The question has arisen as to the role of the US Military in any possible revolution in this country. The type of insurrection I refer to is a general uprising in all states starting in the form of a guerrilla war. This clearly means there would be no face to face confrontation with the regular army. Further that they would live no different from anyone else while conducting the revolution. This will initially involve only a small fraction of the population, perhaps 1%.
Consider that we have three branches Army, Navy (Marines) and Air Force. Clearly the Navy and Marines are of no value in suppressing a general insurrection. Unless an entire coastal state goes over to the insurrection the Navy and Marines are clearly useless save for air strikes.
Air strikes lack feasability for both the Navy and the Air Force save when the insurrectionists have known and fixed positions or supply routes. As they would have only their own homes or certain meeting places, perhaps loud bars, and their food and materiel is bought in grocery and hardware stores just like everyone else there are not targets to strike.
Further air strikes have a serious problem with collateral damage. It may impress Dan Rather to show a successful strike upon a suburban home but high explosives do not spare neighboring homes. And the relatives of the neighbors who die will most likely join the revolution rather than thank the government. That increases the forces of the revolution.
That leaves the Army as the only potentially useful force in suppressing an insurrection. The last three words are critical. Although Congress was delegated the power to raise armies (for two year intervals) and to create a standing Navy, it was clearly delegated only the power to use the militia to suppress insurrections. Given the mood of all Englishmen and certainly of the ex-colonists the use of the Army to suppress insurrection could not possibly be construed as their intention.
And as everyone in the Army takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution there is no room for complying with an order to suppress an insurrection. Thus it would appear by their oaths of office, not to mention the general revulsion of our military people to shooting at friends and relatives. Perhaps that is a bit of an understatement.
There is a point of law and case law that has to be addressed. The US Code improperly identifies the National Guard as the organized militia and non-members of the Guard as the unorganized militia. Thus it could be held that the National Guard could be used against the rebels.
But we have had a Supreme Court decision that clarifies the matter. Some years ago Reagan called up the Guard for exercises in Central America to intimidate Ortega. The objection to that was taken to the Supreme Court on the grounds the Guard was a state function. And in this case the Supreme Court, certainly forgetting unforeseen consequences, held the Guard was part of the US Army.
End discussion. The National Guard can not be used against an insurrection and of course they have the same oath of office.
That leaves the only authority Congress has, to call forth the militia to suppress other members of the militia. Most interesting is those aware of their militia status are those most likely to have joined the revolution. It presents an interesting problem for the Federal Government.
It requires the Federal Government to use its existing police powers to enforce whatever laws are delegated to the agencies with those powers. There are relatively few such people much less laws. Certainly if someone were to destroy a federal building then the FBI could investigate as it could any terrorist activity. However there are precious few other laws it can enforce in any manner different than can be done now.
In most cases they are support for the local police not having the manpower of the local police. In that regard the local police are equally as abhorant as the military in attacking friends and relatives. In other words, the local police are not likely to be aggressive in the matter and, in reading the character and interests of the police, are more likely to be part of the revolution than against it.
The worst case is that some fraction of the Army can be subborned to the cause of suppressing the rebellion. In the worst case all of it. Consider the grounds rebellion as I have described it without strongholds, only homes and meeting places which have to be discovered the hard way. These will be all through the cities but clustered in no one place.
That means all heavy weapons are useless because of the risk of collateral damage and converting loyalists into rebels. The Army is then down to armored personnel carriers, HMMVs and foot soldiers. The main weapon of tanks is high on the collateral damage scale as well as being very risky for their crews to take into cities -- ask any tank driver.
The armored vehicles are all well and good but for any serious shooting the troops have to get out. At that point, other than training, the playing field has been leveled. As for training, another large group to draw on for the rebellion will be ex-military and they will be the source of training and expertise for the rebels. The Regular Army will still have the edge but not by much.
Add to that, not only do tank drivers not like entering cities, neither do foot soldiers. There are too many places for people to hide. The only way to pacify as house is to enter it and every part of a home is a potential ambush. And there is no way of knowing the shooter in the window has been neutralized without checking and when someone enters the building to check there is no way to be covered by others in the group.
Worse yet rifles are clumsy things to use in houses. Handguns are much better but at in home distances and places the owner knows, the army folks are at a distinct disadvantage.
Summing it all up, even with the Army being subborned into suppression of a revolution it is hardly the most effective means of doing so, perhaps to the point of ineffective. Consider the local police often choose the wrong house, address or whatever. It is one thing to excuse the local police who may have helped you in the past. It is another to excuse the Army for killing the wrong people. Further to actually suppress a rebellion they will have to rack up so many accidents per week that the excuses that work for the police once a year will cease working in one week.
A general insurrection can not be suppressed by the Federal government, only by the militia which is the body of the people. When the body of the people become the insurrectionists the government will fall. There is no other possible outcome.