How an Unconventional Warfare campaign is waged in the US

Okay, let us rip the band-aid off and examine how unconventional warfare (UW) and insurgency principles could theoretically apply right here in the United States. As a retired Special Forces Warrant Officer with experience in UW operations, I will draw directly from U.S. Army…

— Eric Schwalm (@Schwalm5132) January 30, 2026

Okay, let us rip the band-aid off and examine how unconventional warfare (UW) and insurgency principles could theoretically apply right here in the United States. As a retired Special Forces Warrant Officer with experience in UW operations, I will draw directly from U.S. Army doctrine to frame this objectively. UW is fundamentally about the “long game”: shaping conditions over time to support future objectives, whether known or emerging. Success is measured in favorable or unfavorable outcomes once the mission unfolds. It is chess, not checkers: deliberate, patient, and focused on setting the stage.

I recently came across a video from Kathy Griffin where, midway through, she encouraged viewers to independently map out their neighbors, gathering data on who’s “on our side” and who is not. In intelligence terms, this aligns with human terrain mapping: charting social landscapes to identify zones of support, neutrality, or resistance. It highlights where you have freedom of movement and where you do not. In an insurgency context, if you are not yet operating in an area, a key goal might be to neutralize potential opposition, making the terrain more favorable for later phases.

To broaden the lens, let us apply UW doctrine’s emphasis on logistics and key terrain. As the saying goes among strategists: “Amateurs talk tactics; professionals talk logistics.” History bears this out. Consider Germany’s rapid initial advances into Russia during WWII, only to falter as they outran their supply lines. The home team always has the logistical edge on familiar ground.

Flash back to Desert Shield/Desert Storm. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, we had to surge troops, vehicles, and supplies to the Middle East fast. The linchpin? Deep-water ports like Dammam in Saudi Arabia. Our initial “speed bump” forces (the 82nd Airborne, 101st Air Assault, and elements of the 24th Infantry) rushed in to secure those ports for buildup. (This was actually my first of many conflicts that I would be a part of and the beginning of my wider understanding of war.) It was reactive, not ideal, and we got lucky. But flip the script: If an adversary were hypothetically eyeing U.S. soil, they would prioritize the same: deep-water ports for force projection.

Now, overlay America’s major deep-water ports with political maps. On the coasts: Los Angeles/Long Beach, New York/New Jersey, Savannah, Seattle-Tacoma, Norfolk, Houston, Oakland, Charleston, and Baltimore. On the Great Lakes: Chicago, Duluth-Superior, Cleveland, Detroit, Toledo, Milwaukee, and Burns Harbor. What stands out? Over 90% sit adjacent to well-known liberal leaning urban enclaves.

These cities were not always blue strongholds. Many had Republican mayors or leaned red from the 1950s through the 1980s, with shifts completing by the 1990s or early 2000s in places like LA and Houston. This gradual transition mirrors UW’s phased approach: preparation, initial contact, infiltration, organization, buildup, and combat employment. Defensively speaking, it raises questions: Are our most strategic chokepoints aligned with nationalist priorities? Trends suggest they are intensifying in one direction, not reversing.

From a UW perspective, if someone aimed to consolidate control over these key areas using economy of force, what might that look like? First, subtly encourage opposition to self-relocate through persistent protests, rising crime, degraded living conditions, or restrictive policies that erode quality of life. Done right, it is an organic exodus, unremarkable to outsiders.

Second, build favorable political structures: Install aligned leadership at city and state levels. Note the fiercely progressive mayors in these ports, and the blue-leaning states like California, New York, Washington, Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin that oversee them.

Third, enact enabling laws: Expand gun-free zones in urban cores to limit armed resistance; ease voting requirements (e.g., no ID mandates in states like California, Illinois, Maryland, New York, Washington, and Minnesota) to sustain control; import demographics that bolster support, while complicating reversals (e.g., obstructing criminal illegal alien removal).

All of this operates within the seams of our democratic system: subtle, defensible, and incremental. Griffin’s call for grassroots mapping? In UW terms, it could resemble a cleanup phase: refining human terrain data after broader conditions are set.

Look at the maps, trends, and doctrines yourself. Ask: Who benefits from these shifts? What conditions are being shaped? Stay vigilant, think critically, and engage in informed discussions. In UW, awareness is the first line of defense.