Uncivil War

Uncivil War

by Marco M. Pardi

“I sometimes think of what future historians will say of us. A single sentence will suffice for modern man: he fornicated and read the papers.” Albert Camus

“You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone.” Al Capone

All comments are welcome and will receive a reply. All previous posts are open for comment.

———————————————————————————–

Although mainstream newspapers are gaining ascendancy on the Endangered Media List, they are daring to discuss the increasing talk of coming civil war in the United States. Whether anyone is bothering to read them is another topic.

When, in the late 1940’s, my family and I settled in the United States we lived, almost literally, on the shores of Lake Erie in northern Ohio. Canada was of far more relevance to me than the steaming, insect infested South. But a few years into school I learned of the American Civil War. I did not find that war meaningful to me, it having happened decades earlier mostly in a land, the South, I had never seen and which held no interest. We had just come from years in the cauldron of World War II Europe. I still think of the Civil War in those distant terms, even though I have lived in different parts of the South, as I do now.

Coming to the South I heard of the War by other names: The War Between the States (logical only if you accept the idea of two opposing monolithic blocs); and, The War of Northern Aggression (acceptable only if you overlook the South’s opening attack on Fort Sumter). But by whatever name it was not as clear cut as most of the participants and the simplistic history books would have it. Although literacy rates were higher in Northern urban areas, the common soldiers on both sides were largely illiterate to semi-literate, often barely able to sign their names to their pay stubs. They had none to limited access to newspapers, no radio, no television, and no internet. The soldiers of the North, dressed in blue, knew they should shoot the soldiers of the South, dressed in gray. And vice versa. A core belief about the cause of the war was the enforcement of the abolition of slavery. But few could foresee the enormous ramifications such a cause would bring.

Indeed, the American Civil War was fought mainly in the agricultural South, and when it was over and the slaves were freed the farmers and plantation owners found their fields and crops devastated and themselves without the money to pay labor which had, up to that time, been largely cost free. Many of the former slaves, finding themselves unable to secure paid jobs, moved to the North. In doing so they fell prey to the Robber – Barons, the “Captains of the Industrial Revolution”, who quickly exploited their desperation for work by hiring them into jobs that were little more than the slave labor from which they had just been freed. Add to that the reluctance of many Northern employers to hire immigrants, White or Black, obviously – one indicator was their dialectical speech – from the South.

But for the most part the Civil War was clarified by more than the color of the uniforms: Speech patterns, comparative levels of education, exposure to other cultures, definite geographic identity, and likely socio-economic futures presented clear demarcations. These demarcations have now become blurred to non-existent in the subsequent decades. While election cycles thrive on the depictions of “Blue States” and “Red States” and political parties gerrymander districts to gain election advantages, it remains quite true that you do not know your neighbor’s political orientation until you ask. If you dare ask.

A few posts ago I wrote of a road trip to rural North Georgia during which I saw a multitude of Trump signs, guns for sale signs, and indications from other people that my Covid mask was a political statement. Local candidates for political office devoted more space to their allegiance to Trump than to any positions they would take on issues of local concern. But while it is easy, even amusing, to paint these people with a single broad brush, that would be a serious error. The obvious demarcations evident in the North versus South conflict do not apply.

Yet, there is increasing “chatter” on social media sites and right wing “news” channels, which are blatantly propaganda outlets, about a coming “civil war”. Readers of my column are aware that I have some background in counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism. And it is this background which has me wondering just how such an event would take place. A journalist addresses the classic question such as: Who, What, When, Where, and Why. I would add How. Many mainstream commentators are referring to the January 6^th attack as Insurrection; and, many factions, such as Trumpists and anti-vaxxers are referring to it as a “great success”. Aside from a damaged building and injured and dead people, how was it a success? Do they see it as their Fort Sumter?

Counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism specialists examine and assess intelligence which provides insights into such factors as Short and Long Term Capability; Internal Cohesion; Liaison With and Ability to Link with Other Groups; Logistics and Support Capability; and, Assumed Tactical Outcomes in Service to Strategic Goals. Countering insurgents or terrorists requires thinking like an insurgent or a terrorist; thus, when they do what you have expected and have prepared for they are far easier to excarnate.

Many people think only of the act, not the atmosphere of resources which must support the act. In explaining the inner workings of an agency for which I worked I used the example of an aircraft carrier. The mention of that term brings visions of fighter pilots flying off a deck into action. Yet a carrier is a floating city, with cooks, clerks, supply personnel, navigators, communicators, medical personnel, mechanics, plumbers, and a host of other career fields that will never touch an aircraft. In the same way an insurgency requires a broad foundation composed of a variety of human and material resources; terrorist cells less so, but still in need of support.

With this firmly in mind I would conclude that talk of civil war is the hyperbolic venting of fantasy. Yes, 74 million people voted to re-elect Trump. But the likelihood that even a tiny fraction of that number would knowingly participate in some form in an insurgency is vanishingly small. Yes, gun ownership, membership in “militias” or some other Army-Navy store dress up and play groups, and membership in science rejecting religions accounts for troubling numbers. But I strongly suspect two elements are at play here: The people who talk the loudest are the least likely to show up in the face of danger (consider Trump inciting a mob on January 6^th with assurances that he would march on the Capitol with them. He then ran and hid in the White House and watched the mob on television). And, this is most troubling, I strongly suspect the most virulent talk of civil war is coming from outside entities, such as Russia, China, and Iran, which have a vested interest in seeing this country tear itself apart. Unlike the men who rushed to don the Blue or the Gray, people across this country have access to mass media and social media in many forms and our external adversaries are masters of these resources. Perhaps our war efforts should be more focused on countering ignorance, the actual foundation of the social and political choices people make.

At the Presidential inauguration of Joe Biden a young Black woman, a stunningly brilliant poet, delivered her poem, “The Hill We Climb”. Quoting salient points, she said, “We braved the belly of the beast……We’ve learned that quiet isn’t always peace….Somehow we’ve weathered and witnessed a nation that isn’t broken, but simply unfinished.”