rather than freeplay varmint-hunting of Communist politicians, along with their associates, media enablers, and local supporters?

There will not be a shooting civil war in America. There is already a war of sorts-- we follow it every day-- in which not only competing but pretty much opposite political sides knock heads in a variety of venues and situations.

Right now, the most serious "battle" is over the southern border and illegal aliens. Texas-- even Texas-- is at some risk of going blue because of illegals voting. In Chicago, the Democrats have moved to formalize voting rights for aliens with their government-issued card. (Whatever they call it.) Oakland has outrightly protected aliens against deportation. This kind of thing is happening all over the country. What is all this if not a "civil war"?

But to have a full-out shooting war the two sides need to be geographically separated clearly enough to have one side attack the other. That does not exist in America. Not only in cities are the two sides intermixed, but even on the neighborhood level progressives and conservatives live together, side by side, with no clear, obvious markers of who is who.

We have had riots, and there will no doubt be more riots, but a riot is not a civil war.

Speculating about what to do about tanks, etc., is a pointless exercise, in my opinion.

What to do at this point is clear to me: Support Donald Trump. He speaks for our side-- and he speaks as POTUS.

Just wait for Kalifornistan to seize rich white tinseltown property like South Africa.

quote:

Why does the Left believe that Americans will be shooting at the military, rather than freeplay varmint-hunting of Communist politicians, along with their associates, media enablers, and local supporters?

This. Any one of us probably knows enough people to make our local metro area ungovernable if we were serious about it. It isn't particularly difficult. Ruthless and bloody, yes. Difficult? No.

quote:

I don't believe there would ever be an actual war.

Sure there will.

Probably not next week or next month, or even next year, but sooner or later there will be some shooting.

Who ends up shooting at who and over what, your guess is a good as mine. But to say that it will never happen again is wishful thinking.

quote:

Originally posted by OcCurt:

quote:

I don't believe there would ever be an actual war.

Sure there will.

Probably not next week or next month, or even next year, but sooner or later there will be some shooting.

Who ends up shooting at who and over what, your guess is a good as mine. But to say that it will never happen again is wishful thinking.

... and a person, especially a person with children, should have a plan in place. This plan should also be very useful in a natural catastrophe.

quote:

...the border with Canada, in Illinois' case...

I expect that many Canadians are happy that they do not share a border with Illinois.

"Hey! I'm standin' here!"

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:

quote:

Why does the Left believe that Americans will be shooting at the military, rather than freeplay varmint-hunting of Communist politicians, along with their associates, media enablers, and local supporters?

This. Any one of us probably knows enough people to make our local metro area ungovernable if we were serious about it. It isn't particularly difficult. Ruthless and bloody, yes. Difficult? No.

Artie speaks the truth.

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:
We have friends and family in the army and police forces.

I asked the question about what they would do if ordered to fire on Americans.

TO A MAN!! They said they would refuse and would take up arms against a regime that had issued such an order.

I'm sure this does not apply to those you know, but I am not as optimistic. I watched what they did to law abiding citizens young and old after Katrina. LE and Nat'l guard did as commanded and confiscated guns with physical force and stored them in a semi trailer. By the time the gov't came clean and opened the trailer, most of those confiscated guns were ruined by rust. Why did they do it? Because their livelihood was more important to them than others' liberty/rights. This was not just one or two officers either. These were patrols, swarms of them. I don't think it will be that flagrant either next time. I think oppression will come more progressively when it comes.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

Besides, if a state like California wanted to secede, I couldn't sign that deal fast enough!

Why in God's name do people keep insisting on surrendering territory to the mindless, childish and weak? "I hate California! Let's get rid of the state, nyerk, nyerk, nyerk!" Unless you have a serious psychological condition, you don't hate California so much as you're pissed off at some Californians. There's no reason to throw the baby out with the bong water just because you're lazy, mindless or get a thrill out of hyperbole.

OK. Fine. We keep the land. We'll just drive the commies into the sea.