To Greenfield's credit, while he seems to get it, he has a wider, more general audience which forces him to use metaphors as code words to describe the situation.
Not those of us freed from the shackles of correct thinking, however. No, we're free to properly and correctly call the social conflict CW II. Conjecture as to "tribes" isn't necessary, which allows a more concise summation of "tactics".
That is, in all war time planning and execution, there are goals, objectives, strategies and tactics. The enemy controls a key asset in the form of its militarized information wing. Division and discord are no different from bombing targets and occupation plans when considered in total. The idea of a vanguard group to shock, surprise and soften a target is a very old concept.
Once viewed in this context, surprise, outrage or dismay (oh, I can't believe this is happening in America!) are unnecessary emotions. It's just the war, and the enemy is just utilizing and deploying some of its core assets.
BFD - in the end game, they are no match for actual action, with the end result being occupation and barred participation. A 'reconstruction' if you will.
Good analysis. Good post. Thanks.