Los Angeles: Too Soon to Call it a Civil War?

And the Solution is?

In earlier seasons of The Common Bridge^*, I talked about the parallels between contemporary events and the happenings before the US Civil War, 1861-1865. Regrettably, our elected leadership has not steered from that path. The situation in California punctuates the ineptitude of highly partisan actors in preventing the loss of the country.

Is this war? Merriam-Webster offers this, “War: (a.) State of hostility, conflict or antagonism. (b.) struggle or competition between opposing forces for a particular end. As the adage says, “If the shoe fits. . .”

Another unmissable data point is the axiom, “The first casualty of war is truth.” Absorbing the conflicting narratives and rationales, at least one of the belligerent camps is lying.

Further factual basis is that the President of the United States has ordered the military into Los Angeles. United States Marines from 2^nd Battalion, 7^th Marines have a history of fighting in every war since WWII, including Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq War, and Afghanistan. Los Angeles is now added to that list of deployments.

Marines are trained to take out enemy forces. This is not a Military Police unit. Some hasty training for some in the companies, perhaps, but there is no way to see this action as anything except a rapid escalation of hostilities.

The average age of a US Marine is 23 years. Presumably, if the predominant Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) of this detachment is Rifleman^**, these warriors in Los Angeles are younger.

These young fighters are vigorously trained in lethality. What are the Rules of Engagement as they head into the densely populated area of Southern California?

Also factual, there can’t be a war without an opposing force. Military logistics for defensive gear and weaponry must come to battle zones via coordinated supply lines. Pallets of bricks have been deployed in advanced positions and the bricks used to pelt Federal Law Enforcement. Helmets and face shields were delivered, in quantity, to those attacking the Federal officers. Hard to deny that a war, despite having a small footprint currently, is on.

The country is at war, and if the definition of Civil War in the American Heritage Dictionary has any merit, that is where we are, “Civil War: A war between factions or regions of the same country.”

As a wise and very proficient trial lawyer told me, “When you get a report of what happened, your next question is to ask what happened before that.” This battle has been brewing for some time and victimized many people, including the very groups some policies purport to help.

Most tragic is the plight of immigrants who entered the USA based on an implied invitation from the Biden administration. If one were told they could enter the country illegally, find a city or state where local governments would provide sanctuary by defying Federal law and the enforcement of those laws, it makes sense to enter the country. Presumably, most people came to the country with the intent to stay as law-abiding members of society, seeking work, education, and a better future. If the criminal and gang-related examples of bad people making illegal entry alongside those immigrants seeking a better life represented most of the millions who entered illegally under these open-door circumstances, there would be far greater calamities striking across the country. Of course, to add to the fog of war is the established media ecosystem’s refusal to fully report all the incidents of harm caused by people who entered the country illegally. One more point of rising tension that can explode in the current situation.

Also caught in the crossfire are citizens of Los Angeles County, who just want their local governments to provide essential services. Pointedly, the combined efforts of the State of California and City of Los Angeles in basic public services such as fire protection and police services are objective failures. Perhaps the record of the Newsom and Bass administrations is better with snow removal, which is certainly less challenging in the beautiful climate of the region. Still, one can’t help but think that the mayor is a little annoyed she must be in town during this crisis and had to order a curfew belatedly. Similarly, the governor can now only dream about munching away with lobbyists at the French Laundry while his constituents seethed. At least the curfew, while a bit late for the stores that have been ransacked, is a pivot from the prior policy of accepting the so-called violent but peaceful demonstrations.

So What Happens Next?

There is little incentive to compromise. In a recent CBS News poll, the deportation goals of the Trump administration enjoy a plurality, while the approach employed is less than half of those polled. More pointedly, according to the same poll, 82% of Democrats disapprove of the Trump Administration’s program to deport immigrants illegally in the United States, contrasted with 93% of Republicans approving the program. Independents are nearly evenly split with 49% approving and 51% disapproving.

So, neither President Trump, Governor Newsom, nor Mayor Bass can materially adjust policy without enormous political cost. The partisan extremes are literally tearing the country apart. What happens to the Democrats if they ignore the performative protests of affluent white women between the ages of 40 and 80, shouting their slogans on social media from safe neighborhoods far removed from the fires and carnage? It seems no one in the California Democratic Party has noticed the moving vans speeding East.

President Trump’s support for aggressive action comes from people upset with the Democrats’ policies of open borders and sanctuary cities and states. Those supporters may cringe at a situation with weapons firing live rounds and rubber bullets but believe that the problems have no humane solution. Therefore, they reason, the president is using every means available to correct a problem that he didn’t create. Hopefully, the strong support for Trump administration’s policies of paying for transportation and offering a cash incentive for self-deportation remains firm.

How Might this Civil War End?

How might this latest episode of the Civil War end? If the end is a decisive military defeat by one side over the other, it will only come at an enormous cost of blood and destruction. The post-war reconciliation would be more difficult than the combined policy approaches of Reconstruction outreach in the face of continued guerrilla resistance and the post-WWII Marshall Plan.

Perhaps the conflict ends with a strategic withdrawal. If the US Military pulls back, the post-conflict period may include a permanent perimeter to contain the other side. Should the opposing combatants select a strategic withdrawal in the face of overwhelming military force, perhaps they go underground. This may be the most viable outcome, because it would only take about 2 to 3 million households to hide immigrants in their Auxiliary Dwelling Unit (ADU) or a spare bedroom. Each host simply needs to provide shelter, food, medical care, education and security for their charges into perpetuity. Call the entire approach “Operation Anne Frank,” with ordinary citizens risking arrest to protect the immigrants.

And among the other possible outcomes is the sickening weakness brought on by a continuing quagmire. An endless war where public support wanes, combatants are depressed, and generations argue.

Alternatively, perhaps Secretary of State Rubio meets with Governor Newsom and Mayor Bass. The framework of the peace agreement is that all military withdraws in exchange for California’s pledge to support enforcement of Federal laws, including immigration. A safe path home for the innocents who came to the USA on the implicit invitation of President Biden, perhaps beyond President Trump’s current offer of money and transportation costs, could ease the burden. Of course, cooperation for prosecuting any criminal elements hiding amongst the innocents.

Are there other solutions? If the people we elect to find solutions would offer something other than mayhem and escalation, we cannot describe a “what’s next”; perhaps a pundit, writer, or citizen might? Seems that, realistically, the odds of today’s political parties solving this are not good.

So, is it too soon to call what we are all witnessing a war? If the Cambridge dictionary is to be believed, “War, armed fighting between two or more countries or groups” then perhaps it is time to ask why we are at war and how can the conflict be ended before there is more damage.

Onward

^*Episodes 39 (May 4, 2020); 47 (June 22, 2020); 111 (July 19, 2021)

^**Rifleman and Mortarman still carry the gender-specific title.