"Book Review: We'll be Back" Topic

We'll Be Back: The Fall and Rise of America
by Kurt Schlichter | Sold by: Simon & Schuster Digital Sales Inc. | Jul 12, 2022
4.8 out of 5 stars 11
Kindle Edition
$14.99 USD$14.99

Okay, those of you on the left will find this unpleasant reading; those on the right will love it. Fair warning.

The author is a professional soldier, and also has written a series of novels about a near-future break-up (Red versus Blue States) and civil war. This is a non-fiction analysis of similar possibilities. Please note, he does NOT (nor do I) see such a conflict as anything other than a very bad thing. But how likely is it?

This is in equal parts a political/social and also a military analysis of multiple scenarios. What would a Blue insurgency against a Republican-controlled US government look like? What would a Red insurgency against a Blue governemt look like? If a national divorce is attempted, what would the problems be, and are they solvable?

Those of you who are Progressives will probably not want to read this, but if you do I think you will find much of it of interest, Just pretend you are reading Guiderion's memoirs or something; you are rooting for the other side, but his analysis is still worth your time.

Kurt Schlichter (Twitter: @KurtSchlichter) was personally recruited to write conservative commentary by Andrew Breitbart. He is a name partner at a growing Los Angeles trial law firm, a retired Army Infantry colonel with a masters in Strategic Studies from the United States Army War College, and a former stand-up comic.

He is a frequent guest on Fox News, Fox Business News, appears on air with such luminaries as Hugh Hewitt, Larry O'Connor, Tony Katz, Derek Hunter, Howie Carr, John Cardillo, and Chris Stigall among others. His most recent nonfiction book is "Militant Normals: How Regular Americans Are Rebelling Against the Elite to Reclaim Our Democracy." His latest novel is "Wildfire." He is also the author of "People's Republic" and "Indian Counry."

As an Army officer, he commanded a cavalry recon squadron, and served in Desert Storm and Kosovo as well as multiple disaster operations. He lives in the South Bay area of Los Angeles where his hobbies include red meat and red wine.

Quite a lot of the analysis focuses on the asymetrical alignment of both political/economic and also military forces. Blues have the big cities, which gives them immense advantages IF they can feed themselves. Reds dominate vast stretches of territory but are scattered. The ramifications of this are complex. How important would Blue enclaves such as Austin be, in a Red Texas? How important is upstate New York, in a Blue New York State? Red insurgents would be very vulnerable to drones and Hellfires -- but how vulnerable would the operators and their families be to retaliatory death squads? Horror upon horror -- but perhaps it is necessary to think about the unthinkable, if we are to avoid it.

Doc this is all political. Should be in the Blue Fez or in the Plus boards.

I disagree, it potentially opens up all kinds of Modern US Civil War scenarios for our gaming tables. And it sounds like it's written by someone who has thought about the complexities much more than I have. That's my opinion, and worth every penny you paid for it. :)

Yes, it might do that. It's written kind of like a comic book, maybe they got better as they went along, but this guy is no novelist. I only got through "Peoples Republic" the Northeast and the West Coast conveniently secede so the Red States get to keep being the United States, some irony there. Cardboard characters, lots of digs, rightsters will like the settings and the clear cut bad guys to fight. (other Americans) There are some interesting imaginings.

My only problem is that this stuff seems like fodder for extremist groups who may think it is more serious. It is basically a confirmation for conspiracy folks who have already made their leap or are thinking about it. I don't know how sales have gone, the books are self published. The writer is a wealthy trial lawyer in real life, apparently. But it's hard to know whether it's all supposed to be funny or is some kind of a warning, probably both.

In the late 1800s a lot of fantasy invasion books were published in England. Their main purpose was to move public opinion, I think. This seems similar.

First, it is NOT all political, no more than all war is. I enjoyed the novels but Tort's review is accurate enough. Read them or don't. And Of course the author has a side in all of this, as who does not? I have sides in studying most wars, but can still appreciate a good analysis from the other side. I have described what the book does and who the author is. If it triggers you, don't read it.

But his analysis of alternate scenarios is compelling, and done by someone who has the necessary background. How many battalions DO you need to control an average American county?

Tort, don't know if you ever read any of GA Henty's novels? I did an analysis of With Kitchener in the Sudan for a course at Rice in English history. Got an A. Henty basically says — in a book for boys — your prospects suck, and if we don't have the empire then they REALLY suck. So not surprised that invasion fiction was popular. The people's culture knows when things are falling apart and the center cannot hold.

Scenariowise, here's two:

You are a red battalion commander. Your mission is to clear 16 city blocks (4 x 4) of lower-income housing, including some highrise. Opposition is mostly gangs, loosely organized but with plenty of hand weapons. But there is also a cadre of professional insurrectionists with bomb-making capability. AND your ROE is restrictive: no machine guns, no artillery, no smoke or other fire-causing weapons.

Second scenario: you are a blue battalion commander, mech infantry. Your mission is to secure 50 miles of interstate for food convoys. You have drones and a limited number of helicopter missions. The opposition is local citizens with deer rifles and lots of AR15s.

What fun! (not)

from the book:
"We're outta here!" Lou yelled. The rest of the guerillas got into another pair of pick-ups. They took off down the dirt road, ecstatic. Many miles away, in New York City, the power would be off. Sure, the blues would get it fixed pretty quick, or bypass it, but the message was clear—the countryside belongs to the reds. Lou's truck disintegrated in a fireball as the $150,000 USD Hellfire missile slammed into it. They had not even seen the drone. The other trucks scattered. They would escape. The expended missile left just 987 remaining in the blue arsenal; the missile was built in Florida, so obviously there would be no replacements. It killed one guerilla. The next day, Lou's son and cousin both joined the resistance.

"Pizza!" "I didn't order any pizza!" the woman said, opening the front door. There were two men there with big pistols in their hands. They pushed inside the house. Her little dog was barking madly. She shrieked. "Shut up," the first one said, pressing the barrel into her forehead. She complied. "Your husband flies F-15s," the man said. "They are killing lots of our women and children. He can either keep flying or desert. If he keeps flying, you tell him that the next time we come by, we're getting payback." The woman couldn't speak. The men left, and she was shaking. She went to find her telephone.

Schlichter, Kurt. We'll Be Back: The Fall and Rise of America (p. 170). Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition.

The reason such a civil war would be so horrible is that we are all mixed in together. The bluest cities still have staunch conservatives scattered about -- unless they are rounded up and put into camps. The reddest counties still have blues scattered about, unless they are rounded up and put into camps. Social media might make identifying such "copperheads" possible. But whichever side controls the government would probably have to move a lot of personnel and their families into protected zones. One thing to fly Predators against Afghanis from an ocean away. Quite different when your family might live down the block from a committed enemy.

We do NOT want to do this.

And in today's headlines:

During a recent episode of MSNBC talk show "Zerlina," author and former intelligence analyst Malcolm Nance warned that the Republican Party has become an "insurgency" that Americans "may have to fight" before it "kills" them.

Fox News: link

Yes, both sides are talking that way.

I do know who Henty is, his books remind me of the We Were There series of my youth. The invasion novels in Britain were scare stories and helped move public opinion about naval expenditures at a time when the public was very engaged and proud of its ships. I use them for scenarios for my Victorian ironclad navies.

You are right about both sides. MSNBC has Nance. Fox has Levin. But this is a big part of the problem. Making people angry gets viewers, makes money.

It would be hard to game an American insurgency with it feeling so real now. Not recreational for me…

I would likewise be disinclined to do such games. But it would be no more -- and no less -- horrible than doing Patriots versus Loyalists in the Carolinas. or Quantrell versus Redlegs in Missouri. Perhaps we take those sorts of scenarios too lightly.

We are removed, that is the difference. That fighting is over. The ACW has been problematic for me since I shed the warm glow of the Centennial as an early teen and began to read more. It is not just the nature of civil war being more personal, it's also slavery. I have only recently come to terms with it and returned to gaming.

To this I owe a reread last year of Catton's Army of the Potomac trilogy.

I grew up in segregated East Texas and we didn't play cowboys and Indians, but Yanks and Rebs. And the little kids and the girls had to be the Yanks. I memorized thousands of lines of John Brown's Body. But yes, it was Catton's AOP trilogy that taught me to identify with both sides.

One of my magic moments at Rice was sitting in Frank Vandiver's office discussing a paper, and he quoted Benet: "let us look at her now, let us see her plain, she will never be quite this way again." And I was able instantly to come back with the next lines: her house is sinking under the blast, and she feels it sink and still stands fast, but this is the last, this is the last.

And we just looked at each other and smiled.

How about Jayhawkers vs Redlegs along the Missouri-Kansas border before the Civil War.

Yes, nasty nasty warfare. Civilians become primary targets.

"Civilians become primary targets."
Yes let us leave that to the Russians!

"Yes, both sides are talking that way."
Only a tiny minority, and those of a certain mentality.

"But whichever side controls the government would probably have to move a lot of personnel and their families into protected zones."

No, in the event things are really that bad, the gov't will move everybody into camps, and sort/exterminate them at their leisure (anyone outside a camp will be hunted down.) A world like that will make Orwell's 1984 look like a paradise…

Zephyr1, yes, at some point that might be attempted, but would require a military vastly larger than what exists. And of course the economy would collapse -- which would be a by-product of any sort of civil war. But perhaps the people in charge WANT to reduce human population.

Silurian, yes. But the abolitionists were a tiny minority as well, but had a lot to do with bringing on the 1861-65 conflict. It doesn't take many, under the right (wrong) circumstances. A government blunder (e.g. the Kansas-Nebraska Acts) and a disastrous Supreme Court decision (Dred Scott) created conditions in which Lyman Beecher and John Brown and Bully Brooks and various extremists on both sides shaped events very powerfully.

The first book reads like fantasy more than alternative history, especially in its blatant exaggeration of the crazy evil motives of the American left, which is, after all composed of – Americans. Mad Max goes political. And it is political, it's presumptions are pure political messaging.

For a cautionary tale, I suggest M: Son of a Century. A very detailed and rich novel about the early days of Mussolini's rise to power. Very long, and part of a 4 volume work to come. The second volume is out but not yet translated. A tv series is in the works.
Maybe more history than novel, it is full of fact based details. But it is eerie in its familiarity. It's creeping me out. A long haul to read, but a reminder of the real road to fascism, which is not necessarily the one you might think it is.

Tort, you are still talking about the series of novels. They are what they are; I enjoyed them because they push all my buttons. But the book I reviewed is non-fiction (except for a few vignettes like the ones I quoted) and worthy of consideration as an analysis of a possible future conflict. It is written very much from a conservative viewpoint, as I pointed out in the OP, and no doubt partly intended to motivate. And of course some of it may be exaggerated; the guy was a stand-up comic. Humor has a long history of political usefulness. But WE'LL BE BACK is as serious as the risk he is analyzing.

In re Mussolini. Schlicter has a chapter on what authoritarianism might look like in a modern American context. He's agin it, but suggests it might be preferable to a blue ideological tyranny, and here's how it might work. The Roman model, of the emperor preserving the checks-and-balances FORMS of the Republic while draining them of content, is part of his analysis, and one I think is correct and we are already seeing. E.g., the Congress has largely ceased legislating.

Sorry, yes I did mix that up.

I am fairly certain that a modest majority of Americans feel the authoritarian threat comes from the right, that it's leaders generally decline to legislate, are enthralled with and fearful of their de facto leader. But this does not excuse abuses of power on the left either. There are no heroes.

Again, the Mussolini book leads to a surprising, for me, conclusion about how fascists came to power.

The first book reads like fantasy more than alternative history, especially in its blatant exaggeration of the crazy evil motives of the American left, which is, after all composed of – Americans.

This here, alone, is good enough reason to give these books a bye. The Right's insistence of portraying the Left as "the Enemy" does nothing but further alienates both sides from each other. I'd say more, but that would involve Blue Fez level of politics.

Damon.

Garland, would you agree that the Left portrays the Right as the enemy? Or is it all in one direction?

One of the reasons I left the US is because of the toxic nature of US politics. I had had enough of it, & try (and often fail) to divorce myself from the political scene. But I still hold citizenship & still vote.

Whether or not the left portrays the right as the enemy does not mean that the right has to do the same thing. Who will be the better person? I grew up to political awareness in the Clinton administration, & cannot recall a time when the right did NOT portray the left as "the enemy." So if the objective of the Right is to drive people like me from the country, congratulations: it worked.

Damon.

It has become much more toxic since Clinton, and we could debate which side was the worst aggressor. Things like hate and paranoia are mutual. You HEAR more about the Right's offenses unless you are IN the Right, since the Left dominates the main cultural voices -- hence the Progressive "Bubble".

Doc the Deplorable
.

Doc +1

Doc, the deplorable thing was an insult to everyone. We also heard plenty during the Gingrich era.

the whole thing is a lot of hot air in the end. I don't think most Americans could ever be sold on separating. And how could "snowflakes" who want gun control, are soft on crime and everything else, suddenly get tough enough to start a civil war and persecute other Americans, set up a dictatorship?

Probably impossible to wargame for most Americans, there in no fun factor in pretending about this.

Tort, I share your hope, and your assessment, that there are high hurdles to get over for such a conflict to happen. Schlicter says as much, and is glad of it. But it HAS happened before.

"I am fairly certain that a modest majority of Americans feel the authoritarian threat comes from the right…".

That IS the propaganda that the vast majority the leftist-aligned media is pushing, in addition to NOT covering so many scandals much larger than Watergate, including the Spring/Summer of unrest in the USA which resulted in 574 riots and $2 USD+ BILLION in damage, not to mention the attacks on our law enforcement personnel and civilians resulting in many injuries and deaths.

There ARE so many other current and previous scandals under a number of administrations, but I can't name them here without being doghoused.

These things are not part of seizing the government to hold power. They do not pertain to efforts to directly alter the election process at the highest levels as described by conservatives. Obvious concerns, described in the words of people who heard and saw it from that side. The omission of coverage, and the bias, by the huge right wing media empire is equally indefensible, leaving millions knowing very little about the words and deeds of those who were there.

We owe whatever remote possibility there is of civil war to the stoking of fear and anger by media on both sides. But there are also reports that people are starting to turn away from the "news". Exhaustion and distrust. Will we reconnect with each other in some other way? I think this is also possible, even likely eventually.

2020….

Let's say you're playing a game with someone, and at some point you realize the guy is rolling his dice and scooping them quickly up as he declares a hit or a morale win…and then he rolls his dice, scoops 'em up and declares he got a reinforcement unit…roll (SCOOP), that comes in on your vulnerable flank.

You ask the guy if he could roll them bones out in the open in the dice tray so everyone can see the rolls.

Guy: "WHAT!! You don't trust me! These dice rolls are fair and legit"

You: "OK, but I'd feel more comfortable if the dice rolls were out in the open for everyone to see, mine too."

Guy: "Oh, so now I'm a cheater – just because you're losing, now I'm a cheater?!?!"

You: "I don't know, but I you're scooping up the dice before anyone can read them and I just think…."

Guy: "Well now you're questioning the very foundation of this game, just because you're losing, you can't stand that, can you! And by challenging the integrity of this game, you're really challenging the integrity of the entire gaming club – How DARE you threaten our gaming institution!?!?! HEY everyone, this guy hates the gaming club!!!"

…kinda like that…

Now lets take a look at the above analogy from the OTHER side:

Guy: "You are cheating! You are a cheater! The only way you could win is by cheating!"

You: "But we haven't even rolled any dice yet…"

The game progresses…

Guy: "You're cheating! I want to see those dice rolls!"

You: "I'm not cheating, have not cheated…"

Referee: "He's not cheating. I audited his dice rolls…"

Guy: "I still don't believe you! I want an investigation!"

…kinda like that…

Damon.

Ha! Who says this isn't abount wargaming? These both read like the same side to me!

Seems like a saving die was also rolled about 60 times, but got no results.

There is a history of Democrats not accepting the outcome of elections. Regardless of who actually got the most votes, the perception that massive cheating occurred is very real. And if we get to the point that either side refuses to accept an election (which is a symbolic war, who has the most fighters), that leaves an actual war as the means to decision.

Trust, once destroyed, is not easily regained. And the national elites have squandered copious quantities of trust.

There have been contested elections that were close, but no precedent for 2020/21.

We have already arrived at non acceptance. A recent poll showed that over 60 percent of Republicans still do not believe Biden is the real POTUS.

I worked for the government, did not trust most elected officials. Special interests everywhere. Trust is earned, or not.

No, trust is maintained or squandered. Then not earned again, not for a very long time. ALL of our institutions are mistrusted, deservedly so.

No they are not mistrusted by every American. And there are organizations protecting this country and people who do not deserve your mistrust. But I understand your feelings. We have been told by many not to trust our own country in the name of patriotism. And we have been let down by some of our agencies.
I think we can hang on, but we are in for some challenges. ALL of our agencies? No way, not yet.

Referee: "He's not cheating. I audited his dice rolls…"

Guy: Hey, aren't you his brother?!?

There have been contested elections that were close, but no precedent for 2020/21.

The closest precedent is the 2000 election. And in terms of trust, if the party that won the 2020 election is really confident that they won legitimately, then why wouldn't they demand an open and transparent audit to prove the losing sore losers are indeed losing sore losers and further discredit that losing party while enhancing their own moral authority?

Why would they instead work to block every attempt to do so, while screaming "foul" if you even question the outcome results? That's not what an honest winner does.

We have already arrived at non acceptance. A recent poll showed that over 60 percent of Republicans still do not believe Biden is the real POTUS.

We arrived at that in 2000, when after repeated recount attempts in violation of the Florida State constitution the Democrats lost, and ever after called the winning Republican illegitimate.

2000 – GOP Win. Democrats cry "Stolen!"
2004 – GOP Win. Most Democrats accepted it, but some leaders claim GOP voting machine tampering
2008 – Democrat Win. Republicans concede
2012 – Democrat Wins. Republicans concede.
2016 – Republican wins. Democrats cry "Stolen!" and then create the Russiagate hoax and accuse the Republican of being a traitor.

Tort, name the institutions you think still deserve our trust?

Not the media, for sure. Not the "Justice" system, which is quite clearly double-tiered. Not the electoral process. Not the military. Not academia nor Big Business.

"Not to trust our country"? How does that work, apart from its specific institutions? Trust the American people? Trust that God looks after fools and Americans?

There is still much that is great and good in America. But a lot of us don't like the trend-lines.

"Gentlemen may cry 'Peace! Peace!' but there is no peace; the war is already begun."

Henry was quoting scripture.

Jeremiah (twice) and also Ezekial:

"From the least to the greatest,
all are greedy for gain;
prophets and priests alike,
all practice deceit.
They dress the wound of my people
as though it were not serious.
‘Peace, peace,' they say,
when there is no peace."

On trust:

link

Gallup shows confidence is way down. I assume confidence = trust.

doc mcb+3 (one for each post)

Speechless… and its more of a relief for me than you guys, I'm guessing!