Amazing article Janine! Perspectives like yours will be desperately needed in the coming months.

I think this line in particular though points to - what I hope will be - a key take away. The US isn't as divided as former Yugoslavia, and most likely isn't going to fall to *that* level of conflict: but it doesn't have to. You don't need to get to the level of ethnic cleansing for the situation to be deemed 'horrible' or worth avoiding. There are many degrees of suffering and violence that can occur before that stage which we should be just as keen to avoid.

I agree with your analysis that right now the eruption of armed conflict between neighbours seems unlikely, if for no other reason than there is a monumental power imbalance between the civilian population and the US Armed Forces. And, seeing as I still don't believe Trump would get away with ordering soldiers to indiscriminately fire on one side or the other, that power imbalance alone could stave off civil war.

Additionally, I don't believe a vast majority of Americans have an appetite for that kind of violence. My concern is this, when do politically identified Americans (i.e., Republicans / Democrats) draw the line for violence done in their name? What needs to happen for a Trump Supporter to reject one of their own? A shooting? A bomb? A coup attempt? On the flip side, what would it take for a democrat to reject a movement that they believe in? How many riots? How many buildings burnt?

If the answer to either of these people is, "well I don't really know," then that could indicate my current view is flawed. It doesn't need to be a vast majority to support violence for it to occur, after all, as Edmund Burke said:

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”