Isaiah 3 and the Fall of Nations

From the January 29, 2013 eNews issue
(Visit Koinonia House for a FREE subscription)


America doesn't look exceptionally healthy these days. The fiscal cliff and mountainous national debt, attacks on children in schools and school busses, flagrant drug abuse and high divorce rates all bode poorly for the land of the free and the home of the brave. Isaiah 3 touches on the age-old question, "Why do nations fall?" - a question important to every nation that seeks to survive. Isaiah describes what a falling nation - a nation that rejects God - looks like.

We read in verse 1 of this chapter that "The Lord takes away the stock and the store and the whole supply of bread." That is economic deprivation. If we drop down to verse 4, "I will give children to be their princes." In other words - unexperienced, foolish, childish individuals will be in charge. Verse two details the loss of the "mighty man and the man of war, The judge and the prophet, And the diviner and the elder." In fact, it is so bad that down in the last verses of chapter three and first verses of chapter four, there are so few men that seven women approach one man to wear his name and have his children in order to remove the reproach of having no children.

Three things happen in this passage from which no nation has ever recovered. There are nations that have endured two of these attributes and survived but not three. The United States, for example, survived economic catastrophe and poor leadership during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Yet, the United States survived because the third attribute of Isaiah 3 did not occur; most men returned home from World War II.

In other words, stupid leadership not only drives good leadership out of the arena, it destroys the ability to provide for one's family, kills fathers, husbands, and wise leaders as the nation happily races with their immature leaders to destruction.

FM 3-24
In 2006, General Petraeus and a combined Army and Marine Corps group wrote FM 3-24, the Counterinsurgency Field Manual - the "COIN" manual for short. Though well written, the manual drives a population-centric, guerrilla strategy that utilizes the conclusions of preeminent asymmetric warfare scholars, Mao Zedong, David Galula. A population-centric strategy seeks to partner with the main population to protect it from the enemy, in contrast to an enemy-centric strategy that seeks to capture and kill an enemy. FM 3-24 is a good historical read, and its principles worked in Iraq and Afghanistan, but what about the land of Cell Phones and the Internet? How should a state deal with terrorism in Iraq versus people angry at the government in Seattle or New York?

FM 3-24 proclaims a limited set of historical case studies to support the argument that counterinsurgency should be oriented towards winning the "hearts and minds" of the population through increased reliance on soft power. The manual even enumerates soldier-to-population ratios and soft power capabilities such as strengthening host nations, creating freedom of movement for the "good" or approved general population, providing stability, etc. The major weakness of the manual is its advocacy of a population-centric approach as the only path to success. FM 3-24 did not consider the merits of alternative counterinsurgency strategies, thereby assuming, rather than proving, its primacy.

The possibilities for well-organized, networked battles among the common people is stronger than ever; insurgencies are taking place constantly from northern Africa to Syria... and even in the West, which has so long prided its civilization. Marches, protests, battles can be planned quickly and communicated quickly through social networking. Sometimes there are small groups of insurgents in among the people, and sometimes the insurgents include the majority of the population itself.

James Dunnigan wrote in his excellent tome, A Quick and Dirty Guide to War that smaller and smaller groups are able to wield greater and more lethal power. Dunnigan theorized that the velocity of information would make those groups faster on their feet, forcing opponents into a much more rapid battle-decision cycle. The dramatically networked battle space seems exclusive to military units but in reality, the creativity of a domestic insurgency with just a little communications discipline and cryptography could make that battle space a dynamic and very interesting place to fight. Use of the "New media" (e.g. Facebook & Twitter) alone will guarantee that the Federal Government does not possess networked battle space monopolies.

The gun control debate in the United States raises the specter of possible battles between the government and the general population. Not only are many U.S. citizens up-in-arms over the prospect of greater gun control, but law enforcement officials in several states have declared flatly they would not enforce unconstitutional laws limiting gun ownership in their jurisdictions. A significant number of Americans have a "You're taking my rifle over my dead body" attitude.

Current estimates place the total number of gun owners at 40-50 million citizens who possess approximately 300 million firearms. In the current climate, gun legislation and federal action could push most of those citizens into the category of closet law breakers as they hide their weapons and ammo against a rainy day. It is a foolish and childish government that takes away a deeply felt right, transforming a large block of citizens into determined closet criminals who fear the very government that is supposed to defend them.


Continuing to analyze the numbers, perhaps ten percent of that 40 to 50 million, 4-5 million citizens, would support action more volatile than participating in protests or writing their Congressman, but not to levels of violence that threaten life or property. One percent, perhaps 400,000-500,000 people would go so far as to provide safe haven, supplies, money, and hidden support for active insurgents. At the end of this equation, maybe one tenth of one percent, 40,000-50,000 Americans, would form small independently-functioning active resistance cells, or become lone-wolves. Many of these with prior military service would approach Operator levels of performance.

As this scenario solidifies, the government would attempt to move against gun owners and a number of those seizure actions will go bad, like Waco and Ruby Ridge. If the 40-50,000 angry insurgents push their battles to logical ends - to force a change in government - unnamed citizens (most believed to be in support of the government) and federal agents could die by the dozens, maybe even hundreds. Press Wonks and pundits on the Gun Control side might be attacked, and one will wonder if the left or the right is laughing the loudest. 

The Secret Service will be able to protect the President in the White House, but he will not dare leave except under carefully controlled circumstances. Even then, he will be forced to move under cover, like a criminal. Will the government employ the population-centric principles of COIN in this scenario?

Will there be a population whose hearts and minds can be won, or will freedom-loving Americans be considered the enemy?

The above scenario walks simple numbers across insurgent action that is not population-centric. Instead, it is asymmetric against selected federal targets and individuals with the intent of boxing the Executive Branch into a gilded cage and destroying the effectiveness of the Federal Government. It is roughly equivalent to dumping tea in Boston Harbor, tar and feathering colonial tax agents, and hanging His Majesty's Judges and Governors. The insurgents might even utilize disinformation campaigns that maximize federal belief in population-centric insurgencies.

The gun control scenario is just one example of how childish leadership can make bad decisions on one issue and drive its people to domestic insurgency. It is unlikely that Americans will truly lose their gun rights at this point; too many people still value the right to self-protection, even against their own government. If the day should come, though, the larger arena of ideas could easily explode into violent action. Using the framework of analysis provided by Isaiah 3, we might only be waiting for the loss of the Judge, the Captain, and the mighty man of war to take us beyond the edge of what nations can endure and still survive.

Related Links
• Population-Centric Counterinsurgency: A False Idol? - School of Advanced Military Studies
• Beyond Population-Centric Warfare - Prism
• Oregon Sheriffs Sending a Message: We Won't Take Your Guns - Oregon Live
• W.Va. Sheriffs Say They Wouldn't Enforce Assault Weapons Ban - The Charleston Gazette
• Why The Assault Weapons Ban Is (Probably) Going Nowhere - The Washington Post