In fact, they’re widely enough shared that some Americans believe the US government has, in fact, put military contingency plans into effect should the results of the election rile up extremists on the losing side.
Those concerns were fueled earlier this month when Col. Kevin Benson of the US Army's University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., published a theoretical paper in "Small Wars Journal" positing the response of the US government to an extremist militia fueled by tea party sentiments taking control of Darlington, S.C.
Thanks to a stubbornly poor economy and philosophical – some would say foundational – high stakes apparent in the presidential election, it’s clear from political blogs, letters to the editor, and word on the street that tensions are running high in the country, and that extends to politics. The recent shooting of a guard at the conservative Family Research Council by a gay rights activist supports that.
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/could-obama-re-election-incite-us-civil-war
Now this is the kind of fantasy that you also saw before the first civil war. I refuse to copy and paste, but this is from Whistle Blower Magazine. I just add it into the zeitgeist and environment we are at. As they say a marker. Yes, they have been saying this crap since Clinton got elected, but they have gotten far more strident. Secession is now openly talked about. THis is a marker.
Suffice it to say, the Editor of this mag is Farrah. But the title is suggestive of zeitgeist.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/the-tipping-point/
Then there is this Judge in Texas, a man sitting on the bench, who is ready to prepare for secession.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/08/22/texas-county-prepares-for-civil-war-after-obamas-re-election/
(I should add two local ones, one running for office who holds strange anti government views for somebody who wants to get on the bench, and another that got on the bench)
Now into the academic, here we go
http://www.die-gdi.de/CMS-Homepage/openwebcms3.nsf/(ynDK_contentByKey)/ANES-8G2GNY/$FILE/DP%208.2011.pdf
Then there is this on the origins of civil war, that actually match what I found debriefing people decades ago.
Typically rebellions do start with a small group of rebels and then swell to large, self-sustaining
organisations that require finance and some ‘glue’ to hold them together.
The initial motivation
to rebel is the centre of much controversy and a lot of the discourse has been based on the ‘greed
versus grievance’ debate.
Invariably, rebel leaders provide an account of motivation in terms of
common interests. The need to address grievances due to religion, ethnicity or class is commonly
cited as joint interests that motivates rebellion.
http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~mrgarfin/OUP/papers/Hoeffler.pdf
This is but a small example of things I found just from looking (again) at the subject.
Also, this is a personal observation, linguistically the language of civil war and it's inevitability is already here. That is not good news, in fact, that is very bad news.
Not only are we seeing this in places like DU (Ok it is a bloging site) or FR, but that add from Chris Mathews. "A cvil war that never ends" is very much part of it.
But I have found that for the most part this is now a verbotten subject in this place. I have to conclude that perhaps it's too late to stop it. For the record, I hope I am not just wrong, but dead wrong. I will say it again, despite all the fantasies that now BOTH SIDES hold, there is no honor or glory in war, just death and stench of death.
= new reply since forum marked as read
