Quote:
Originally Posted by tjinaz
Quite a few assumptions.
First of all you assume the military would blindly follow these orders. I can assure you they would not. The vast majority of the military and I can say from experience 90% of the combat arms and 99.999% of the special ops community are the exact type of people that would be extremely sympathetic to these "insurgents". Not only would they likely not execute these orders, they would more likely to join the rebellion and take all their toys with them.
The nature of Insurgency is as Mao put it "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea." Look at the break down politically of the US. The gun control crowd controls urban centers and the coasts. Those are their allies. The rest are fairly solidly red states that would harbor and breed insurgents. Where does the food come from? Where does the power come from? Where does the oil come from? Just like A-stan, nearly the entire heartland of the US would be equivalent of Kandahar. You say the US has an infrastructure that is advantageous to the military. I disagree. If there were an insurgency they would have to garrison and patrol thousands of miles of powerlines, rail lines, power plants, dams, canals, water treatment facilites where the vast majority of the geographic areas contain civilians that are at best compliant, at worst openly hostile.
You are correct about the tools though but you also forget the insurgents have a much better tool set as well. Does you average tribesman have access to sophisticated encryption technology and the vast communication networks the average american does. The crypto is so advanced now brute force breaking of AES 256 is listed at over a billion years with a super computer. Its how all the banking is kept secure. I can send messages to anyone I know with this technology and without a key the military can't even break it. Sure the NSA snoops it but most people don't bother to encrypt.
Would they? As stated earlier the vast majority of the US military and the ground pounders in particular would either be the insurgents or be sympathetic to them. These are the very people that train guerillas world wide. The Insurgency/Counter insurgency experts would be aligned with the local resistance against the government. The Escuela de las Americas would have a whole new meaning but would be equally as ruthless. Hell it might even still be at Benning turning out rebels.
Bottom line is this. Did you see the liberals lining up at the recruiting office when 9-11 happened? Not so much. The vast majority of the ground pounders are red staters that were eager to fight and possibly die for their cause. You could make the same technology argument in 1776. The British had cannons, frigates, where the Americans had hunting rifles. The time and technology have changed but the root of who wins and loses hasn't. You can have all the drones, jets and tanks in the world but unless you can target them on only insurgents it will just feed it. What commander will publish that order when there is the possibility of a veteran Joe 6 pack rebel who isn't afraid to die that knows where he lives and who his family is.
|
You too are making quite a few assumptions. If no one will heed the orders, what are you so afraid of?
Liberal leaders who promote gun control are sympathetic or are allied with an authoritarian government that will assault it's people?
The "ground pounders" may have been somewhat more "red", but that has far more to do with economic reasons than valor. Poor people go to war. It's an unfortunate fact