The Right Cannot Win a “Civil War”

There is one factor that hovers above all others when determining what side will prevail when a nation descends into civil war – which side the military aligns with. The historical record shows that no other factor is as important as this single aspect. But before I go any further, I must first explain what is meant by “civil war” – it is a war between two or more factions fighting for control of the central government. So, despite what the Yankees say, the “American Civil War” was not really a civil war but a war for independence, similar to the Irish Revolution. Back to the issue at hand, it is exceedingly difficult to overstate just how important the military is in determining the outcome of a civil war.

An overwhelming reason why the French monarchy fell so quickly during the Revolution is because, following a string of defeats, France lost its position of global hegemon to the United Kingdom. In turn, the French military lost all faith in the ancient regime and were no longer willing to defend it. However, when a once in millennia military genius, in the form of Napoleon Bonaparte, came on the scene, the French military quickly regained its faith and became one of the best fighting forces ever assembled. We can observe this in the Spanish Civil War as well. Though the Republicans held the best positions in the country and had massive international support, the Nationalists controlled the army. And even though the Republicans controlled the Spanish navy, in a land war, the Nationalists had a significant advantage and prevailed against all other odds. Again, we see this pattern emerge in the Russian Civil War. The unexpected defeat of a European power against an Asian nation in the Russo-Japanese War seriously damaged the Tsar’s prestige with the military. When Russia performed poorly against the Germans in the Great War, it was enough to make sizable portions of the military lose faith that the Tsar could maintain Russian greatness.

Iran is another example – for a while, it looked as if the Shah would maintain his throne. But he had one major problem, the Iranian military despised him, viewing him as a playboy more interested in sportscars than actually governing, this was in stark contrast to his spartan, warrior father whom the Iranian military revered. Thus, the military was unwilling to support the government, and as a result the monarchy fell. An even more recent example, the fall of Mubarak’s Egypt, also qualifies here. Depending on who you ask, the 2011 overthrow of long-standing Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak was either a cry for Egyptian democracy or an attempted takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood. But neither of these interpretations are true. In reality, the Egyptian military, in control of the country since 1952, was furious with Mubarak for grooming his son, a businessman with no military experience, to be his successor. When a crisis hit, the military stayed back while the government fell. All they had to do was wait for the completely predictable victory of the Muslim Brotherhood in the next election as a pretext to stage a coup, thus neutralizing U.S. opposition and reinstating the status quo.

The Chinese Civil War is the most pressing counterexample, but this is the exception that proves the rule. While it is true that the military sided with the Nationalists, it is important to remember that the Nationalists had the communists all but defeated when the Japanese invaded at exactly the right moment. The Nationalists, viewing the Japanese as the bigger threat, turned their focus on them, allowing the communists to regroup. The Nationalists proceeded to take the brunt of the Japanese conquest while the communists reformed and prepared for the opportune moment to take China as soon as the Nationalists were strained.

Considering this historical trend, we should understand why the Right is in a poor position to win a civil war – the American military is thoroughly leftist, especially in the high command. It was not always like this. The U.S. military, long disproportionally Southern, was traditionally and staunchly rightwing. Had the United States fallen into a civil war in 1968, the Right would have certainly prevailed. But that is no longer the case. Just look at how the military changed when Clinton tried to allow homosexuals to serve in the military to Trump’s limited ban transexuals. The military had to be dragged kicking and screaming to even accept Clinton’s eventual “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” compromise. Flashforward to the Trump presidency and the military worked to openly undermine his ban on transexuals. It’s a shift that goes back to Obama. Using the disaster of the Iraq War as an excuse, Obama sacked rightwing officers and replaced them with leftwing ones. In a mere eight years, Obama transformed the United States military; and while it has diminished the Empire’s ability to win a future foreign war, it has increased the Left’s ability to win a future civil war. The Right cannot win a civil war. But there is hope based on the distinction I made at the beginning of this article.

Dixie can win a war for independence. Although control of the military is paramount when the question is over who controls the central government, this is decidedly less important when a nation is fighting for independence from a foreign foe – hence why the Irish were able to win the Irish War for Independence. Wars for independence and civil wars are different beasts, and different factors matter between them. To “take back American from sea to shining sea” is a fool’s errand at this point.

What is possible is the liberation of Dixie, this is our advantage – in a people who know their land and are fighting to save it from foreign rule. Contrary to what many on the Right believe, the Left holds the single biggest advantage in determining the outcome of a civil war. But as past generations of Southerners knew when they avoided the term “Civil War” for “The War Between the States,” the spirit of 1861 was not a civil war, but one for independence.

Harmonica