The change in the outlook of civilians on rights and liberties by 2000 should be nothing short of catastrophic. Hunger--real hunger--tends to put ideas about rights on the back burner unless and until the "government" is perceived to be tied up with the problem. A warlord who puts food on the plates of the civilians can get away with a lot. A warlord who puts an end to lawlessness or banditry can get away with a lot. Conversely, a government descended from a legitimate pre-war institution may find itself overthrown by a strong man if it fails to feed and protect its people.
One of the issues I've been trying to come to grips with for years is how the American military men cope with running what amounts to a centralized Communist-style economy and government. In SAMAD, refugees are put on a parcel of land and told to farm. Truculence equals hunger. In 1997 and 1998, there is no other way for things to run. Generally, folks are glad to be alive and have some prospect for staying that way. However, as the food situation comes under control in SAMAD, the economy and politics are going to rear their ugly heads.
MilGov is in the same fix. Unless I miss my interpretation badly, the government is calling the shots in terms of economics, food distribution, etc. The Joint Chiefs, who led the fight against Communism, are now running a totalitarian regime. They allow local elections, but the real power is in the hands of folks no one elected. If there weren't already plenty to lose sleep over, this would keep the Joint Chiefs up at night.
Webstral
|