When reading Raza Habib Raja's recent article in The Huffington Post, I was struck by the number of comments claiming that guns were needed "to keep a tyrannical government in check" and that guns were a "means to overthrow an unjust/tyrannical government." What Gun Advocates Should Remember: You'll Never Overthrow The Government and It Isn't Scared of You
Two things wrong with the author’s assessment:
- The US national debt.
- Logistics.
Let’s look at the second one first.
Logistics is the military and civilian science and related techniques
of providing supplies and resources to an organization and its components. Unlike military units from the origin of the
nation to the US Civil War which could often procure most of its needed
supplies locally during campaigns, the modern US military lacks that
capability. The complexity of the gear
and the sheer amount of fuel, ammunition, and other supplies used during an
operation prevents it. Even units
utilizing wheeled vehicles in lieu of tracked vehicles and aircraft require
quantities of fuel, food, batteries, and other supplies as to be disruptive to
local supplies, even if they aren't requiring large quantities of ammunition.
This is usually supplied by the military’s own supply
service which is—often—some combination of military personnel and civilian
contractors, even in combat zones like Iraq.
While military personnel often can provide some level of
self-protection, they (and civilian contractors) often require combat arms or
military police personnel and vehicles to supplement their own basic small arms
and automatic weapons.
In a combat zone overseas, these supplies move from secured
bases where cargo arrives via military or civilian contract aircraft, trains,
or shipping then overland in protected convoys or through the air using
helicopters or regional/tactical cargo aircraft to the end user. These convoy routes would typically be
secured and transit times varied to try and deny the enemy the opportunity to
execute ambushes on these comparatively “squishy” targets.
Within the US, these resources are semi-centralized at various
arsenals and military posts spread across the country. Currently—in a “peacetime” environment—these supplies—short
of actual, complete weapons systems and ammunition—travel the roads, rails, and
airways with little fanfare and almost no added security except the occasional
(civilian contract) armed guard.
(This is—of course—ignoring both the possibility of extended
operations requiring more than basic, on-hand replacement parts and
vehicles/aircraft and the possibility current armed forces members might align
with “rebels” rather than the government.)
Why is this relevant to an armed insurrection?
Simple, any time a large military force would be deployed,
it would have to do three things: guard
itself, guard its supply routes, and guard its own and local bases. To do so in a modern environment with real
time communications, almost free access to the same routes military convoys
would need to cover, and the sort of rules of engagement the US government
would have to enact to reduce both the risk of military members not complying
with orders to attack civilians and reduce damage to current infrastructure
would likely hogtie a very large chunk of any military force. Add to this the fact we have a
(proportionally) small quantity of military units and personnel and the
personnel needed to simply secure the supply lines and bases (and direct
sources of supplies, like refineries) would probably dig into civilian law
enforcement resources (assuming, again, that the civilian law enforcement
personnel choose to align with the Federal government) as well.
Alternatively (or additionally), security could be increased
by simply restricting civilian traffic and access to military bases, supply
routes, and the like.
Which brings us back to the first error…
The national debt.
Unlike the start of
the Civil War and/or the period surrounding the Shay Rebellion, we have a
national debt several orders of magnitude higher and highly dependent on both
the day-to-day economy of the US simply to stay solvent and one that’s very
susceptible to disruptions. Where the
government of Washington or of Lincoln could write IOU’s to creditors and have
them—at least for a short period—be willing to take such bills on faith, trying
to do the same today with the Federal government essentially financing its debt
with debt already is a lot less likely to be acceptable.
Even at the high
water mark of debt post-Revolutionary War, national debt was 35% of gross
domestic product and the high water mark of the Civil War was lower at
33%. Today, we're above the 100%
mark. An armed insurrection willing to
risk the stability of the Federal government and/or intent on divorcing
themselves from the current system need only challenge the economic system by
threatening to (or actually) reducing the US GDP.
Or, in other words,
all an armed insurrection need do to cause the Federal government enough pain
to risk its survival in modern times is to stop working and present enough of a
threat to make the US military shut down enough freeways, railways, and
airports to be disruptive.
For its own
protection, of course.
So, in the words of
Dr. Henry Kissinger:
The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose. –Henry A. Kissinger
In this case, the US Federal government is in dire straights--even if the people it hopes stay on its side, stays on its side--simply because of how dependent it is on relatively smooth sailing in the economic arena. All a modern insurrection needs to do is make enough economic hardship and watch the Federal government collapse under its own weight.
For that, a couple rolls of quarters in a sock and some purloined military or police weapons might do. With the ease of availability of small arms, the level of training available to and within the civilian populace, and the degree of technical knowledge within the modern US population, it would be a rough time for everyone.
