Of course, it’s the Tea Party
This is how the US military would put down an armed rebellion. The seem to have several presumptions that I don’t know would hold up. I’m guessing that sort of uprising would be less inclined to take and hold a location.
August 22nd, 2016 at 5:53 pm
Notice the rhetoric.
That’s exactly the kind of language that would be used to justify military action against white American citizens–it would never be used against the Nation of Islam or the New Black Panthers.
And the facts on the ground wouldn’t matter a bit; that rhetoric would be used anyway.
August 22nd, 2016 at 7:24 pm
The Army might well reduce the checkpoints…but not without terrible casualties on both side.
The only way they could do so without loss of life on the army’s side would be missiles or artillery….and that wouldn’t play well on TV, would it?
Same with clearing the city. House to House woul be very ugly. Likely even worse than fallujah…
August 22nd, 2016 at 7:51 pm
The Army would never even see a rebel. Smart 4 gen fighters don’t take on military formations.
For the hipster with an Obama sticker on his car, said rebel will be the last thing he sees.
August 22nd, 2016 at 7:59 pm
Yeah, I think their threat assessment is off in the first place. I don’t think the resistance they would see would look like they assume. The article is based on the assumption that “militias” would just stand up and block roads and fight toe-to-toe…never happen that way. Would be more along the lines of a Vietnam or Afghanistan style insurgency…just the type of war the US has never managed to win in the long term. Individual fights, yes. But then we get tired of it and go home. In the end, the governing elites and their military and police would ensconce themselves in relatively safe urban centers, and abandon much of the ungovernable flyover country.
August 22nd, 2016 at 9:31 pm
Oh, well that’s all just so neat and tidy, isn’t it. Uh…
The governor doesn’t call out the National Guard for fear they’d side with the militiamen.
[…]
The executive branch first calls the state National Guard to federal service.
Okay then. And, …a part or class of citizens are deprived of Constitutional rights. So, where’s the part when it’s the govt. doing the deprivation?
I wonder what they’d do if the local population didn’t want to be “liberated”.
August 22nd, 2016 at 9:39 pm
They shut down the comments at the SWJ because the decent was “irrational”. This tells me that the writers, if in charge of the op, would certainly lose. Not bright, look at all the intel they never received. Pity.
August 22nd, 2016 at 11:59 pm
What we’re more likely to see in this country is not revolution, but devolution. Entire states and counties refusing to enforce federal law and refusing to cooperate with federal LE. A new AWB would have zero, or near zero, percent compliance in every southern and western state.
August 23rd, 2016 at 12:46 am
We send out a squad and we never see them again.
We send out a company and they never see anything.
August 23rd, 2016 at 8:56 am
I’d like to emphasize what Kristophr said: It’s simply bad tactics to engage a conventional military formation who has overwhelming force and technology on their own terms. It goes against every thing every serious author of guerrilla warfare has written for hundreds if not thousands of years.
I mean, look at Iraq and Afghanistan. We still haven’t completely pacified either, and we were able to use tactics and weapons that wouldn’t be acceptable to use in the United States. That’s because they don’t fight unless they have a complete advantage.
August 23rd, 2016 at 8:57 am
I should also point out my adage: You don’t have to be able to win, you just have to make it too expensive for the other side to win.
August 23rd, 2016 at 9:07 am
Any US insurgencies biggest enemy would be the NSA. How do they communicate without being monitored? Would they even know they’re being monitored?
August 23rd, 2016 at 9:55 am
Well, if it is the Tea Party the military is sent against, at least the battleground will be nice and tidy when everything is finished.
August 23rd, 2016 at 12:12 pm
The military is planning to fight the last war.
This is my shocked face.
The reality is, the army would be forced to either bomb the checkpoints, or take them with infantry.
If they bomb them, they take the full force of American bodies on the news from the 1/4 mile away hidden camera. If they take it by infantry, they take the full force of the assault being filmed by the same camera — and then the lost face of seeing the infantry they sent blown up by the IED the insurgents planted at the checkpoint and triggered from the camera site.
Either way, the military pays far more for the checkpoint than the insurgents.
Then, they move past the checkpoints and into the town. As they fight their way in, they encounter IED after IED (which the rebels blame on them blowing buildings up rather than clearing them) and finally “rescue” the corpses of the executed politicians.
How do you justify doing the same thing the next time in the NEXT town to do it in a month or two? More importantly, how do you get the politicians there to resist it after how you “rescued” the last ones?
August 23rd, 2016 at 4:37 pm
Anyone who’s planning on fighting American citizens on their own turf would do well to remember this quote;
“We cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto