President Obama quoted Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address in his election victory speech: "We are not enemies, but friends..." He (Lincoln) was not speaking to the men who had cynically or ignorantly already taken up arms against their country to continue a gruesome tradition of murder and captivity, but to their children and their children's children, whose birthright as Americans he would ultimately give his own life to defend.
Whether President Obama was merely associating himself with another famous leader from Illinois, and one beloved by African Americans, or if he also saw deeper parallels in the trajectory of events, one cannot deny an eerie sense of foreboding when hearing his words in the context of ever-bolder right-wing calls to violence and treason. In the context of institutions that have tasted absolute power only to have it suddenly revoked; of fanatics denied the violent crescendo of their deepest yearning for generations; of a media that spirals ever further from reality into right-wing psychosis; America is on a collision course with forces that it has failed to adequately confront in the past.
Disclaimer: This is my opinion - it is not the work of a professional researcher.
Background
If you wish, you may want to review my discussion of the nature of extremism to understand my basis for these scenarios. It's an involved diary, and not essential to this one, but you may find it useful.
Without going into the same level of detail, I will note (as others around here frequently do) that the right deals with failure by "doubling down." They responded to the failure of the Goldwater campaign - which was relatively honest in its portrayal of conservative intentions - by evolving the smear campaigns, dog whistles, outright lies, and divide-and-conquer tactics that have since become staples of Republican politics. The Gingrich "revolution," the Arkansas Project, the consolidation of media, the rise of militias, and the development of coordinated hate radio were all direct responses to the election, and especially re-election, of President Clinton. When one tactic failed to damage him, they would simply move on to something even more radical and outrageous.
Between 9/11 and the 2008 presidential election, the right has gotten nearly everything it wants, so they have not had to double-down again until relatively recently. Democrats who dared to say something were smacked down so hard they would instantly retreat, leading to complacency on the part of the GOP, and thus an assumption that Democrats retaking Congress in 2006 would not be disastrous for them. And they would probably have been right if not for Barack Hussein Obama, one of the most unimaginable presidential candidates from their perspective - mixed-race, apparently black, foreign-sounding name, liberal, Northerner, highly intellectual, a relative newcomer in the party hierarchy, name rhymes with "Osama" and middle name is the last name of a hated foreign enemy, etc. etc. One "Swiftboater" or "Willie Horton" ad and he would be finished.
When he utterly trounced them, annihilating multimillion-dollar propaganda initiatives with 15-minute speeches, they were Shocked and Awed for a time, but soon returned to form by doubling down: Lockstep refusal to vote for any aspect of his agenda, combined with direct encouragement of every hate-driven radical wingnut conspiracy theory. They believe this is having some level of effect, hence the repeated (and increasingly desperate) media proclamations that the public option is dead - events that are following an almost identical pattern to the media's treatment of the Obama campaign.
When real HCR is passed, despite all the hysteria and rage whipped up against it, they will double-down yet again, and we have already seen the shape of what that will look like. We have actual Congressmen saying things like "Obama has no place in our government," and he's an "enemy of humanity"; calls for murder and violent insurrection are widespread on the right; and the right-wing media has created an encysted alternate reality among its audience, where they literally believe that the very totalitarian conspiracies they unwittingly supported in the Bush regime are now being played out on the part of the administration that defeated them. The media is determined to enable these fringe elements, and the industries whose profits are threatened - in some cases, wealthier than the vast majority of sovereign countries - are increasingly supporting them.
It therefore borders on inevitable that at least one of the following scenarios will occur. I list them in descending order of apparent probability, which is fortunately also ascending order of catastrophe.
---
Scenario 1: McVeigh Plus
Casualties*: 3 to 4 figures
Scope: Several terrorist attacks on OKC level, dozens of smaller-scale attacks similar to abortion clinic bombings, acts of random murder against minorities and liberals by disturbed individuals, possibly some low-level political assassinations similar to the murder of Bill Gwatney.
Probability: 80%
*Does not include perpetrators in any scenario.
- Description
This would be the initial stage of every scenario but one triggered by military coup, which is why it's the most likely. While the details are less certain than the general nature, we can say with confidence that it would begin after the passage of health care reform with a strong public option, leading to a spasm of psychotic talk radio broadcasts claiming that martial law was imminent, and perhaps inventing stories that it had already begun. This would trigger borderline cases with violent tendencies and desperate personal circumstances to go on rampages. Likely targets would be blacks, Hispanics, Jews, law enforcement officers, gays, Democrats, liberals, and civil service employees.
Accompanying or following these rampage killings, which would usually result in the death or capture of the perpetrators, would be mail bombings, pipe bombs, and murders of a few low-level Democratic officials. As it would involve some degree of planning, large-scale bombings with significant casualties would occur weeks or months later, although attempts would probably occur earlier and fail due to big mouths or lack of operational competence. Several plots would likely fail when the would-be bombers blow themselves up.
- Geography
Geographically, targets of organized terrorism could be anywhere in the country, although actual attacks will likely be more concentrated in the interior and Deep South. Rampage killings would be less concentrated, but correlate more heavily with recent high levels of unemployment (as opposed to persistently high levels), and moderate political culture, increasing the exposure (and thus rage) of far-right individuals to the objects of their hatred. This will increase the likelihood of their being triggered to violence.
The biggest hot zone for rampage killings would include the deindustrialized Rust Belt and Midwestern states, with organized terrorism centered on the Bible Belt and Mountain states. Specific attacks might occur anywhere, but the operational and political base of the attackers would likely be in these regions. In the South, murders and attacks would likely have racial overtones, if not be directly motivated by racism, and would only partially overlap with activities elsewhere. They would be highly opportunistic in character, and probably have little relationship to what was going on in the rest of the country.
- Media
We can divide the media into three relevant zones, which I will refer to in each subsequent scenario: Journalism, controlled, and wingnut. Unfortunately, journalism is a very small component of the news media at present, and bloggers come nowhere near to replacing the function it once performed. The controlled media's coverage is always located at the exact center of the Overton Window, and ensures that movement is always to the right by only addressing centrists and far-right conservatives. The wingnut media is the direct fulcrum of militancy, whipping it up with steady doses of hatemongering, lies, and paranoid propaganda.
Journalists would report on how the Republican Party, controlled media, and wingnut media had created the climate that led to the violence, perhaps causing the few still employed by controlled media sources to be fired or frozen out of their organizations. They would still find coverage in the blogosphere, but would remain a minority voice.
The controlled media would play dumb, pretending that the murders and bombings were utterly inexplicable acts of strange and unknowable forces, but not-so-subtly hinting that Democrats were partly to blame for not doing more to please the right. They would spread this message by routinely having on far-right Republican guests who would promote it, while largely ignoring all but the most centrist Democrats. It would also be promoted by innuendo, with headlines like "Democrats to Blame?" followed ostensibly by "discussion" on the "question." False equivalency would also be ubiquitous, comparing deliberate acts of mass murder to Weather Underground bombings or animal rights radicalism. However, this would be self-defeating, causing most people to ignore them and accelerating the decline of the controlled media.
Wingnut media would at first overreach in its enthusiasm for the violent turn of events, and some would engage in criminally actionable broadcasts. These would result in expedient firings and perhaps prosecutions, but the rest would continue to locate themselves just short of saying anything that would result in consequences for them. Wrongful death lawsuits would probably occur, but would face uncertain prospects in the courts. Probability of violent retaliation by victims against wingnut media figures is low.
- Government / Law Enforcement / Military
The GOP has enough shallow gene pools in elected office that it's likely a handful of low-level political figures would respond to right-wing violence in ways that result in their forced resignation or impeachment. This would mostly occur on the state and local level, although a handful of US Congressmen have already gone so far overboard that it's plausible they would think such events gave them a platform to go even further when it would, in fact, require them to retreat. In general, the GOP would find itself on the defensive, but would continue with its innuendos implying that Democrats were partly responsible.
However, direct involvement by elected officials would be highly unlikely, although a few rare cases of individuals in local government or local law enforcement might be uncovered. The FBI would be all over them, and Congress would be politically compelled to allocate whatever resources were requested to facilitate their investigations. Only limited foot-dragging in Congress by Republicans would be feasible without becoming an electoral liability.
It is probable that terrorists would include people with military experience, and possibly a few cases of active duty personnel, but the likelihood of pervasive or high-level military involvement is very low. Stolen ordnance and weaponry being used in attacks is a possibility.
- Complications
Significant left-wing retaliation or opportunistic foreign attack is unlikely.
- Prognosis
If insurgency is halted at this scenario, prognosis is good. Even if phenomenon continues for several years, law enforcement effectiveness would continually increase while public tolerance of far-right politics would erode. Eventually key organizers would be captured, precipitating media elements would cease to be politically viable for their corporate sponsors, and the level of violence would recede back into the background noise. However, the potential for escalation cannot be predicted until the initial conditions are known.
---
Scenario 2: Al Qaeda Plus
Casualties: 4 to low 5 figures.
Scope: Terrorist guerrilla war, with a few 9/11-magnitude terrorist attacks (in terms of casualties, though not likely as visually dramatic) and/or a larger number of OKC-level attacks, routine small-scale attacks of varying lethality, some Waco-style sieges, highly organized disappearance, kidnapping, and assassination campaigns possibly reaching up to the federal level, de facto insurgent control in some areas but no explicit enemy control of territory.
Probability: 30%
- Description
This is unlikely to occur directly from the status quo, but would evolve from Scenario 1 if the initial conditions are ripe for it. Particularly, if there is a high level of simultaneous, opportunistic violence coupled with the emergence of a heavily organized and competent militant movement, law enforcement on the local, state, and federal level might be temporarily overwhelmed in some parts of the country, allowing attacks to be much more brazen and deadly.
The same violence occurring in Scenario 1 would also occur in Scenario 2, but with much higher frequency, higher body counts, and in a geographically larger part of the country. It would be large enough in scope and resources to effectively terrorize local and state governments, cause some areas to become essentially lawless, and result in a significant level of migration out of those areas. Although attacks would be organized in these areas, they would occur throughout the country, resulting in a climate of fear in large cities. They would also inspire a large number of copycats and local wannabes, which would greatly increase the overall level of violence.
- Geography
Culturally centered in low-population Midwestern states, the encroachment of law enforcement would eventually result in insurgent locations increasingly being limited to Southern and Appalachian wilderness areas, and very remote Rocky Mountain locations. Despite modern technology, these wildernesses remain far too large and concealed to practically search for small groups of people who know how to hide. They would command a high degree of loyalty from local populations in these regions, and enforce it with murder.
Local governments would be effectively under insurgent control, although most would make a pretense of cooperation with federal authorities if pressed. We could expect to see "purges" occur, with city council members, mayors, law enforcement officers, county bureaucrats, local residents, judges, and possibly state officials being murdered or disappeared if they're suspected of cooperation, or if they're just not enthusiastic enough for the insurgent agenda. The native cultures in these regions already cause most people who aren't on board with the right to shut their mouths, so terrorism would be very effective in enforcing silence among decent people.
We could also expect low-tech mass murders occurring in the style of the Mumbai attacks - groups of gunmen trapping large numbers of people and massacres ensuing. Given the historical context, I think it highly likely that black churches (with their congregations in them) would be among the targets in the South.
- Media
Two factors would determine the media's behavior in this scenario: Public and government response to their treatment of Scenario 1, and their reaction to being targeted when the insurgents don't like their coverage. If there are minimal or no consequences for sources that promote terrorist propaganda, it would likely become more pervasive and egregious in this scenario.
Assassinations and kidnappings of Journalists who objectively cover events would be likely, resulting in many choosing not to cover it, while others might feel compelled to accept security that hampers their work. There would occasionally be brilliant work, but probably bought at a high price.
Controlled media would become a platform for spreading propaganda, both because the fear it inspires would ratchet up viewership and because critical coverage would put themselves in danger. They would strive to "tell the other side of the story," and bemoan how "America" had failed in causing these people to become so "disenchanted." This would make average people feel like there was something mainstream about the terrorists, and make them more afraid to speak out.
Relying on the Supreme Court's "imminent action" standard of free speech, the wingnut media would openly endorse the aims of the terrorists and express sympathy for their "patriotism." Since they are not encouraging specific acts, some courts would acquit them of incitement, and attempts to shut them down and hold them accountable in court would be used as evidence by the rest of the wingnut media that "martial law" is in effect. Wrongful death lawsuits could result in the murder of plaintiffs, their attorneys, judges, or jurors if a decision is reached against the wingnut media figures and organizations being sued. Violent retaliation against wingnut media figures by victims and families is a significant possibility.
Public and government toleration of such broadcasts would erode over time, potentially endangering legitimate speech along with it. The media would greatly magnify the psychological effectiveness of terrorist attacks for the sake of sensationalism, leading some to wonder if the "fire in a crowded theater" doctrine applied.
- Government / Law Enforcement / Military
Incompetent wingnuts in the GOP would be progressively weeded out by their carelessness - publicly making statements sympathetic to the terrorists or appearing to blame the victims, being seen associating with suspected terrorists by law enforcement, etc. etc. Those who remain would be too clever to be caught so easily, and would be smart enough to publicly condemn violence even while engaging in innuendo against the government, liberals, Democrats, and other targeted populations. The Republican Party would begin to resemble Sinn Fein during periods of IRA violence, pretending remorse for victims while rationalizing the "plight" of their murderers.
Elections under this Scenario would be problematic in many areas, as violence against Democratic candidates, volunteers, and media sources would be likely. This would allow insurgents to insert chosen candidates in some local governments, state houses, courts, and sheriff's departments, as well as potentially taking seats in the US House and Senate. Terrorist attacks in retaliation for losing elections or the arrest of plants in government would also be plausible. The thorough takeover of government in a large, contiguous area might result in Scenario 3.
High probability of some level of law enforcement complicity or direct involvement on the local and state level, with some cases of plants in federal agencies. Accomplices would allow insurgents to operate with impunity, but would rarely participate in direct action themselves except to facilitate the crimes of others except in reliable strongholds where consequences would be unlikely.
Moderate probability that active military bases in some regions would be under the command of terrorist agents, who would likely have staffed the bases with officers also involved in insurgent activity. This would facilitate both the operational competence and logistical capability of their organization, but it would also be a source of exposure that they would eventually lose at great cost to their networks. Limited combat engagements are a significant possibility.
- Complications
There is a significant possibility of violent left-wing radicalism or vigilantism arising in response to insurgent activity, but on nowhere near the scale of the right-wing phenomenon. However, it would only increase the chaos and disruption, would be utterly ineffective at fighting insurgent forces, and would probably inspire sympathy for their enemies among borderline cases who are otherwise uneasy with the level of violence. It would also hand the insurgents propaganda, which they and sympathetic groups would interpret as confirmation of their paranoid fears.
Opportunistic foreign terrorist attacks would be unlikely, because domestic events would dilute their potency and people would be much less impressed. However, with the focus on internal events, it is probable that foreign governments would be more assertive in pushing their interests where such conflict with those of the United States. We would probably lose some ground economically and diplomatically, and brushfire conflicts abroad might arise in the knowledge that our attention is focused inward. Still, no significant foreign conflicts are likely to be triggered by this scenario.
- Prognosis
Chances for full long-term recovery are moderate if the insurgency goes no further than Scenario 2. The National Guard might be deployed in cases where insurgents had acted with impunity or the apparent complicity of local officials, possibly resulting in a few pitched battles. Insurgents who were most brazen would end up dead or captured, making them progressively more careful until they reverted back to Scenario 1 or a normal state, and meanwhile people would increasingly stop being afraid of them. They would also increasingly wear out their welcome in communities they come to dominate, as their monstrousness becomes apparent and shatters whatever heroic myths they would be promoting to win support.
However, if the federal government miscalculates in its response; or is too unprepared; or unforeseen disaster cripples them; or the insurgents have an unusually gifted leader, or are highly effective at allying themselves with wealthy interests, Scenario 3 becomes plausible.
---
Scenario 3: Gangrene
Casualties: 5 to low 6 figures
Scope: The same types of violence as occurs in Scenario 2, but more pervasively, with better organization, better leadership, more logistical support, and a few explicit state and local government takeovers that survive long enough to do significant damage, but not long enough to become entrenched.
Probability: 10%
- Description
Unlikely to occur directly from the status quo, but plausible as an evolution of Scenario 2. If insurgents are unimpressed with the initial federal response to their clandestine regional takeovers and terrorist attacks, some may decide to make it official and attempt to create a cloak of legitimacy for themselves by instituting "revolutionary governments" that issue edicts, proclaim death sentences in absentia, and hold kangaroo courts for kidnapped or captured enemies. If those who do so are not immediately crushed, others would probably follow suit in order to win their share of the "glory."
This sounds like a civil war, but would not really be so for this Scenario: The insurgents, while they would have significant local support in some areas, would not have voluntary majority support in most of the communities they would dominate and terrorize, and would not last long enough for the fighting to be considered civil war. Their ability to take over would be entirely a product of their resources, competence, and ruthlessness, and the weakness of those fighting them.
Mass-executions of racial and religious minorities, liberals, and anyone else who fights back would occur in the captured regions in the relatively short period of time in which the insurgents maintain control, resulting in most of the casualties, as would significant migrations into safer parts of the country.
In order to gain manpower and further incite chaos, insurgents might "liberate" prisons in regions under their control, gaining a large base of criminal expertise while inflicting significant numbers of dangerous people on the rest of the country who would then further tie up law enforcement resources capturing them. Seizure and sabotage of dams, bridges, airports, seaports, railroads, and highways would wreak further havoc and complicate federal efforts to operate in the area. This would be the first Scenario where outright military combat plays a significant role, although it isn't certain whether the Armed Forces or the National Guard would do the fighting.
- Geography
Which towns, counties, and cities would be explicitly seized would closely track the areas of heaviest insurgent activity in Scenario 2: Rural Bible Belt and Mountain towns. States dominated by monolithic industries (e.g., Alaska, Nevada) would either not be targeted, due perhaps to protection payments given to insurgents, or would be quickly rescued as more mainstream conservative interests would find the disruption unprofitable. Utah would also be immune due to cultural insularity, although Mormon radicals might use the opportunity to be more "assertive" in enforcing their religious codes in the state.
As this scenario describes an overreach by insurgents, the number of state takeovers would be small, although there might be any number of local ones. Potential state-level takeovers (likely only 2-3 of these): Kansas, Oklahoma, Montana, Arkansas, Idaho, Nebraska, Kentucky, Alabama. I would expect a lot of fighting to occur in Colorado and Tennessee, but I doubt that takeovers would occur except on the local level. Most attempts outside the low-population Bible Belt Midwest and Deep South would fail quickly and spectacularly.
- Media
The inclinations of the media would be as described in Scenario 2, but the American people would be furious at the armed seizure of territory from the United States and view it as a foreign phenomenon. Any hint of sympathy with the insurgents would be overwhelmingly met with outrage, and Republican leaders would have to be vociferous and convincing in their condemnations.
Ironically, declaring themselves openly would limit the ability of insurgents to project force into the rest of the country, compromising the effectiveness of their terrorist activities and intimidation tactics outside their zones of control. This would mean that controlled media in Scenario 3 would actually be less sympathetic, as it responds to an amoral calculation of consequences and the general public would be furious with the insurgency. Members of the Journalism part of the media would therefore have a much easier time of reporting objectively, although only the most intrepid would venture into captured territory.
Public fury and possibly FCC action would result in some wingnut media being shut down, some talk show hosts fired or toned down, and would open at least the vague possibility of RICO indictments against News Corp and/or Clear Channel. The media would then tone down the right-wing ideology of the insurgency and portray them as crazed yokels, or possibly even imply that they're hippies or anarchists rather than fascist militias and barbarian thugs. Public tolerance of the controlled media would run very thin, and vigilante violence against right-wing talk show hosts would be a possibility.
- Government / Law Enforcement / Military
Anyone in the national GOP who knew what they were doing would slap their foreheads in exasperation when the insurgents try to set up their own governments, and would go out of their way to pretend loyalty to the United States. Those who didn't would be hounded out of the government, and dumped by the Party as a matter of expediency. As they're Republicans, they would demonstrate this "loyalty" by trying to sound as hawkish and bloodthirsty as possible, demanding the complete extermination of the insurgents and executions for treason of anyone remotely associated with them.
They would try to turn their guilt around and claim that Democrats were somehow being "soft" on the insurgents, that treating the residents of towns under insurgent control as innocent countrymen rather than suspects is "endangering the country." In other words, they would emulate Andrew Johnson and make it all a symbolic issue about "treason" rather than defending people's rights and lives. Every act of murder and mayhem that their party had inspired, they would turn around and claim that liberals had caused it by insisting on civil liberties and obeying basic human rights. It would keep some of them in office, but it wouldn't fool the vast majority of Americans.
While the insurgency might begin with a significant level of law enforcement and low-level military complicity, the revelation of that complicity would lead to a high degree of scrutiny of police departments and military bases across the country, causing many plants being either captured or going to ground. In captured territories, however, complicit law enforcement and military might play a significant role in enforcing the edicts of the revolutionary governments (i.e., carrying out mass executions).
As this would involve open conflict, having control of a military base would be of little benefit to insurgents - it would be rapidly retaken and insurgent occupiers annihilated. Nevertheless, the ordnance from captured bases would likely have been disseminated by then, meaning that it could still do a lot of damage.
- Complications
Mob violence in large cities against entities associated with the insurgency would be probable, as would retaliatory violence by militant left-wing or minority groups - possibly against innocent people. Some left-wing radicals would also find the situation opportune to pursue their own idiosyncratic agendas at the expense of "the establishment," or "The Man," or "the system," or whatever other bullshit they spout. Ideological and religious kookery would proliferate.
While the US would be occupied for a few months taking out the insurgents, restoring some level of order and function to the regions they'd seized, and detailing all the horrors they left behind, China would probably make bold moves to extend and consolidate its economic hegemony and enable its military. There would probably be no opportunistic wars in this Scenario, although it's possible that miscalculations could occur and result in a war that we would have to pursue once order was restored internally.
- Prognosis
Provided this is as far as it goes, good to moderate - better than for Scenario 2. Because the insurgency has concentrated and revealed itself, society can more easily externalize it and defend against the fear it inspires. The wanton savagery of the insurgents would quickly destroy their political base, and their arrogance in trying to establish governments without that support would lead to their destruction much more quickly than they could be destroyed if they remained clandestine terrorists. People who might initially have been sympathetic would be happy to be rescued from them when US forces move in.
---
Scenario 4: Pearl Harbor
Casualties: Low 6 figures
Scope: Same as Scenario 3, but the United States is crippled or significantly delayed by preemptive strikes, allowing the insurgency to harden its positions, methodically exterminate opponents in captured territories, and begin to assemble institutions to promote its ideology before the US can mobilize an effective response.
Probability: 2%
- Description
This is civil war. It is an acute evolution of Scenario 2, where preemptive attacks on US infrastructure, law enforcement, government, and military precede open declarations of control by insurgents in captured regions. In the mild version, attacks would be exclusively terrorist / saboteur in nature, with no greater military or law enforcement complicity than in Scenario 2. Attacks would only be preemptive to explicit establishment of control, but terrorist activity on the level of Scenario 2 would already have been in effect for some time.
In the extreme case, preemptive strikes would include sleeper cells within the military, law enforcement, or various other government agencies activating and conducting massive attacks from the inside. Such attacks might be suicidal in nature, might involve seizure of territory or resources for the insurgency, or could be followed by attempts to rejoin and coordinate with the main body of insurgents. A range of possibilities exists between the mild and extreme cases, but the distinguishing characteristic of this Scenario is the planned crippling the government's ability to respond in the short-term.
The result of the preemptive strikes would be a delay of anywhere from weeks to months, and a weakening of the initial response once mobilized, giving insurgents time to thoroughly purge core territories of minorities and opponents and further attack US infrastructure. This would in turn allow them to extend their control outward into territories only marginally under their influence in Scenario 3, and give them time to become more organized both in offense and defense. Depending on how much time they gain, mass-kidnapping from borderlands for use as slave labor is a possibility, as insurgents themselves would have no interest in engaging in economically productive endeavors.
Sieges of a few large cities within or near captured territory are a possibility, preceded by seizure or destruction of water and power infrastructure, and control of roads leading into and out of town.
- Geography
Controlled territories would be an expanded version of those in Scenario 3, but with some outlier regions controlled by activated sleeper cells or seized by subsequent initiatives. The biggest geographical difference would be the extent of attacks outside the region of control, intended to cripple the United States. Water, power, transportation, and communications would be sabotaged to some degree on the Coasts and in large cities, and some significant cities outside insurgent territory might be captured.
This is the first scenario in which conflict would involve all-out war-fighting by the US Armed Forces, so American forces would have to be redeployed from overseas to coastal bases and make their way to the interior. That fact might be marginally complicated by sabotage of seaports, harbors, etc. If there are sleeper cells among commanders in overseas deployments, some level of intra-military combat might occur on foreign territory. Attempts to provoke foreign attack on forward-deployed American forces to pin them down overseas are also a possibility.
- Media
The media would likely be targeted for preemptive attack and corrupted by sleeper cells in order to disrupt the flow of information. Members of the Journalism side of the media would be primary targets - reporters and investigators of impeccable reputation with a history of filing in-depth reports on right-wing activity might be subject to assassination or kidnapping. Meanwhile, controlled media outlets might have their resources sabotaged, insurgents planted in management, or newsrooms physically taken over by militants and news reports dictated to confuse the government and public and buy more time.
Contents of false reports would be predictable, and predictably psychotic: "Shocking reports" that the government is committing widespread atrocities and rampaging all over the country, but is also utterly impotent and on the verge of collapse. Meanwhile, the heroic revolutionaries trying to restore freedom have "liberated" such-and-such, discovering piles of innocent victims and evidence of Satanic rituals being performed on them, etc. etc. This would all be reported in standard Faux-ese, of course, with profligate use of "allegedly" and "reportedly," along with other typical staples of innuendo, and insurgents would naturally assume this is ample cover. It would be laughably obvious to intelligent people, but would nevertheless sow significant confusion and chaos among the dull.
As the government would be initially crippled, wingnut media in the affected regions would go full-bore in favor of the insurgency and become instrumental as a source of operational communications. They would broadcast the instructions of the "revolutionary governments," report on the identities and addresses of enemies or suspected enemies for "patriotic listeners" in the area to kill, and whip up genocidal mobs against religious and racial minorities like in Rwanda. Most would do so willingly, although some might have a plausible case that insurgents forced them.
Some broadcasters outside captured territory might try to foment insurgent action and be arrested, but it's also possible that they would face mob vigilantism or "frontier justice" by overwhelmed local officials or retaliatory murder by victims of the onslaught.
- Government / Law Enforcement / Military
The conspiracy would not likely involve a lot of elected officials, but once the insurgency initially appears to have the upper-hand, significant numbers of elected Republicans would hop on the bandwagon. Goopers, however cunning on a tactical level, are usually not strategically bright, and would not look beyond immediate appearances - they would assume that because the US is temporarily in disarray that it's "on its last legs" and would leap at the chance to be overlords in the "new order."
Huge bribes would likely be paid to win their support. I would expect large numbers on the state and local level, fewer but still significant numbers of US Representatives, but few or no US Senators (as Senators are long-con types, not ones to leap at a quick buck). Insurgents would assume that this adds to their legitimacy, but it would do very little for them.
Corrupt members of law enforcement and the military who aren't already a a part of it would gravitate toward the insurgency, as would mercenaries - particularly Blackwater / Xe - resulting in enforcer gangs/militias having substantial training, experience, and skill in rooting out their enemies, combat, torture, and terrorism. It's possible that this would cause bureaucratic purges of conservatives and devoutly religious white people from law enforcement, military, and government as a precaution, potentially resulting in further defections.
Provided the core of the US government survives the initial attacks, which is assumed in this Scenario, NATO would be called upon. While some members would initially balk at the likely cost in lives and money to deal with an internal US matter, the issue of control of nuclear weapons would be enough to mobilize the alliance to a limited degree. Existing safeguards of America's nuclear arsenal are extremely formidable, but a compromised chain of command at high levels coupled with the possibility of insurgents seizing weapons sites or components would be sufficient reason to take the threat seriously.
However, we could also expect foreign mercenaries and arms traffickers to become involved, overwhelmingly on the side of insurgents (since they're hiring), which means that hostile foreign governments would have an incentive to fund or arm the insurgents in order to further destabilize the United States. While the doubtfulness of the conflict would cause hostile governments to maintain strict official neutrality, it would be a significant possibility that Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, and China would provide some level of clandestine support to insurgents, with the understanding that they would be "good for business" if they won.
- Complications
Mob violence, paranoia, cults, wanton criminality, and other consequences of social chaos would likely be pervasive in the free United States for a time, undermining the economic resources at our disposal and exacerbating existing hardship. Some level of left-wing radical terrorism against the affluent and businesses would be provoked by these conditions, and militant ethnic fragmentation in response to the racist character of the insurgency is a high probability. This would damage and delay attempts to unify the American people to fight the insurgency. Limits on civil liberties due to terrorism would also create complications.
Though some foreign governments would clandestinely support the insurgency, they would assure that their support was untraceable. However, everyone makes mistakes, and there is a possibility that definitive evidence of such support would be uncovered locally or delivered to the US by an allied intelligence agency. Should that occur, the most likely response would be a warning to cease all activities in support of the insurgency. If warnings failed to curtail the support, the US/NATO might begin taking direct actions against those countries, possibly escalating into war.
In the case of Russia or China, this would be an extremely delicate situation, as they would probably already be on high alert due to the potential compromise of the US nuclear arsenal. There is a small to moderate possibility that China would invade Taiwan and/or Russia take back some of its former Eurasian territories (e.g., Kazakhstan), counting on the US to be preoccupied for too long to intervene, and being willing to negotiate once matters settled down.
- Prognosis
Guarded. The possibility that the insurgents would win full control of the United States from this Scenario is low, barring improbably radical changes of circumstance. However, there is a significant possibility that major parts of the United States would descend into chaos, leaving no one in reliable control for any length of time, and potentially resulting in large numbers of additional casualties from starvation and lack of basic services.
If the resources and competence of the insurgency are large enough, their preemptive attacks effective enough, and the US weak enough, there is a nontrivial possibility of stalemate resulting in the de facto sovereignty of the fascist-occupied territories. This wouldn't necessarily be permanent, but it could last for years and result in untold suffering.
The greatest probability, however, is that the US would ultimately succeed in mobilizing, including NATO forces, and would eventually retake captured territories at whatever cost. Mass graves, killing fields, slave labor operations, and concentration camps would be uncovered in the "heartland" of the insurgency, although probably not a lot of paperwork since the "American" right prefers imperious verbal commands over bureaucracy. Victory would not be like in WW2 - there would be no one capable of absorbing the expense of rebuilding, so we would revert to a simpler, less powerful economic status, and the social traumas might never heal.
---
Scenario 5: Rubicon
Casualties: 7 to low 8 figures
Scope: Significant subversion of the military, intelligence, and law enforcement, including elements of the high command. Surprise coup attempt in Washington D.C. accompanied by partial media blackout and some level of planned insurgent activity throughout the country, along with unplanned occurrence of Scenario 2, 3, or 4-level insurgent activity in support of the attempt.
Probability: 1%
- Description
This is a family of scenarios where insurgent activity is accompanied or triggered by a military coup attempt with significant internal backing. It can begin from any lower Scenario, including the status quo, and there could be any level of coordination between events in D.C. and insurgent activities elsewhere in the country. Some of them would be directly part of the coup leaders' plans, while others would be opportunistic.
Military and intelligence leaders likely to side with the United States would probably be targeted for assassination in the initial stages of the coup, and borderline cases who are confronted and refuse to join would either be killed or imprisoned. Loyal forces would be distributed across the world, while conspirators would be exactly where they need to be for maximum effect.
A range of possibilities exists depending on the nature and success of the coup attempt. Conspirators would either attempt to assassinate US leaders or kidnap and hold them captive. While assassination would be a tremendous blow to the United States, it would also greatly limit the options of the conspirators and burn their bridges if events turned against them. This fact wouldn't stop fanatics, but a significantly-sized military coup would be a mixture of ideological and predatory elements, and the latter would be competent enough to see the operational and publicity advantages of holding high-level hostages. In that case, they wouldn't be called "hostages" - they would just be "detained," perhaps "for their own safety."
If they killed our leaders, we would eventually find new ones and be driven by a sense of grim rage and vengeance, but if they're being held captive our institutions would be confused and hesitant - it would take longer to figure out how to respond and organize a functioning chain of command, and meanwhile we would be undermined by the push-and-pull of our hopes and fears. A predatory mind in high military command would understand this, and likely plan for it. Meanwhile, as we are preoccupied with restoring the federal government in Washington, events like those described in lower scenarios could play out unchecked in the rest of the country.
- Geography
The purpose of a coup is control, so the orchestrators would only encourage chaos to the degree that it helps them - i.e., by enabling disorganized insurgent activity in non-critical regions of the country to pin down and disrupt loyal law enforcement and military.
In other words, most of what would already be hot zones in other Scenarios would still be hot zones, and they would be quite happy to see a pastiche of religious or ideological kooks take over Kansas, Nebraska, Idaho, etc., while they focus on shutting down the Interstate Highway system and consolidating control over major population centers and telecommunications.
Because most of the fighting would be taking place in cities, surrounded by noncombatants, and involving trained fighters and powerful weaponry on both sides, casualties would be very high. Insurgents from the interior might be forward-deployed into population centers to function as death squads, giving coup leaders deniability because they're not part of the regular military. They could just say that "order has not yet been restored, and violence is occurring among various groups." "Order" would only be declared "restored" once a place had been "cleansed" of serious opposition, and the insurgents would be sent off somewhere else to conduct massacres while official forces move in to occupy.
- Media
Journalists would be killed or imprisoned, and controlled media would be largely supportive of the coup. Propaganda would be uncritically regurgitated, facts ignored, reason totally cast aside, and nothing reported that the coup leaders tell them not to publicize. Wingnut media would have free reign to incite mass murder, disseminating claims handed to them by the junta, who would throw up their hands and pretend to be respecting free speech by "allowing" it.
- Government / Law Enforcement / Military
We can also expect that Senators and Congressmen would be involved (possibly even one or two Blue Dogs, so the coup leaders could claim it's not a partisan action), although the smarter politicians would make a pretense of pragmatism and say something like "I don't like it, but let's make the best of it." A lot of misguided or spineless centrists and liberals would call for nonviolent resistance, which would simply be laughed at and exterminated.
While there would be some law enforcement involvement, the culture as a whole would be overwhelmingly horrified. However, the junta would make a pragmatic pitch to cops and feds that would resonate with the more realistic among them: "While you're futilely trying to fight tanks and getting yourselves killed, the same old crooks and thugs you used to fight have taken over your streets - why die for nothing? Go home and restore order. Do your job." Many would listen, and do nothing to obstruct the takeover so they could return to a level of comfortable normality - i.e., arresting drug dealers and taggers and street gang members, while turning a blind eye to death squads and secret police.
The disposition of the military would vary depending on how pervasive the conspiracy was. If there are military leaders of significant stature who escape the initial purge and take up arms against the junta, the likelihood of a coherent, organized military resistance in the early stages is high. If it appears to the rank-in-file soldier that the command is largely unified in support of the junta, only a minority of soldiers will defy their orders despite clear knowledge of their illegality and treason.
This is just a fact of military culture: Loyalty to the armed forces will usually trump loyalty to country, and any number of facile rationalizations would be offered to them so they could justify it to themselves - e.g., "America would be left undefended if we fight each other, so let's just accept who's in control so we can make sure no one takes advantage of the situation." There is also the relative credulity of the typical soldier, meaning they would more easily accept preposterous claims by the high command that the elected leaders who had been removed from power were engaged in treason, or that people resisting the junta are agents of foreign powers, etc. etc.
Canada would end up playing a significant role in either case, voluntarily or otherwise. If US forces maintained control of substantial regions of the country, and were able to give battle at least on a sustainable basis, it's likely that NATO would be called up and Canada specifically asked for use of its resources and territory. The more desperate the US position, the less it would be articulated as a request. Barring mind-numbing stupidity in Ottawa, full support would be given to US forces and refugees, although this might (if the junta gained the upper hand) result in the invasion of Canada by fascist forces.
- Complications
If Ottawa was stupid enough to refuse involvement and/or try to close its borders in the hour of America's desperation, its territory would probably be used anyway without its permission. Not all refugees would be trying to escape - some would be hoping to set up a secure, clandestine base of operations in Canada to attack the junta, and given the vastness of the Canadian border and wilderness, that would be trivial to accomplish.
Unfortunately, if this all happened without the support of the Canadian government, and with the hostility of Canadians in general, Canada could be destabilized into chaos, with its cities and countryside inundated by American refugees, soldiers, and paramilitary fighters on both sides.
Another possible complication would be if US leaders escape the coup attempt into exile abroad, the junta, having substantial control of the military, might attempt to activate its forward-deployed forces and launch a surprise attack on that country in order to get to the government-in-exile. This could result in a protracted war that kills a lot of people, and expends a lot of resources stolen by the junta government. On the other hand, it would weaken them.
The potential for opportunistic invasion of Taiwan by China or the CIS countries by Russia is very high, and we would be in no position to do anything about it, nor would fascist insurgents give a damn. As we are pretty much the only reason Israel and Iran aren't at war, that would probably happen. North Korea might make a move, but would probably fail spectacularly.
- Prognosis
Grim. The fascist junta would have a high level of cooperation from corporate industry, conservative and collaborationist/centrist officials, rank-in-file soldiers, law enforcement, controlled media, and authoritarian governments outside the United States that stand to benefit from seeing American democracy fail. If coup leaders were annihilated in a stroke of luck, and insurgent forces became disorganized, the situation might revert to Scenario 4, but most likely the conflict would be long and desperate, destroying the American economy and society. That is, if people actually fought back on any significant level.
There is a significant possibility that resistance would simply melt away, people would accept the "new order" as long as it didn't too directly interfere in their lives (which it might not, initially), and the bodies would pile up as a result of quiet extermination campaigns and unreported political executions rather than military combat.
Scenario 6: Looking Glass
Casualties: ?
Scope: Full-spectrum communications blackout, denial of internet access, total control of media coverage, assassination or unexplained disappearance of US government leaders, interstate travel shut down, borders closed, sudden appearance of military or paramilitary forces throughout the country conducting mass-roundups and executions.
Probability: 0.1%
- Description
This is the nightmare scenario. While very low-probability, it can evolve with varying degrees of likelihood from any scenario including the status quo. It's basically a coup that is so successful that it manages to effectively shut down most communications, deny the spread of information about even its initial activities beyond rumors, quickly deploy forces to halt movement within the country, and efficiently exterminate political opposition and racial/religious minorities. America becomes a "mystery, wrapped in a riddle, inside an enigma" to the outside world, and even to those living in it.
Communities and regions are ruled through terror by henchmen whose motivations and loyalties are unclear, but who are mostly just greedy, power-hungry monsters who enjoy killing and torturing people. They may or may not see fit, after a time, to reveal some patina of ideological justification for their actions, but more likely they would just continue to kill anyone who looked at them wrong or got in their way. The fact that they're all white and nominally Christian, and that they target minorities and liberals would be the only clue that they're more politically motivated than common serial killers, but they wouldn't likely care enough about their captive populations to explain themselves, and asking would just get a bullet for an answer.
- Geography
Entire United States, with possible preemptive invasion of Canada to deny sanctuary to refugees and seize abundant natural resources. Countries around the world hosting US forces might themselves be subject to invasion and takeover if local forces would be unable to resist. De facto empire becomes literal, with extermination and enslavement campaigns against local populations in order to seize resources. Virtually identical treatment is meted out to Americans on their own soil.
Europe, Russia, and China would be initially exempt due to their nuclear arsenals, and many countries would be ignored as not being worth seizing, but resource-rich countries with relatively low populations would be taken right off the bat. Wars that result from this would be powered by mercenaries, both local and American, and conscripts whose families are being watched at home if they don't "do their duty."
- Government, Law Enforcement, and Military
All three would be unified in the form of a nameless henchmen in a uniform you're taught to fear whose word is death. Some other nameless henchmen in a spiffier uniform of similar design would have the power to overrule him, but usually wouldn't, and if he did you probably wouldn't know why and dare not ask. You might overhear them drop names of higher-ups on occasion that you never see, or of a Revered Leader who's behind it all, but it's not entirely certain even they would know who's in charge.
- Complications
Russia and China wouldn't just sit idly by while some psycho fascists in the US try to take over the world - they would try to beat them to the punch and invade their own spheres of influence, trusting to their nuclear arsenals But while self-preservation is a strong motive for banal fascists, these are the special kind - the kind who are so insane they would invade Russia in winter. Think of people with the punctilious ruthlessness of Nazis, but the nightmarish lack of specificity of a villainous horde in a John Carpenter movie.
Since we're indulging in nightmare, it's entirely possible such people would rationalize preemptive nuclear strikes on its powerful enemies, meaning that nuclear annihilation would be a possibility.
- Prognosis
Apocalyptic. What followed would be World War 3, even if it never turned nuclear, and result in the destruction of civilization. The United States would cease to exist the moment this Scenario began, so we would have already lost. There would be no rebuilding from that point. The world might survive, and the fascist regime might eventually fail under its own weight and degeneracy, but what rose in its place would be a pastiche of different countries of varying freedom and prosperity. America would be forgotten except as a vague noun describing a piece of land until subsequent generations found an interest in archaeology.
[Updated:]