I’m afraid that you’ve misinterpreted this article, which is a discussion of Professor Panarin’s crack-pot theory of civil war in the US in 2010. It’s almost a year since this article was posted, Obama’s popularity continues to fall, and it seems, as expected, that resolution (although imperfect) to current problems will be found in the ballot box rather than in civil war.

The hypotheses that you indicate as ‘typical social conservative rhetoric’ were by no means recommendations of what should or will happen, but merely far out examples of what it might take to embroil the US into a wider external war, providing an excuse for a coup d’etat and the civil war the Prof. Panarin foresees … suggesting how unlikely these hypothesis seem. The argument is that, in the absence of a coup d’etat, the US will settle internal differences through the ballot box, not by civil war.

Furthermore, the mention of ‘problem resolution by peaceful, non-revolutionary means’ was in reference to internal revolution (in the context of civil war), not a reference to the external wars that you mention.

In any event, thank you for your comment.

I consider the concept of Republicans vs. Democrats in Washington as if it were the World Wresting Federation … essentially a farce.

These politicians are certainly not working in the best interest of the American people.

Moreover, I find some arguments in this post somewhat inspired by typical social conservative rhetoric. Let’s explore some examples…

“Allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon that could be used on Israel, resulting in a war between these countries and chaos in the Middle East. This would drive up the price of oil, bringing economic distress to the US.”

Hopefully, you’re not suggesting a preemptive military assault on Iran. I don’t see that ending well, if at all! However, economic isolation doesn’t involve deploying our dwindling, over-stretched armed forces for invasion and occupation. Furthermore, it would likely facilitate political social change in that country.

“Lose the war in Afghanistan by withdrawing troops…”

That’s not a bad idea at this point. Afghanistan is certainly the place where empires die. U.S. foreign policy is reminiscent of an expensive empire with military bases all over the world, including Japan and Germany. Is it necessary? I highly doubt it!

“Stop using the term ‘war on terror.’”

I can actually agree with this one, too! Terrorism is an issue for law enforcement and intelligence agencies, not the military. Israel didn’t invade some country in the aftermath of the Munich Massacre. Rather, they sent Mossad to handle the thugs responsible.

“…two hundred year history of problem resolution by peaceful, non-revolutionary means..”

Are you kidding? Explain the following armed conflicts: The Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Iraq War.

Unless, Obama himself attempts a coup d’etat (which is not entirely unthinkable), I believe that a military coup is unlikely. Also, civil war, at this stage, also seems improbable, mainly because of the long historical indoctrination of the US military to stay out of politics. (There might be a counter-coup if Obama attempts a coup d’etat, but, again, this seems improbable.)

Although many Americans think these are the worst of times, the fact is that the Johnson-Nixon-Ford-Carter years and the time of the Great Depression were far, far worse. So far there has been no ‘blood in the streets’ or millions starving and living in shanty towns. The nation has grown soft and over-fed and most Americans under the age of fifty were not adults in the really trying times that afflicted their ancestors (unless they have lived abroad).

I’ve lived through a real revolution in South America, with tanks in the streets, and we’re a long ways from that.

Nevertheless, there never has been a determined Marxist in the White House … so we’ll see.

By the way, look how Obama’s rising unpopularity has been following the red line on the graph in this article.

A year or so after the coup, there should be free and open elections according to the constitution. There also needs to be an amendment for term limits. Logically, change the entire government every six years. Representatives should serve one single three year term, no reelection, senators, a single six year term, and the president a single six year term. That way, you get rid of the bastards every six year. And once a person has held elective national office, they should never be eligible to hold any national elective office again. That keeps the career politician from running again after sitting out one term.

If the Democrats lose in 2010, then we possibly postpone the inevitable. But, even if the Republicans and Independents win, they lose, because Obama & Co. will find a way to steal the election, or to invalidate it. The administration might cry “election fraud” for every seat won by a non democrat, and make sure the courts to give the seat to the a Democrat. Or, some other trickery. So, even if you vote, and your candidate wins, and your candidate is not a Democrat, the election will go to the Democrat. Obama & Co. will see to that. They are already planning on how to steal the election of 2010. So, a military coup may be the only solution.