For there to be any kind of real “civil war” there would need to be a very clear distinction between sides and goals alongside states declaring
That’s how the US Civil War happened, but frequently a national Civil War does not have such clear boundaries and sides. See Syria for a very messy conflict where about the only thing defining one ‘side’ was ‘not Assad’ and very little agreement other than that.
Civil war would be the worst possible outcome to be sure, but a messy situation can just as easily feed a civil war.
I’m not saying it has to be the same conditions as our “last” civil war, that might as well have taken place on another planet compared to today’s political and information landscape.
I’m saying here and now, today, we would need far different political and geographic lines for there to be anything resembling a “civil war” and really what we’re talking about is civil unrest and groups who may rise up in the coming years or decades willing to commit acts of violence. Even then that’s not a “civil war” and many nations have come back from that kind of disturbance. Even the US has had more internal revolts, coups and domestic terror groups than we have now. (Look up the original anarchist movement in the US for a wild ride through history.)
I personally take issue with people talking about “civil war” because it doesn’t help anything, if anything it removes us further from reality and reinforces the idea that “something is going to happen” by itself, that “someone is coming” to do something and create a big change. Literally, this is the same narrative the Christian right uses but theirs involves Jesus. It prevents people from investing in anything, from taking part in their community, from starting grassroots movements to change our political foundations.
That’s how the US Civil War happened, but frequently a national Civil War does not have such clear boundaries and sides. See Syria for a very messy conflict where about the only thing defining one ‘side’ was ‘not Assad’ and very little agreement other than that.
Civil war would be the worst possible outcome to be sure, but a messy situation can just as easily feed a civil war.
I’m not saying it has to be the same conditions as our “last” civil war, that might as well have taken place on another planet compared to today’s political and information landscape.
I’m saying here and now, today, we would need far different political and geographic lines for there to be anything resembling a “civil war” and really what we’re talking about is civil unrest and groups who may rise up in the coming years or decades willing to commit acts of violence. Even then that’s not a “civil war” and many nations have come back from that kind of disturbance. Even the US has had more internal revolts, coups and domestic terror groups than we have now. (Look up the original anarchist movement in the US for a wild ride through history.)
I personally take issue with people talking about “civil war” because it doesn’t help anything, if anything it removes us further from reality and reinforces the idea that “something is going to happen” by itself, that “someone is coming” to do something and create a big change. Literally, this is the same narrative the Christian right uses but theirs involves Jesus. It prevents people from investing in anything, from taking part in their community, from starting grassroots movements to change our political foundations.