Wars generate right wing militias. The pattern is always the same.

Moreso, wars that are lost. Moreso, unjust wars that are lost.

I recently read the novel „The Shakal“ of Frederick Forsythe. The very short summary of the plot, which is based on a true story, is: The elected leader of France, Charles De Gaulle, decides to end the bloody occupation of the former colony Algeria. A group of radical nationalists, mostly veterans of the Algerian war, decide that this is treason and plot to kill him.

Wherever there is traumatized people coming home from a war, there will always be some that think their sacrifices are not being honored enough. And some sacrifices, no amount of honoring can make up for. And if the war is going badly, there will always be those who blame the leadership for not being determined enough towards victory. Throw in some bad economic times and you have the perfect condition for far right extremism to breed.

This is what happened in Germany after the first world war. A right wing militia, composed of veterans of the first world war who felt that democracy had failed them, managed to rise to power, essentially by appealing to the sentiment that someone had to be blamed for losing the war. Someone must have backstabbed the troops, otherwise they would not have lost.

I think ultimately, this is at the heart of the right wing militias in the United States as well. Someone here has pointed out that it all started during the Vietnam war. I think this is very plausible. There are still many people in this country who think that our elected leaders where not determined enough to destroy the North Vietnamese. Those people have still not laid the topic to rest. And now you have a new generation of people who were promised a cake walk in Iraq and Afghanistan, that turned out to be not such a cake walk after all, and are very pissed about it and looking for someone to blame.

I think this is an important thing to realize. I do not want to judge these people for their frustration, I think in many ways this is an understandable reaction. And it is not in any way specific to the US. I think this happens very often under such circumstances. Once you get caught in a fight you cannot win, it becomes hard to admit defeat. Kind of like when people cannot stop gambling, because they think they can re-win what they have lost.

from world history.

Does shed more some light on the busch/chainey/rove era and their long term plans for the repubicon tea-party though.

Thanks for the analysis.

during the Clinton administration.

In this country, Democratic success breeds right-wing militia activity.

There were veterans coming home from Bush's wars for 6-7 years after Afghanistan and Iraq began. No militias to speak of. They sprung full blown from the head of Medusa when a black Democrat became president.

I'm not saying such things are immediate. I am saying that it contributes to the over all climate.

I was going to type a similar response until I read yours.

The mainstream right supported him, because he managed to appeal to their nationalism. There was however, also a far right sector that thought
he was "sissy footing" around in Iraq.

Always has been, always will be. Having survived another winter, what are over-testosteroned young men to do in spring, but pull out weapons and kill each other? Civilization is all about suppressing that urge, and right wingers are all about using it to steal more loot, land and slaves.

I say we put all the militias, skinheads, Nazis, and xenophobes in a huge cage on Hitler's birthday and let them have at it. Keep throwing weapons in until there is one man left standing -- then shoot him.