if an armed conflict does start here, and then it broadens, and then 10 years later youre reading about it in a history text book…
Is the term civil war going to be used?
Or will we all agree to call it the special military and police action to quell an illegal use of force by rogue and criminal elements within the united states government?
This is a very big if, and really only makes sense as a possibility to people who don’t understand how the military is organized in the US.
The group which denied US Border Patrol agents access to Shelby Park was the Texas Army National Guard. While it’s true that they have Texas in the name and are mostly recruited locally, all Army National Guard units are components of the US (federal) Army, regardless of which state they are based in. This means that they are part of the executive branch of government under the DoD. They are a US Army unit that is stationed in Texas, not a Texas Army unit that cooperates with the US government. While they can be given orders by their local state governor, they answer to the Chief of Staff of the Army (General Randy A. George) and ultimately to the Commander in Chief (President Joe Biden).
USBP is part of US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which is also part of the executive branch of the US government under the Department of Homeland Security, which again ultimately answers to the president.
So, if an armed conflict did occur here it would genuinely be a civil war. It would mean that a component of the US federal military (DoD) was firing on the staff of a US federal agency (DoHS). At that point it doesn’t matter who ordered them to do it, it’s literally the federal government shooting at itself.
There is no chance that the commander of the Texas National Guard unit would order their soldiers to fire on federal agents unless they’re a complete idiot. They would be immediately ordered to stand down by whoever their superior is in the regular US Army, and then removed from command. Defiance of that would literally mean rebellion within the US Army, and probably open warfare. This is extremely unlikely. They might talk big, but Texas is in no way prepared to start a conflict with the US at large.
There is no chance that the commander of the Texas National Guard unit would order their soldiers to fire on federal agents unless they’re a complete idiot.
So uh, this can’t happen because it would be dumb if it did.
I agree it would be dumb if it happened.
Doesn’t mean it can’t.
Doesn’t mean the situation is not a powder keg, doesn’t mean that if basically one exceptionally stupid command, conflicting with a far less stupid command from another authority, is acted on, it could escalate rapidly.
Again, these kinds of /which authority will be recognized in case of conflicting commands, by which individual commanders and sometimes even soldiers/ are a defining element of civil conflicts around the world throughout history, and they are simply not predictable at an individual basis when in an extremely polarized, tense and complex situation.
Your argument is basically just: this would be dumb if it happened, so its unlikely/impossible.
Again, yep, itd be dumb.
Again, viewed through a lense of history of civil conflicts, especially a Chinese lense, it actually certainly qualifies as a very obvious situation to be highly concerned about.
The comparison with Ukraine and Russia was not chosen because the similarities of the situation leading up to armed conflict, but simply to illustrate that a lot of people can believe an armed conflict would not happen because it would be dumb if it did, and also to provide an example that sometimes, in war, surprises can happen that astound even the experts, as well as the general public.
Doesn’t mean the situation is not a powder keg, doesn’t mean that if basically one exceptionally stupid command, conflicting with a far less stupid command from another authority, is acted on, it could escalate rapidly.
I get your cynicism, but hasn’t this kinda been the global situation since nuclear armament? And yet here we are nearly a century later. We may be pretty dumb as a species, but we’re surprisingly good at not intentionally setting off those powder kegs when were standing right next to them.
I dont really know what to say other than, no, historically we are very, very good at accidentally /as well as intentionally/ setting off metaphorical powder kegs, in situations where large segments of the population believes in the inherent stability of society, either ignorant of or in spite of actual history.
Specifically in regards to cold war era nuclear weapons… beyond the cuban missile crisis having, very, very easily gone out of control, take some time and look up the numerous instances where, due to basically either an overzealous command being issued, or a rational decision being made with imperfect information led to an actual order to use a nuclear weapon that was actually stymied by a single individual disobeying a direct command.
Or look at the numerous instances that basically a mechanical failure, intelligence failure, maintenance failure, something like that, led to a nuclear weapon basically being accidentally used, where it was basically down to dumb luck that further failures, or heroic actions from unsung heroes, prevented a nuclear blast from going off that could have easily spiraled into a full fledged nuclear exchange.
But more to the actual point of discussion: Saying that nukes exist and we have not obliterated each other yet, so that implies that a totally different scenario with totally different relevant factors at play is not likely to result in a mass armed civil conflict of some kind… thats basically not even a useful analogy.
EDIT: also for what its worth, im not the one who downvoted you. I generally only downvote people who are extremely abusive or very obviously unable to actually understand the words people say and then also refuse to understand them when explained another way, things like that, at least in the context of fairly serious and complex topic like this.
I actually think its more important that people be able to have a genuine discussion involving disagreement, and also for others to view such discussions, than it is to be angry and downvote some words i dont agree with, but seem to be written in good faith.
This is a very big if, and really only makes sense as a possibility to people who don’t understand how the military is organized in the US.
The group which denied US Border Patrol agents access to Shelby Park was the Texas Army National Guard. While it’s true that they have Texas in the name and are mostly recruited locally, all Army National Guard units are components of the US (federal) Army, regardless of which state they are based in. This means that they are part of the executive branch of government under the DoD. They are a US Army unit that is stationed in Texas, not a Texas Army unit that cooperates with the US government. While they can be given orders by their local state governor, they answer to the Chief of Staff of the Army (General Randy A. George) and ultimately to the Commander in Chief (President Joe Biden).
USBP is part of US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which is also part of the executive branch of the US government under the Department of Homeland Security, which again ultimately answers to the president.
So, if an armed conflict did occur here it would genuinely be a civil war. It would mean that a component of the US federal military (DoD) was firing on the staff of a US federal agency (DoHS). At that point it doesn’t matter who ordered them to do it, it’s literally the federal government shooting at itself.
There is no chance that the commander of the Texas National Guard unit would order their soldiers to fire on federal agents unless they’re a complete idiot. They would be immediately ordered to stand down by whoever their superior is in the regular US Army, and then removed from command. Defiance of that would literally mean rebellion within the US Army, and probably open warfare. This is extremely unlikely. They might talk big, but Texas is in no way prepared to start a conflict with the US at large.
The comparison with Ukraine is asinine.
Yes, I am aware of all of this.
Here’s the crux of your argument:
So uh, this can’t happen because it would be dumb if it did.
I agree it would be dumb if it happened.
Doesn’t mean it can’t.
Doesn’t mean the situation is not a powder keg, doesn’t mean that if basically one exceptionally stupid command, conflicting with a far less stupid command from another authority, is acted on, it could escalate rapidly.
Again, these kinds of /which authority will be recognized in case of conflicting commands, by which individual commanders and sometimes even soldiers/ are a defining element of civil conflicts around the world throughout history, and they are simply not predictable at an individual basis when in an extremely polarized, tense and complex situation.
Your argument is basically just: this would be dumb if it happened, so its unlikely/impossible.
Again, yep, itd be dumb.
Again, viewed through a lense of history of civil conflicts, especially a Chinese lense, it actually certainly qualifies as a very obvious situation to be highly concerned about.
The comparison with Ukraine and Russia was not chosen because the similarities of the situation leading up to armed conflict, but simply to illustrate that a lot of people can believe an armed conflict would not happen because it would be dumb if it did, and also to provide an example that sometimes, in war, surprises can happen that astound even the experts, as well as the general public.
I get your cynicism, but hasn’t this kinda been the global situation since nuclear armament? And yet here we are nearly a century later. We may be pretty dumb as a species, but we’re surprisingly good at not intentionally setting off those powder kegs when were standing right next to them.
I dont really know what to say other than, no, historically we are very, very good at accidentally /as well as intentionally/ setting off metaphorical powder kegs, in situations where large segments of the population believes in the inherent stability of society, either ignorant of or in spite of actual history.
Specifically in regards to cold war era nuclear weapons… beyond the cuban missile crisis having, very, very easily gone out of control, take some time and look up the numerous instances where, due to basically either an overzealous command being issued, or a rational decision being made with imperfect information led to an actual order to use a nuclear weapon that was actually stymied by a single individual disobeying a direct command.
Or look at the numerous instances that basically a mechanical failure, intelligence failure, maintenance failure, something like that, led to a nuclear weapon basically being accidentally used, where it was basically down to dumb luck that further failures, or heroic actions from unsung heroes, prevented a nuclear blast from going off that could have easily spiraled into a full fledged nuclear exchange.
But more to the actual point of discussion: Saying that nukes exist and we have not obliterated each other yet, so that implies that a totally different scenario with totally different relevant factors at play is not likely to result in a mass armed civil conflict of some kind… thats basically not even a useful analogy.
EDIT: also for what its worth, im not the one who downvoted you. I generally only downvote people who are extremely abusive or very obviously unable to actually understand the words people say and then also refuse to understand them when explained another way, things like that, at least in the context of fairly serious and complex topic like this.
I actually think its more important that people be able to have a genuine discussion involving disagreement, and also for others to view such discussions, than it is to be angry and downvote some words i dont agree with, but seem to be written in good faith.