A Civil Debate About A Civil War
The purpose of the Carolina Political Review, as I've written before, is to foster a dialogue between disparate groups of people and, above all, elevate the conversation. We don't have much civil discourse these days, especially online, so to have the CPR host reasonable conversations is ideal.
In the wake of our latest string of gun debates, much has been made about whether certain people would want to ban and confiscate certain classes of firearms. Whether or not that is a desirable, plausible or constitutional remedy to our current plight is certainly debatable. Debatable in that its merits could be compared to its demerits, but also in that it would just be a rhetorical exercise. The prospect of these United States repealing the Second Amendment, for example, is incalculably small. Nonetheless, it's a conversation worth having, and the CPR has done just that.
Enter Ethan Peikes. Peikes wrote a piece for us earlier this week where he takes the position that, in the case of a conflict arising from gun confiscation, your rural militia is done for. Given the technique and training, not to mention the vast resources and capabilities, the United States military seems to be a Goliath in comparison to bands of citizen armies.
The next day, Will Rierson submitted a response to the Peikes article. In it, he presents a different perspective. He considers that most of the men and women within the armed forces would likely sympathize with the rebels, as it were, and would divide into pro-and-anti-government factions. Beyond that, he cites the difficulty our military has in facing guerrilla groups, such as the case was in Vietnam and is in Afghanistan.
Finally, Chris Donahue offered a different perspective on some of the Rierson points. He suggested that the military industrial complex would take more interest in self-preservation, and wondered how the factions within the country might differ than in the Rierson scenario. He also proposed that the government would find ways to divide the insurgencies using propaganda, and that the parallels between a civil war and guerrilla warfare in foreign nations are not as clear, with the primary difference being "the desperation of an all out war for survival."
There may be more to come, but I have found the past two days to be intriguing and engaging. This demonstrates the exact nature of the Carolina Political Review and what it ought to stand for. I hope that conversations like these can continue in the future.