31 October 2012

Deer Hunters and Mao

With less than 150 views I've had over 30 replies to my last post.  Many of them explaining how I'm wrong, that 20 million deer hunters will be effective.  One anonymous coward called me a "staff college man, just like the ones who lost Vietnam!"  Obviously with a comment like that I'm in the presence of a military genius to rival Napoleon, or at least a little man with a Napoleon Complex.

So lets go back and review some of the history of successful insurgencies.  This is a subject I have written on before.  The most successful insurgency/revolutionary model in the modern era of warfare is Mao's three stage model, which Aesop brought up in comments.  I've even written that I believe that America is currently in the birthing stages of an insurgency.

Mao Tse Tung’s
Three Phase Theory of
Revolutionary War
1. Organization, consolidation and preservation of base areas,
usually in difficult and isolated terrain.
2. Progressive expansion by terror and attacks on isolated enemy units
to obtain arms, supplies and political support.
3. Decision, or destruction of the enemy in battle.

Notice that the first part of the equation is organization. Step one is ORGANIZATION.  Step two is EXPAND OPERATIONS.  Step three is WIN IN A CONVENTIONAL FIGHT DECISIVELY TO IMPLEMENT YOUR IDEOLOGICAL GOVERNMENT.  Hint, if you DON'T implement a government, then you will likely fall into a succession of "purges" as the more violent insurgents/revolutionaries grapple for power or hold a "reign of terror."

This is the same model that our Founding Fathers used.  Create a cadre of patriots, build popular support, throw some tea into the water, declare independence, fight a war to secure it.

Since there is NO ORGANIZATION there WILL BE NO REVOLUTION/INSURGENCY from the 20 Million Deer Hunters.  20 Million people, each with their own life, own priorities, and own problems, will not all decide to become sniper teams to take on the government.  Statistically it can't happen. You know why?  Because 20 Million Drivers would create a huge traffic jam.  People very seldom self organize across large tracts of geography, socioeconomic groups, or family lines.  It just doesn't happen.

There are a lot of reasons that the 20 Million Deer Hunters aren't organized, some just don't care, some don't have the time, and some don't see the point of aligning themselves with the "militia extremists" they think are nutjobs.  Statistically about half of those 20 Million Deer Hunters already work for the government at the Fed/State/Local level, and it is not in their best interest to be part of an anti-government organization of any stripe.

If I wanted to control my neighborhood, how many bodies would I need to bock off the three main roads that run through it?  How would I need to arm them to resist?  How would I reinforce their positions?  I could do it with 6 men and some heavy weapons.  I don't have 6 men, and I don't have heavy weapons.  How could I do it with strangers with deer rifles even if they did show up and volunteer?  Who would I talk to about tactical control of the entire town?  Would he or she have a grasp of tactics or just a thug with an agenda?

Right now there are men actively training other men in the skills necessary to work as part of a fire team.  This is good.  Right now there are men trying to connect Patriots across the nation, there was even CPX Foxtrot (relatively recently).  This is all great.  But it is not enough to win.  If the balloon went up today, right now, the odds clearly show 20 Million Deer Hunters not being effective at retaining freedom.

Now recently AP posted "the odds don't matter anymore."  He is talking about not being discouraged by the current odds, not being stupid and believing in the fairy tales about "20 Million Deer Hunters" or "100 Million Gun Owners."  I've quite a lot of respect for history, and while I truly hope this nation avoids the mistakes of the Germans, Russians, and Chinese in using the military as a domestic pacification force I don't think that we as Americans are fundamentally different from the Germans, Russians, or Chinese.  There exists currently in our 50% working population (employed by the .gov) enough sociopaths to do horrible damage to our nation.

Don't get me wrong, the 20 Million Deer Hunters and 100 Million Gun Owners represent a huge potential.  But potential is easily wasted if not disciplined into reality.  But the first step is getting organized.  Mao did it, the Founding Fathers did it, and if you think that the current generation doesn't need to do it, drive on with your bad self. 

64 comments:

Anonymous said...

late the haters hate life is to short to deal with dipshits

john in sd

Anonymous said...

AM,
Thanks, but with all respect to you and the author of the Little Red Book, he skipped over something: assuming there was anyone likeminded to organize.

So, who "organized" hundreds of farmers in ones and twos from Concord Bridge to the outskirts of Boston, and told them to shoot from behind walls and trees from everywhere? Last I looked, the 77 guys at Lexington Common (that would be the drilled, trained, organized ones) got their organized @$$es shot off, and what's left melted like fog on a warm day.
(I *will* grant that if someone had organized anyone properly, shooting the bejeezus out of Tommy Lobsterback the entire way IN would have been a helluvalot more fun and useful that waiting until he was homewardbound.)

Who "organized" pvts and corporals to take and hold St. Mere Eglise, and dozens of other crossroads, bridges, and high points, when nearly all their officers and most NCOs were dead, and those left weren't in command of anything much beyond the sound of their voices?
Who "organized" the L.A. Riots, and left 20,000 crack law enforcement officers, and several Bns of NG troops fresh off of Desert Storm, with air superiority, real time intel, and world-class organization, completely negated for days on end?
Who "organized" the fall of the Soviet Union, and got all those folks to take to the streets to stop a coup by the largest military west of Siberia?

What's that?...Spontaneous...??

Look, for the record: Organization is Good.
Planning, Training, Co-Ordination, Deconfliction, Mass, Concentration, etc., all Very Good.

Which isn't the same thing at all as Indispensable, or Absolutely Necessary.

Organization is the difference between 5000 sailors in innertubes, and an aircraft carrier.
But one mine on the hull turns the latter into to former.
100,000 North Vietnamese soldiers can create an offensive that can conquer a country.
One captain at a bridge with a few crates of explosive and a match turns them into a nice Arc Light target.
One emperor can peacefully rule an Empire stretching from Vienna to the Caucasus.
And one disgruntled little prick can burn the whole thing down in world war with a cheap pocket pistol.

I'm not here to gainsay your perspective, far from it.
But this has all the earmarks of arguing whether the fork, knife, or plate is the most important thing on a great man's dinner table.

My point is merely to urge a tad more respect for the contributions of the vegetables and humble cow on the platter.
-Aesop

avidus said...

Excellent post, rather reminds of the axiom, amateurs debate tactics while professional discuss logistics.

I do struggle with aside from the dictionary is there a difference between insurrection and revolution. You've used them synonymously but I'm not so sure. Are uncoordinated actions, insurrection, while coordinated actions revolution for instance? Perhaps they are different spots on the same timeline.

If we follow past posts, and to some extent Mao then the insurgents must take and hold ground, whether that's initially training sites or further on cities, provinces etc. If so how do we define this? Is insurgent control the same as control by a regular army battalion/brigade/division or is it through denying the enemy the ability to operate in such territory while not presenting large mechanized numbers themselves?

Another rather large variable I ponder is the support an oppressive regime would have in their para-military and military forces. Will our local police and sheriff's deputies obediently arrest their neighbors? Will the FBI/DEA/ATF embrace the new role as sturmtruppen when the targets are overwhelmingly normal citizens rather than the opposite? Will the Army/Air Force/Marines follow what would previously been viewed as unlawful orders?

It's easy to say a combination of paranoia, peer pressure, propaganda and the mortgage payment will ensure loyalty but I'm not so sure. You being a good example of active duty army being rather open to insurgent activity. How far along Mao's rule of three would an insurrection need to progress before we may see units changing sides either covertly or overtly, fire teams, sections, and perhaps platoons at first then...or will such only occur if the regime is seen as losing.

And then there's the big question of populace support en large. Polling shows that the public's trust in media and government is at the lowest since results were kept. In such a scenario how easy will it be to convince hundreds of millions that the extraordinary measures are required and are indeed reasonable? We often forget that any oppressive government does need popular support even if it's by omission or through fear. As I'm sure you know that's why China for example spends more on internal security than defense.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for seperating the political from the tactical. For an example you might use the Southron insurgency against Reconstruction. RobRoy

Pericles said...

A couple of comments to above posts:

what allowed those LGOTs to organize themselves and be effective was training and a common understanding of tactical doctrine. organized militia groups tend to such because there are not enough prior service personnel in them to provide the training standard and fill the leadership roles. Most guys will be filling positions at least two ranks higher than they held on active duty. The other shortage is the training resources that regular forces have. Some of that can be worked around, but the experience can't be. Thus, groups led by vets tend to suck less than the others.

One of the issues that units have to be prepared to handle is sudden growth by an influx of volunteers.

The coming unpleasantness will split military and law enforcement organizations. You will notice that the contractors tend to be used for force protection (base guards), units to engage other units, and police for population control.

AM said...

Avidus,

A revolutionary is an insurrectionist who succeeded. The difference between Patriot and Traitor to the Crown is really in whether you win.

Rebel, revolutionary, insurrectionist, militant, whatever you want to call it, is the same thing for the purposes of this discussion. Even the term "terrorist" will get thrown out there, although in recent terms that has applied mainly to non-state actors, whether or not they have a political motive.

AM said...

Aesop,

If you are planning on relying on a "spontaneous" event where everything goes as you plan, you are a fool. Even in a "spontaneous" event like the opening of the prisons in the French Revolution (or the 1979 Iranian revolution) things follow patterns.

There is NO historical precedent for the scenario you describe (at least that I can find, please feel free to prove me wrong), 20 million hunters opening up on the government. If you can point one out I would really like to know. Because the last I checked anything that remotely resembled what you described ended up with ethnic cleansing or genocide.

If you just want to cause chaos, by all means use the LA Riots as a model for success.

Seriously Aesop, how do YOU define success?

Anonymous said...

True Pericles. How will the regular/contractor/LEO paradigm fare if one or more components elect to sit things out, or actively oppose the others?

Personally, I don't know anyone more acquainted with the critical weak spots of any given military or security organization than someone who served within it.
Thus, like most successful capers, the entire insurgency will be an "inside job".

Also lest we forget, Mao was also a yackjob politician, not a general.
He also seems to have had the Chinese equivalent of 20M deer hunters.
And the great good fortune to square off against the worst-run, most incompetent opponent campaign in recorded world history and heretofore wholly unequalled until Sen. McCain ran for President in 2008.
If I were picking mtaphors for organization, I wouldn't start with the culture whose main legacy in that endeavor was the "Chinese Fire Drill."

-Aesop

AM said...

Thanks Aesop.

You play the lottery? You seem like the eternal optimist.

Tree of Liberty said...

Happy Halloween!

PioneerPreppy said...

If you build it they will come. The good and the great leaders will step up and perhaps it is a bit soon to be creating ego divides just yet.

As the citizen soldiers scratched their heads trying to figure out elevation and charge measurements for their guns a leader stepped up and his name was Napoleon.

Let another Benghazi thing happen and current leaders may just pop up all the more easily. When the time comes and they are needed.

I tend to agree with Aesop here but for a different reason. You won't know the true leaders until they are needed and they are there.

Until then trying to force a leader who cannot grab it on his own will only cause strife and hard feelings.

Jimmy the Saint said...

@Aesop: "Who "organized" the L.A. Riots"

There was some decent organization on the part of the LA street gangs, at least in the black areas. When the rioting became general, it was a different story, but by that point, the police had already ceded large parts of the city.

Dan said...

20 million deer hunters getting together and
forming a cohesive unit.....not likely. But 20 million deer hunters EACH finding, isolating and eliminating one uniformed thug, one political hack, one marxist sycophant apiece.....that would change everything.

And there are probably a hundred million houses in America with at least one gun. If
every time a raid by the JBT enforcers cost them a life eventually the raids would end.

You can't organize 20 + million hunters or gun owners into a coherent army. You can give them the tools and inspiration to act at the individual level.

Fundamentally violence occurs at the individual level.....and it works both ways.

droneboy said...

Hahaha! Good point!

Anonymous said...

AM,

You keep trying to shove everything into the Play-Doh mold and have "Operation Bythenumbers" shoot out the other end, with all annexes and attachments appended.

I'm not "relying" on anything except my own capabilities and equipment. Hence there is no "everything" to which I hold must accord with my "plan".

The farcical premise that began this snipe hunt was a faintly quisling essay elsewhere that asserted in effect that absent pulling CENTCOM, whole, out of our back end, with a fully functioning Military-Industrial complex in trail, resistance was futile. (Also known as the Monty Python "Run Away" Plan.)

That's anti-historical nonsense.

And choas, death, panic, destruction, and disorder were *exactly* what we got when a tiny fraction of mere, wholly untutored civilians told the most advanced police forces in this country to "Eff Off!" (For God's sake man, Chief Gates put the SWAT in SWAT, and his vaunted "plan" when confronted was "Run, Hide, Sob Gently, And Hope They Go Away".) With 99% of the city on the side of law and order!!

It's what *still* exists in Baghdad, and will indefinitely until that country is either split in 3, or undertakes drastic measures - despite 4K American lives, 10K casualties, 100K civilian deaths, and $1T squandered - for a country equivalent in size and population to California, and in education to Sesame Street.

The difference is that while half the .mil couldn't subjugate California, half of California could handily - one hand behind their backs - subjugate the .mil.

And then you're going to have to contend with 49 other states, whilst withdrawing 100% of your forces from every country, base, sky, and ocean not within sight of CONUS on a clear day, while trying to convince them you'll pay debts, uphold treaties, honor alliances, restrain enemies, and defend friends, while cities burn and you can't get a case of MREs from the warehouse unmolested most days.

That, sir, is what von Clauswitz called "friction", and I intend to be a bag of gravel in Leviathan's transmission every inch of every mile of every day.

That's my plan, my brief, my manifesto. I'll shoot my last round (far more than 1 box) and fix a bayonet. I'll run away when I can't win, and come back again when I can. I'll steal whatever they leave, and break and burn anything too big to carry off. If they catch me I'll give them The Finger, if they drag me away I'll spit in their face, and if they lock me in a cell I'll fling my turds at them as long as I have 3 feet of intestines to make one. And if they throw me to lions, so help me, I'll do my damnedest to taste bad going down.

My one, my only assumption is that a not inconsiderable number of other Americans, hunters, shooters, or X-Box commandos, feel exactly the same, because we're descended from the disorganized, undisciplined, unsheltered, unshod, unfed, frostbitten SOBs at Valley Forge who'd cross ice floes barefoot at midnight on Christmas to kill in their sleep every last misbegotten bastard who'd dare, in his wildest imaginings, he could revoke the freedom that's our birthright.

Given the choice between military planning - Valley Forge, Bull Run, Pickett's Charge, Cold Harbor, Custer's Bighorn picnic, Samar, Gallipoli, Pearl Harbor, Bataan, Anzio, Market-Garden, Chosin, Hamburger Hill, Eagle Claw, Beirut, Mogadischu, and the last 9 years of military "nation-building" - I'm going with Patton over Eisenhower: "A good plan *now*, violently executed, is better than a perfect plan tomorrow."

Mayhap, you can follow on with the regiment once the rest of us get you some traction, and time to train.

Best regards,
-Aesop

Anonymous said...

AM,

You're putting out amazing knowledge and asking a lot of the rights questions. The hate is mostly from arm chair quarterbacks who either haven't been in the military or just don't understand logistics. (Pericles, shout out to you for having intelligent criticism; I got a new perspective from your "5 wall ratcage" post) You dropped a lot of great info in your FC7 series, and motivated me to get up to date with the technological age. The people criticizing you now for inserting reality into their 1775 fantasies are the same ones that were praising you when you gave them some extra fiction to play with.

Aesop, at BEST what you're describing is a meat grinder. Sending people into the field with no training, no support, and no definite plan isn't just wasting lives; it's creating a chaotic "every man for himself" environment that will be the end of any hope for FreeFor. You asked who organized the troops at Lexington-Concord? Captain John Parker, VETERAN of the French and Indian Wars, and commander of the Lexington militia. Colonel James Barnett, commander of the Concord and Lincoln militias. Various NCOs and petty officers, such as William Munroe. The militia that marched at the Lexington Greens was a well-regulated militia, trained and experienced, many of whom were veterans of the British Army. They had a chain of command. They were organized into different military specialties, such as light infantry and scouts. They had a plan and established lines of communication with other organized militias. They had a real government who was responsible for their actions. In sum, they weren't a band of rabble.

Anyone thinking that leaders are just going to pop up out of nowhere when we need them, or that people without even the same desired end state are going to band together, is living in dreamland. Better to take a step back, look at things realistically, and get to work.

I'd rather have 20 million guys who say "Oh, shit, our country is going to be torn away from us unless we get organized, get seriously political, and rule it ourselves" than 20 million guys who think "Welp, sure tootin', if them there gubmint boys come 'round, I'll go on an shoot me a couple blue hats! Yeehah!" 'Cause organizing and learning law and logistics and campaigning isn't fun, but shooting off some rifles and make believing that you're a fighting force is a blast!

-JMB

GunRights4US said...

All the tactical and historical observations not withstanding - I'd still rather have those 20 million deer hunters, than not.

Anonymous said...

Well, so what do we do?? Unfortunately, I am one of those 20 million deer hunters. Its either submit or resist. I must admit, I've never been good at submitting, an I have no intentions of that now. With that said, I don't want to sacrifice my life, or my family's for nothing. Its hard to watch your country collapse in front of you and do nothing, almost as hard as watching most Americans around me that don't see it, and don't seem to care. Maybe it just going to be, as there rounding us up some people will make them pay. Don't know, wish i did.

Anonymous said...

Im not the guy who posted the staff college thing, but in his defense, I've tried to post here Non-anonymously and it is a pain in the ass. I get taken to google where they show me my whole life history on the screen and then don't allow me to back arrow. When I go forward it takes me out of the system and I have to start over again. It is a shitty system.

Anonymous said...

If the afghanis can raise hold off the US, Americans can hold off the US. Don't forget many esteemed folks including Hitler and Bin Laden have stated that americans (and yes they were refering to our military as well) were too lazy and spoiled to fight. They then proceeded to have their asses kicked by Americans. Those deer hunters would become a formidible force in a relatively short amount of time.

Jwoop66

Anonymous said...

If afghanis can raise a Force to hold off...

Jwoop66

Anonymous said...

@JMB,

Capt. Parker and his band of patriots did little more than bravely provide target practice for the British regulars, who then continued onwards to Concord Bridge.

The redcoats failing to find any rebel cannon or senior leadership at either location, it was in fact the several hundreds of minimally-organized, completely self-directed, small parties of colonial civilians, firing at every opportunity, who inflicted overwhelming and thoroughly demoralizing accurate sniper fire on the British, who left a trail of dead and mortally wounded all the way back to Boston.

Imagine my shock upon finding an incident where BOTH losing sides were the well-regulated, highly-organized formations, designed and deployed after thoughtful military planning by the experts of the day, and possessed of uniformly mediocre marksmanship; and the winning side in the engagement were self-taught, self-supplied, and self-deployed New England bubbas and deer hunters from out in the sticks and away from the big city, who may indeed have said, "Sure tootin', let's go shoot a mess o' Redcoats."

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

A lesson of Iraq - both times - is that against our first tier military, a conventional force of lesser technology provides target practice. A lesson of Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan is that an enemy who's prepared to take everything you've got and keep coming at you will eventually raise *his* flag long after you've withdrawn. A lesson of 1865 is that an army, no matter how superior in competence, can't win without the support of its own people and industry, even against a less competent enemy which has the support of both.

The synthesis of those lessons are that in an internal conflict here, it *will* be a meat grinder (file that under "Duh!"), and that in the universe of options, I would chose to oppose tyranny dependent upon my best judgement and planning, rather than hand that over to newly-risen, self-proclaimed "experts" of dubious pedigree, come the day.

Last I looked, no one in this country has any experience winning any revolutions for about 230 years. Pardon me then for rudely pointing out that anyone's expertise therefore, including mine and our host's, resembles at best a medical education from correspondence school using pictures of the body and procedures.

Prudence is highly advised.

Best Regards,
-Aesop

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:10

I'm not saying don't resist, but you've got to be realistic and effective in your resistance. I don't know where you are in life, but there's a lot of options open to you depending on where you are, who you are, and what you're doing.

Young? Your career path could be a lot of use to the liberty movement. You could join the military, the police force, get a law degree; get skills and training that will help you and those around you. You don't have to think too hard about the possibilities any of those career paths would provide.

Older? Think about what skills you have and how they can be used. If you're a graphic designer or media producer, you've got an in on producing propaganda. Experienced contractor? Congrads; you've got the framework on being an engineering NCO. Salesman? You've probably got a unique edge on networking and getting people on the same page. Trucker? You are the logistics train.

You've got to get networking. The last Appleseed I went to, one of the instructors made a point about a militiamen making the call at Lexington, with 100 minute men responding; that's what I'm shooting for now. I can't give you leads, but if you pay attention, you'll find people around you who are asking a lot of the same questions you're asking. You, and me, and the liberty movement as a whole, have got to get organized. Join, or die.

I mean, come on. The Bloods and Crips can do it. It can't be that hard.

- JMB

Anonymous said...

Aesop,

Okay, "Bubba." If you think blindly throwing yourself on the fire is a good idea or what the Founding Fathers did, more power to you. I just won't be following you into it.

And when I say "meat grinder," I mean "pointless waste of human life." You're recommending the same strategy the French used in WWI, and it's going to work about as well as it did then.

- JMB

Anonymous said...

Fact is this is all just an exersize in bullshit. There is no revolution. the troops are not shooting at us nor us at them. Like the great AR-15 V AK-47 debate we have talked this to death for over 20 years. No graveyards yet. Maybe someday(god I hope not) but not now.

Anonymous said...

There is no revolution. the troops are not shooting at us nor us at them.

Exactly! Which is why we need to organize. Otherwise the majority of the country will be picking between the lesser of two evils until we wake up disenfranchised on our own soil.

Anonymous said...

We won't have leaders or organization until the threat is more clear to the rest of the population. Until then perhaps a bit of patience might be in order, after all wishing for the fight before a significant (>20%) of population agrees might be a bit hasty.

But if the fight starts before then perhaps a bit of Rommel is in order?

“In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it”

JohnAdams

Anonymous said...

JMB,

Trying to equate partisan guerrilla-style warfare with the French in WWI - to date, the supreme example of military planning and organization, using huge bodies of conventional troops- is ludicrous.

The rest of your tantrum is unworthy of more than suggestions that you switch to decaf, and return to the last educational institution you attended, and demand a full refund.

I will say with utmost sincerity that you, personally, have probably done more to make the case for *not* trying to consolidate and organize large numbers of patriots into units than I could ever do.

-Aesop

Pericles said...

I'll suggest to the candid audience that the truth is between the two extremes.

CPT Parker knew what his unit was capable of doing, and what it could not do, stop the British Army deployed against him. His unit served as the tripwire, and the action being started, his unit dispersed, rather than be destroyed, they later in the day reformed and participated in the attack on the retreating British column.

I'd like to give Sir Hugh Percy (commander of the relief column sent out to get the remaining British forces back to Boston) the last word on the subject: "During the whole affair, the rebels attacked us in a very scattered, irregular manner, but with perseverance and resolution, nor did they ever dare to form into a regular body. Indeed they knew too well what was proper, to do so. Whoever looks upon them as an irregular mob, will find himself very much mistaken. They have men amongst them who know very well what they are about, having been employed as rangers against the Indians and Canadians, and this country being very much covered with wood, and hilly, is very advantageous for their method of fighting."

Fortunately for us, he was not given command of British forces in North America, for he also knew what he was about, and understood how American units fought and why.

Oldfart said...

Yeah, we've got a lot of firepower out there and it's woefully unorganized. But unorganized isn't the same as disorganized and that may be good.
Suppose Joe Blow down the street gets fed up and decides to pick off a few federal toadies. Then, the next day, Fred Flintstone, on the other side of the continent comes up with a similar plan.
Of course the police and all the alphabet agencies jump in the pool and one of our shooters - Joe or Fred - gets caught. Since the two events happened within a few hours of each other it's assumed they are connected. But neither Joe or Fred has any knowledge of the other nor any connection to a "Grand Plan" as the investigators would like to think. Neither of then even has any information beyond their own action and can't give anything away.
On the other hand, suppose the one who has been captured is a member of a group of four other patriots. Each of them is now toast. However tough our shooter is there are people working for the government who can and will extract every bit of information he might have and then toss him aside like a used condom.
While most of us could endure great physical pain to protect our friends it might be a different story if we had to watch one of our children or grandkids be dissected.
There are a number of blogs which get the word out to all those unorganized assets. While there is great worth in the technical and tactical information contained in all these articles and comments, keeping people informed of the escalating war (and we ARE at war) is of the utmost importance. Arguing over fine points here is like picking the fly-shit out of the pepper.

Chuck said...

Speaking of whether or not the threat of tyranny is hypothetical or looms ominously, see the link to DOD Directive 3025.18 below. Most of it is nothing new, but pay particular attention to para. 4.g. and 4.i regarding Immediate Response Authority and Emergency Response Authority for Federal forces used domestically.

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302518p.pdf

avidus said...

If we follow Mao's model then winning without comparable organized and sized forces to a regular army enemy will not be possible.

However, we shouldn't forget Clausewitz. He argued that there are three ways to win wars:

1, disarm your enemy, rendering him powerless to resist your demands;
2, show him he's unlikely to win;
3, convince him the costs of winning will be exorbitant, far beyond the value he place on his political stakes.

Now 20 million organized deer hunting fellows may well not be able to accomplish options one or two, but option three seems really quite doable.

Anonymous said...

Bonus points for noticing Clauswitz's conditions dovetail inversely with Mao's stages, I.e. 3:1, 2:2, and 1:3.

-Aesop

AM said...

Clausewitz recognized that war and politics are not disengaged.

Violence without a political objective is pointless. Possibly randomly shooting someone could be considered an "act of protest" but normally it is just called "murder" or "terrorism."

Think about the failure of the IRA to get what they wanted before their descent into a crime syndicate. A noble failure, but a failure.

Anonymous said...


From what I see of this ??? warrior ? --he is either, blissfully ignorant , or just another a professional Know it all . Tha latter I suspect.

The nature of men on home turf being what it(BE) is....

I am Referring to the great L.A. (la-la land ) Riots ...Basically unarmed people held off the great LAPD for DAYS...Order was not restored till the people tired themselves of it ...

Military or Not--we have full bird Colonels telling the troops in the sand box For Prez O'Bozo-Bumbo to go F'off...

Ya think they will TURN on their own People here at home ?
...sure SOME will...
10 %, maybe 20 %....the rest, ? what do think they will do ...

I saw my WW2 vet father of near 90 pick an ak, 2k of rounds and other accoutrements ...Hmmm....
Now what could he be thinking he will do with it ?

Simple ...there is gona be at least one less person to go round up his neighbors ...

Wana bet, alot less than that ?
Sure he may get KILT...but someone of that age still remembers what IS worth fighting for ....he have to DRAG others with him, but THEY WILL COME ....in time ....


This Does appear to be someone EDUCATED beyond their humble means...

Ya think all that ammo being sold to civies is for target shotin...or being stored to trade for Oboma Dollars ?

Do i smell IVY league here ? or ...Does This guy sounds like a Tory , He does to me ....

Maybe he has not lived in heart land in awhile ...His head is filled with the SMUG of his
Chery ezey bake VOLT....

JMO.... I call like I see it .

tha G'man

Anonymous said...

@Pericles: Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I'm not, and I don't think anyone else is, saying that we need to recreate top down US military style structure. I'm actually a huge fan of bottom up leadership. But without any organization or leadership, nothing is going to get accomplished.

@Aesop: You're not talking about partisan warfare; you're talking about throwing bodies at the problem until it might be solved. Since you seem to be ignoring history to do it, there's not much else to say about it.

- JMB

Yank lll said...

Twittering Nabobs and Oxygen Thieves educated beyond their abilities with difficulties in the perception of reality..

The power of the words, or lack of same, of the "anonymous" man is completely based on the intelligence of his discourse as perceived by those he is aiming at.
Shot out, ..short round !!

This concept, painted with my broad brush, of "Deer Hunters" as our Mike Force because they hunt once a year IMO is bogus since they are, in my experience, the ones always making excuses for obeying more gun laws and restrictions, believeing ther NRA is their best bud and not upsetting the apple cart and my goodness dont discuss politics, ever. Not trying to start a battle but its more accurate than some of the nonsense posted as replies here.
I just cant get a grip on a bunch of social hunters dressed out in orange and red posted in an ambush or to to to defend anything but a bar stool in the early evening.. Not that they are all drunks but as an image to ponder that most here have seen more than combat..

AM has it right, take a lesson.

Yank lll

Anonymous said...

@JMB

No, I'm not talking about throwing anyone anywhere, and you saying "Are too!" and sticking your fingers in your ears doesn't change that fact.

My argument is that what can be seen can be killed, and most brutally will be.
Your argument is that we need to find some clown makeup, bright wigs, and a Volkswagen in which to ride to battle.

@Yank III
Thanks for missing the forest among the trees, and for eloquently restating and diligently rebuilding Oleg's favorite strawmen.

So when you and the entirely mythical Patriot Army comes upon 20M actual armed citizens with whom you clearly and explicitly share no political common ground, will you simply round up their guns, ship them off to concentration camps, or just shoot them out of hand? Or perhaps attempt to convince them you were "just kidding"?

Compare and contrast (if the possibility exists) your answer with those of Chuck Schumer, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Stalin, and King George III.

Do you really imagine you have so many political allies that you can sacrifice any support from 20,000,000 people so cheerfully and cavalierly? Or do you simply assume that once they get to know you, they'll kiss the foot that kicks them, after they wipe your urine off their heads?

If this is what presents itself to be molded into an army, invest heavily in Leviathan Industries.

Utterly astonished,
-Aesop

DAN III said...

Aesop....I certainly cannot argue with your reasoning. Seems to me another ingredient along with organizing and leadership doing such, is time.

Good commentary.

DAN III

DAN III said...

Damn Aesop....when you going to write a book ? I'll take an autographed copy.

DAN III

DAN III said...

Jwoop66,

Regarding Hitler getting his "ass kicked" as you claim by Americans you're incorrect. The Soviets kicked Hitler's ass and his vaunted Wehrmacht on the eastern front of WW II. Eighty-four (84) % of ALL German casualties were on the eastern front. The Soviets kicked Nazi ass and it took them 4 years to do it. American ground force participation was a sideshow.

Please read some history. You'll be amazed at how much it can enlighten oneself.

DAN III

Anonymous said...


ATF reports, in 2010 there were 5,459,240 new firearms manufactured in the United States, nearly all (95 percent) for the U.S. market. An additional 3,252,404 firearms were imported to the United States.

With 230 million firearms legally owned in the United States,....

the Number of Veterns 22,658,000...
Hmmm....5,737,000 Gulf war vets ....Hmmm.... AND....

In 2008, 12,501 local police departments with the equivalent of at least one full-time officer were operating in the U.S.

In 2008, local police departments had about 593,000 full-time employees, including 461,000 sworn officers. About 60% of all state and local sworn personnel were local police officers.

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/353_number_and_rate_of_full_time.html.....These numbers are not extrapolated here ...do it yourself ...if you must yourself .

Hmmm....



Gun sales figures


2011: 10,037,110 (3,217 per 100,000)

2010: 8,753,555 (2,835 per 100,000)

2009: 8,927,138 (2,907 per 100,000)

2008: 8,426,245 (2,771 per 100,000)

2007: 7,530,727 (2,499 per 100,000)

2006: 7,361,033 (2,467 per 100,000)

2005: 6,935,952 (2,346 per 100,000)

2004: 6,599,292 (2,253 per 100,000)

2003: 6,333,371 (2,182 per 100,000)

2002: 6,347,492 (2,206 per 100,000)

2001: 7,207,720 (2,528 per 100,000)

2000: 7,067,634 (2,504 per 100,000)

1999: 7,857,932 (2,816 per 100,000)


Sompthin Just don't add up here LUCY..?

Must be lots "TARGET" shooters ...yea right ...
Now --let us recall the "WINTER WAR" a military conflict between the Soviet Union and Finland.

NOW THAT whet well didn't it ?

So much for an easy victory ???

With nay-Sayers like this fella ...who no doubt were doing the same thing at that time ...so ...things might have gone different for the Finns...


But the rest of us are "NO NOTHINGS" ....RIGHT....




By ABC News
Aug 25, 2012 2:04pm
Guns in America, a Statistical Look
Email 13 Smaller Font Text Larger Text | Print
gty guns on rack jt 120825 wblog Guns in America, a Statistical Look

(Getty Images)

There are more than 129,817 federally licensed firearms dealers in the United States,

Gas Stations in the U.S. (2011): 143,839 (
Grocery Stores in the U.S. (2011) 36,569 (
McDonald’s restaurants in the U.S. (2011): 14,098


SO using your reasoning...What do these NO professional drivers WHO clearly buy gas at all these stations Do with it ?...Clearly these are not professionally trained drivers ...Hmmm..??

Must be they STORE the gas ....yea that's right ...they store it .

Don't really intend to use it ...just have it , just in case ...

In the midst of a terrible economy, Gun sales RAISE to record heights ... Must ba LOTS OF COLLECTORS out there ...YEA THATS IT...


Let me Quote another NO-NOTHING ...

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn


So it we allow it ...I guess I will then agree with you...But WE ARE NOT RUSSIANS ....YET.

Tha G'MAN




AM said...

G'Man,

Are we the Germans? Or are we the British? Both had large populations of veterans and a history of gun ownership. Germany suffered through Hitler and Britain is slowly imploding under their own nanny state.

Just saying, private ownership of firearms has not been shown in history to be a deterrent to tyranny.

Anonymous said...

Aesop, if there's no organization, you're not going to get little bands of effective resistance that disappear into the night. You're going to get Occupy Wall Street. You're going to get terrible and misguided one-offs like Clay Duke and Tim McVeigh.

Occupy Wall Street is a good example of what would happen if 20 million deer hunters don't organize. Lot's of people showed up to Occupy with no definite plan and a lot of anger. They ended up banding together with common tactics and "leaders" that rose up from within the ranks. Yet, they had nearly no logistics train, no real tactic aside from harassment, (like the harassment unorganized "deer hunters" would cause) no common desired end state, and no experienced political or economic leaders stepping up from the movement. Winter wiped them out because they were ill-trained and ill-equipped to handle it. No political change came because their only tactic was harassment, and the bulk of the movement straight up refused to Occupy the Polls. The big shots that showed up in attempt to support and organize OWS were shouted down and kicked out of the movement. They've also alienated the country, as they produced no effective media portraying them in a positive light. In the eyes of the public, they became a bunch of college kids and homeless people who were annoying everyone else. The leaders never stepped up to the bat to be anything more than rabble rousers, and the whole movement collapsed on itself.

Yeah, Occupy were asshats, but the Tea Party is a similar movement and is facing similar problems. Since the Tea Party was willing to protest, but by and large not willing to educate themselves on the issues or the men in charge, they've been "bought out" by the Republican party. There are very few candidates that arose from the Tea Party, and the ones that have are largely big government types who sprinkle a little Constitution in their campaign speeches and reap the rewards. The Tea Party, though organizing and creating or bolstering organizations like the Campaign for Liberty, has let the same people they were protesting filter back into their command structure. It was infuriating to watch a bunch of big government neocons wear tricon hats in the Republican primaries and see the Tea Party fall for it. They let the status quo head the movement.

(Continued...)

-JMB

Anonymous said...

Now, the Tea Party is a young movement and by and large doing pretty well. Ron Paul made it very far in the primaries and exposed a lot of the corruption in the system. Yet these are two major movements suffering from a lack of coordinated, focused power. 20 million deer hunters can be contained because they'll all have a different idea of when the line has been crossed, what needs to be done to create a change, or exactly how far they're willing to go morally. Even if there is an uprising, give them a little political consent and most will go home. Moreover, one Tim McVeigh would undo a company of well-meaning patriots. Heck, that seemed to be the point of PATCON.

Moreover, unorganized harassment fire is not a winning strategy. It worked great on the British while they were on the move between Concord and Lexington, because the British were on the move and didn't have a hard target to execute a Napoleonic defense against. It was a good tactic, but it wasn't the only tactic used that night. The British were also met with well executed instances of the conventional tactics of the day, such as the firing line at the North Bridge. The ring of fire that encircled Percy's men was an organized tactic ordered by Brigadier General William Heath and Joseph Warren. Even near the end of the battle, when it became disorganized due to Percy losing control of his men and the sheer amount of militia pouring into the battle space, the militia were not disorganized because they were acting as individuals but because so many commands were becoming involved in the battle. The colonists started attacking the British regulars as well, but the militia did the bulk of the damage.

I just don't get where you think this crowd sourced resistance has ever been used historically. Even the Civil Rights movement had leaders, and that sure as heck didn't end when their leaders were shot.

- JMB

10mm AUTO said...

If I may interject, far more would be accomplished with individual assassinations than can be understood. The politicians and Alphabet bureaucrats live amongst us and if they began to disappear, the Government would heel quickly. Small unit sniper teams could destroy the morale and organization of the ATF for example, very quickly. When they are out jogging, at a fund raiser, at the supermarket and shot rings out and an agent drops, with the message that all who belong to said organization are under the same sentence unless they retire or quit. A book about this type of action is called "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross. People have a strong desire to survive and the really evil politicians can not all be guarded successfully. Perhaps the "bubba's" will not stand in the field against modern forces, but if the Farrakhan's, Dr. Cone's and the Noel Ignatiev's are eliminated along with the primary foot soldiers, I believe that a great deal of progress could be made.

Anonymous said...

10mm; not something I would post on the internet. Just saying.

AM said...

10mmAuto,

Assassinations generally do not bring about political change for the better. Lincoln's death put someone even more harsh to the Southern plight in power. Kennedy's assassination directly lead to GCA '68 as it was still fresh in the minds of the public.

There was that famous Duke who got shot in the Balkans that caused the political machinations that ended in WWI, which directly led to WWII.

So until you understand "The Law of Unintended Consequences" you should probably not assassinate anyone.

Anonymous said...

JMB,

Occupy was a "crowd", which (follow this carefully) is the opposite of "individuals".

Their lack of any focus or abilities, let alone strategy, is exactly what herds of some mythical Patriot Army will look like, which is exactly why I never advocated creating one at the outset, and in fact the essence of why I don't want anything to do with forming mine or joining yours. It's going to get most of them killed.

So to chose Occupy and the Tea Party, with their *organizational* failures, to represent the perils of NOT organizing is the height of obtuseness, though the comedy relief of the unintended irony is appreciated.

Grouping 20M people into herds of cats doesn't make an army any more than pulling up a ton of sand on the beach makes it into an actual castle.

Sprinkle a grain of sand into each of 20M of your enemies' eyeballs and you've got something.

And leaving aside the facts that McVeigh was a sociopathic moron baby-killer with delusions of grandeur, how well would some tyrannical government function if, a month into their New Order, 500 government buildings went up in a thundering roar? What if after that, every occupying thug, and every bureaucratic minion, had to worry whether he'd make it through the day, because every day a few hundred didn't, because random snipers cut them down? How much Thugocracy work would get done? How long to replace every mid-level person that took 5, 10, 20 years to train? Ditto for occupying forces? How long to replace every leader? How effective would formations of untrained unseasoned unled and poorly motivated conscripts last? (Hint: Ask Czar Nicholas.)

In short order, everything would grind to a halt.

We lost exactly 2 1/10 buildings on 9/11, and it devastated our economy for a year. One or two follow-on attacks would have pushed us over the brink; thank merciful heavens AQ lacked either the will or the ability to pull them off.

But when some notional "Them" comes for you, do you wan't them expending trainloads of resources in fear of that, or sitting back and knocking off platoons of half-assed militias without breaking a sweat, day in and day out.

On the other hand, 2 truck bombs pushed us out of Lebanon, and 2 helicopters shot down pushed us out of Somalia. Do you really think those who would happily send all gun owners to gulags make up any significant amount of our military and police? Do you really imagine those who do feel that way have any stomach or backbone to fight a protracted war against thousands to millions of people willing to kill and die for freedom? And that faced with hundreds to thousands of casualties, they'll suddenly show a spine they've never demonstrated once, ever, in all of American history from 1603 to the present, to relentlessly continue to fling themselves forward on peril of their actual blood and guts getting ripped out by the bayonets of better men?

Who are the Pattons, the Grants, the Teddy Roosevelts, the Audie Murphys, Joe Basilones, and Sgt. Yorks that they're going to need to find to stop so much as five people willing to die before they'd submit? When have you ever, ever, EVER seen that kind of commitment from the other side?? And if you haven't ever seen that, why would you want to present them with a mass of easy targets?
Instead of a relentless rain of bullets from every direction every minute of every day?

@AM
The Phoenix Program assassinated communist leaders, in droves, and by all actual accounts was absolutely devastating.

Regards,
-Aesop

Anonymous said...

Aesop, you're ignoring clear lessons from history, and a few that just seem like they'd be common sense.

You talk about Occupy being an example of why people shouldn't organize, then talk about a terrorist attack by an organization that took years of planning and support to execute. Those points right there pretty much explain the hole in your reasoning.

Where do you think this "rain of bullets" is going to come from, if it's a bunch of guys who don't necessarily agree on targets? Why would it be focused on anyone if chaos is becoming the order of the day? Where do you think the will to "die before they'd submit" is going to come from when everyone is acting on their own, worried about what could happen to their own families when someone knocks on the door at 3 a.m.? Worse, and you don't seem to get this, a few bad apples left to their own devices would paint the whole movement as murderers, and ANYONE would be willing to march on that. MacArthur got the US Army to march on the Bonus Army, for crying out loud.

I also don't understand why you think any large number of people would go against human nature and not band together. I mean, maybe 6,000 years of recorded human history is wrong, but people have a tendency to act in groups. Especially in times of adversity. Even if it was preferable (it's not) to have people act as individuals, it's not going to happen. If you are wounded, lucky enough to survive, and don't know anyone with medical knowledge, congrads! You now have to expand
your network, on the fly. Want to get some "intel" before you head off into the blue? Hey, look, you need to meet another person who will work with you for a common objective! And if that medical or intel guy starts getting a reputation in certain circles, suddenly there are more people coming to see them, and you've got the beginnings of an organization with little to no intention to do so.

Or let's say you forget all that, and you want to play Rambo. What do you do when you've got strange injuries popping up from nowhere, or need to E&E after an op gone wrong and are left to explain to your family, friends, and boss, why you were gone for a week? Target indicator much? Maybe you decide you're going to live "off the grid"; how long are you going to be able to operate with no support? Even with pre-made caches, there's no guarantee you can reach them. Between weather, terrain, and Murphy, one guy has a whole lot of challenges before you even get into actual effective resistance.

Seems to me that if you had a couple guys working with you who had access to intel, medical training, material assets, or who could watch your back, you'd be leaps and bounds ahead of a bunch of guys on their own. Which is how every military in the world works.

If you don't like the military comparison, compare it to the mafia. They have a low operational footprint, surgical selection of targets, and vast networks of intel assets and clandestine support channels, such as safe houses and black market retailers. Even though they have a decentralized command structure, they don't operate alone and don't rock the boat. They may not be as prevalent as they were in the in the 20's or 50's, but they're successful enough that they're still around and making money long after being under the Fed spotlight. Without organization, most of the guys involved would be petty thugs, but together they're a much more multi-faceted threat.

Also, on your other points; no, I don't think there's enough military personnel who are willing to shoot Americans for martial law to be declared. Yet. So we better get active in politics before they start selling us to the UN, huh? And Somalia and Lebanon are foreign countries involving huge logistic costs to get troops into theater and support them with little in the way of direct US strategic value. Not comparable. If China invades, the point is applicable, but otherwise it's moot.

- JMB

Anonymous said...

JMB

*You* painted McVeigh as a lone wolf. (Scroll up and see.) Now you want him to be part of a vast "organization that took years of planning and support to execute." I give up, which is he? Facts don't change from one day to another. And mixing up a truckload of ANFO takes about a weekend, and a strong tolerance for the smell of poo. Oh, and renting a truck. For most people, tolerating the smell of poo, loading up a vehicle, and driving is called "a trip to see the in-laws".

Thanks for bringing up the "Bonus Army" - another half-assed *organization*. Tell us all how many rounds they fired at MacArthurs's forces. Would that be "none"?

Yes, in adversity, people group up. It's called "herd behavior" for a reason. It works against predators who have to close in for the kill. Given the required anthropomorphism, how does a herd of zebras with battle rifles do against a pride of lions in Apache gunships? That's what you keep insisting is a viable plan, and what I keep insisting is another name for "Zebra chuck roast Buffet."

Yes, I conceed that if you'd already formed a guerrilla network, you'd already have a guerrilla network.
And if you had flying unicorns and lightsabers, you could swoop down on the Enemy Leader and cut off his head.

If no one will shoot (your contention) what makes you think they'll share intel, shelter wounded, and give aid and comfort to the enemy at the risk of death for sedition and treason? In for a penny, in for a pound, right?

BTW, without firing a shot, we've *already* been painted as murderers, and come the day, they'll invent fake incidents for propaganda. Only someone asleep in a cave for 50 years finds this information new. They should wake up, and grow a thicker skin.

As most of the mafia senior leadership has been to prison, is headed there, or will never get out, and the FBI has an entire division devoted to them, you want to re-think calling their activities "low profile". Yet another instance of mice banding together to get scooped up easier by the cat.

The exact point of Lebanon and Somalia, far from moot, is that even big dogs quit messing with porcupines because it hurts too much.

The political action you speak of is an option now, and entirely respectable. So if Patriot Armies group up, where are they? A.M. has asked the same question multiple times, but it's like giving a "Where's Waldo?" book to Stevie Wonder.

Y'all want to form *political* action groups, learn skills like communications, medical care, transport, supply, logistics, etc., and put some backbone in your communities NOW, go with my blessings. What's stopping you?

If anyone's really serious, get a copy of Army Field Manual FMI 03-7.22 (Counterinsurgency), and LEARN the damned thing. It's your potential enemy's playbook, and as your drill instructor told you, "You WILL see this material again."

You can find a world-class roadmap on what facilities are important, what they're going to do, and what they don't want you to do.

Learn it, learn your AO, and figure out how to do the opposite, and you'll be the absolute George By God Washington of your county or state. And you haven't broken a single law, or risked anything but the time. And drop 20 pounds, learn to shoot to 500m with a basic rifle, and work up to carrying a pack 20 miles overland. (Your heart, your gut, and your significant other will thank you, btw.)

Do that, and *then* we can talk about seriously organizing anyone or anything. (And if the Patriot Army is a no-show, you'll make a kickass Army Of One!) Fail to do it, and your fantasies will stay fantasies.

Regards,
-Aesop

Anonymous said...

Aesop,

I didn't say McVeigh was a lone wolf; I said he was a misguided one off. He was active in the seedier parts of the liberty movement, and didn't start divorcing himself from the people around him until just before the Oklahoma City bombing. Even then, he had an accomplice. McVeigh became violently radicalized and lashed out at a target with no clue what would happen after. He thought he was going to be a catalyst, but who would follow him after that? Look at the people on these blogs who talk about targeting families and people who vote differently. Would you really want to see them with a self-granted license to murder?

Yeah, the media is already against us, but there's a difference between spin and legitimate moral outrage. Even though the KKK espouses a lot of traditional American ideals, the liberty movement by and large shuns them because they're a bunch of damned racists. It doesn't matter what their other qualities are if they've got one legit facet that is so morally repugnant it outweighs everything else. That's what the liberty movement could face if certain people become radicalized without guidance. Clay Duke, the other example I gave, pulled a gun on a school-board meeting. He was a lone-wolf and also had mental problems, but he did what many a violently radicalized agitator would do. He picked a personal target, from what was relevant to him; chose his own tactics, based on his life experience; and planned in secret without anyone to tell him, "no, that's fucking crazy." The end result is that he terrorized a bunch of people, got himself shot, and did nothing to fix the gripe that got him there in the first place. I'd guess that you got at least 5-10% of the liberty movement who are potential McVeighs or Dukes. That 5-10% could turn even people in the liberty movement against it.

I also didn't say "no one" will shoot. You will lose the majority of your people to inertia without leadership and organization. "Me against the world" is long odds for someone to swallow, day in and day out. Yeah, being pissed off might get them through for awhile, but even Washington found out that patriotic ardor wasn't enough to keep his troops fighting. If it wasn't enough for a developing corps of regulars, why in the world would it be enough for a bunch of people acting on their own, with no one coming to the rescue if they're wounded, captured, or ruined? You've got some true believers who can live on nothing more than red, white, and blue, but they aren't, never have been, and never will be a majority.

(Continued... )

- JMB

Anonymous said...

This quote:

Yes, I conceed that if you'd already formed a guerrilla network, you'd already have a guerrilla network.
And if you had flying unicorns and lightsabers, you could swoop down on the Enemy Leader and cut off his head.


Makes me think you're at least starting to grasp the concept, but the difference between guerrilla networks and unicorns is that guerrilla networks exist in the real world and can be formed right now, legally, before they're needed. Duh.

And again, you're not learning anything from history. The Bonus Army continued after MacArthur's raid, and that raid nixed any chance Hoover had of reelection. Once FDR was elected, he gave them a campsite and negotiated with them. They received positions in the CCC free from the requirements others would have to meet, and had their bonuses paid in 1936 by act of Congress. Not so bad for a "half-assed organization."

The mafia has a high incarceration rate, but they've also developed networks inside the prisons. A lot of that senior leadership is still active behind bars. If things go south, lots of people could see prison time of one form or another. They've got some Occupy people locked up in Washington on PATRIOT Act charges right now. (Not a fan of Occupy, but suppression is suppression) If there's still an active network within the prisons, it provides protection and communication for the people inside, and that's a good thing.

Everything you said about training is true, and is exactly what I, AM, and everyone else I've read is talking about. There's a lot of people waking up to the fact that no one represents them politically anymore. Mass protests are happening. Gun sales have reached record levels. I don't think the "zombie apocalypse" crowd was even around six years ago, and now everyone is buying rucksacks and making "bug out" plans. This is the perfect time to get organized, get political, and get trained.

-JMB

Anonymous said...

JMB

You're trying to have it both ways:

>McVeigh was/wasn't/sort of was a lone wolf
>The Bonus army won/lost/won
>people will/won't radicalize
>media approbium does/doesn't matter
Etc., etc.

You can't assume that most people won't self-deploy, further assume that the ones who do will be insaniacs, assume yet again that their every move will simultaneously fail due to further assumed utter lack of popular support, supply, or collaboration AND engender paralyzing self-doubt and public loathing for their cause because of their inevitable failure and bloodthirsty lunatic efforts, and assume that all groups who do "organize" will avoid all the above obstacles, subvert the prison system if they're captured, and march on to ultimate triumph - simply because they formed a group.

And what I said about organization was in terms of POLITICAL organization.
Please, by all means, do that. Start building what John Mosby on Nous Defions! refers to as the auxuliary, and the support net. Or for post-apocalyptic gangs of roving mutant zombie bikers, against whom a fire team or squad stands a measured chance.
With the understanding that whichever *military* organizing you do to face off against a police state (please pay attention)
Isn't. There. To. Win. Militarily.

Not ever. Not whether it's a million randomized incidents, or little bands of Hogan's Heroes (especially because you'll have three Sgt. Carters and two Col. Crittendens, and they won't send Col. Klink and Sgt. Schultz to get you).

Their entire job is to
1) Not lose
2) Discredit Leviathan
3) Waste Leviathan's time, troops, resources, frustrate his plans, and drain him of blood and treasure, until
4) You can pull him down politically, and supplant him.

The only thing almost as bad as an ultimate military triumph by a police state would be a military triumph by a "Patriot Army", because I have zero reason to believe that another George Washington would arise instead of another Pol Pot, then round up his opposition, and start shooting them in batches.

"Organizing" is far more likely to create that scenario, as one can plainly discern just from the comments on this and 10 similar blogs this past week. The only thing that scares me more than a rapacious tyrannical government, is the prospect of some of these guys, our notional allies and would-be freedom fighters, getting within a country mile of the levers of power.

Come the day, saying "Oopsie, that wasn't what we intended" didn't work in France in the late 18th century, Russia in 1918, Germany in 1933, Cuba in 1959, South Vietnam in 1975, or Iran in 1979. It only ever, once, in all of human history, did. And since I'm not willing to gamble generations yet unborn on the speculative hope that we can roll doubles twice in a row, I'd rather see things limited and constrained as much as possible, at least until there's a far clearer view of what's coming up afterwards.

I'll take my chances that I'll train harder and fight smarter than the weakest man - let alone the leader - in a platoon of irregulars. And even if I'm not still standing at the end, I'll have taken a shitload of badguys with me, and my failure won't leave anybody elses' blood from my side upon my hands.

Would that you or anyone else clammoring that everyone "join up" could say the same.

Regards,
-Aesop

AM said...

Aesop,

You remind me of "The Joker" in the chaos you would cause. Killing people without finding out if they are a mole for the resistance, blowing up buildings for the sake of making things go boom. Creating havoc, tearing down, not building up.

I have no doubts that you could cause a lot of local chaos in your area. I have serious doubts that the chaos will be constructive towards any larger goal than just killing people and blowing stuff up.

There was an event in Iraq for people who acted like you, it was the "Sunni Awakening" where normal people (normal for Iraq anyways), fed up with terrorists attacking the Coalition, corrupt government, and others, simply turned in the bad guys or shot them and left their body in the ditch.

I don't know who you are, you don't know who I am. But your family knows who you are (Ted Kaczynski's brother turned him in), and your neighbors know who you are. Without there consent and and at least passive support, how long do you think you will really last?

Will you kill your neighbors for being the snitch that sends the .gov after you? When all he was trying to do was limit the amount of blood you would shed?

Go it alone if your conscience dictates that you do so. And if you intend to die behind a wall of the dead you have slain like some hero from legend, I hope you live up to it.

Because I've seen too many bad ass terrorists get balled up in their pajamas to expect anything more dignified for those who choose as you do.

Anonymous said...

AM,

I point out for reference that insurgencies who start randomly blowing up non-combatants (and their stuff) and combatants alike and without distinction usually fail, but with those who strictly target their tormentors, not so much.
As for my neighbor who rats me out, no, I wouldn't kill him. I'd plant some surplus contraband in his rose garden, dime him out, and let his kin sort out whose side they were on. I think that's called a "two-fer". (Any UNCLAS intel on how many times we've fallen for that little gag in Iraq and A-stan?) How much of the anonymous drug tips are rival gangs letting The Man do their dirty work? 75%? More?

So please, let's not lump me in with the Anarchy /Fight Club knuckleheads just to fluff up a narrative.

My way, at the very least, every time somebody at a checkpoint gets a medevac, that'll be one less guy on post tomorrow, 50 less gallons of chopper fuel, one less IFAK on hand, etc., for a $1 round. What's the market price for a SNCO these days?

Eventually, they either abandon the checkpoint (I win), spend a week and a crapton of time, troops, and concrete to harden the checkpoint (I win), crack down on the innocent and guilty without distinction (I win), start kicking down doors, breaking furniture, and twisting arms to find me (I win), or deploy 1, 2, 5, 50 sniper teams to shoot me, who have to watch everyone everywhere, while I mind my own business (I win) until I find a new way of acting up (I win).
Hmmm...decisions, decisions.

Show me a resistance at some point, who can walk and chew gum, let alone one who can maintain and exploit a mole, and we'll talk about Phase II Ops. Probably in months to years. At any rate, not until they look more like the A-Team than the Jamaican Bobsled Team.

Until then, one Day One, it's going to be come-as-you-are for both sides. So until I see anything that'd look like it had a hoot in hell's chance of success, we'd *all* be nothing but targets.

Given that reality, I'm merely selecting the "low profile" setting on the selector. That's "conservation of force" IIRC the lesson plan.
It's why submarines use sonar instead of deck guns, why stealth bombers attack at night in solo flights instead of aluminum overcasts at noon.

Everything I've read, seen, and heard says demoralizing the enemy pays off, and the only thing more demoralizing to foot troops than regiments of artillery, firing for hours, is when the guy next to you goes down with a"Thwap!" from Out There Somewhere. Either DRT, or pissing and moaning and bleeding while his mates look on.
And I don't have a regiment of artillery, a parking lot full of shells, 2000 gunners, or the time to train them, just yet.

And neither does anyone else.

Best Regards,
-Aesop

AM said...

Ok, this is a lot of very optimistic thinking.

You wrote:
Eventually, they either abandon the checkpoint (I win), spend a week and a crapton of time, troops, and concrete to harden the checkpoint (I win), crack down on the innocent and guilty without distinction (I win), start kicking down doors, breaking furniture, and twisting arms to find me (I win), or deploy 1, 2, 5, 50 sniper teams to shoot me, who have to watch everyone everywhere, while I mind my own business (I win) until I find a new way of acting up (I win).
Hmmm...decisions, decisions.

Let's take a look at your actions from a different perspective.

First, nothing solidifies a unit like losing one of their own. Units that are unsure of their mission and the righteousness of their cause lose that innocence when Johny buys a a sniper round to the head. So you lose, you made your enemy more determined.

Second, hardening a checkpoint means that you've convinced someone to stay for the long haul. Congrats, you lose by shooting Johnny who convinced all his friends to "not find" any contraband at his checkpoint, and you made it harder for you to fight in that area in the future. Now that checkpoint will crack down, harden up, and feed intel up the chain for analysis.

Third, house to house searches are a last resort. What will happen in reality is that the video and photographs from that checkpoint will be sent back for analysis, and four or five weeks later you will get balled up in the middle of the night because some intel geek managed to splice together enough intelligence to find your location from ballistic backtrace and then go backwards in time to watch who went there and took the shot. You lose.

Minding your own business is fine, except you probably need to leave your fortified compound for something, food, fuel, medicine. Unless you want to live like Bin Laden for years on end.

If you want to be effective, you need to kill people that everyone thinks is an asshole (which means you need good intelligence), and you need to do it in a manner that wins you friends instead of galvanizing your enemies against you.

Yes you can cause chaos, but without any sort of larger plan or politicial objective it is nothing more than the fight club goon action you claim to despise.

Anonymous said...

I presume Johnny and his buddies are motivated. And I expect they'll do their damnedest to try and squash any opposition. The only percentage in resisting at all is to make things more trouble than it's worth. If they decide to do more thorough searches, we're back to crackdowns on the public, and I win.

I've avoided optimism completely. With all the resources of Virgina, Maryland, and the feds, and the total cooperation of the populace, it took weeks to find one measely pair of low-skill @$$clowns in DC. And they never hit anyting beyond 150m., in a relatively small amount of real estate. My everyday workspace is 2500 sq. mi. of highly urbanized territory. TPTB barely assert the thinnest approximation of "control" over a fraction of it, with no one randomly shooting at them so much as once a year, if that. So I like my odds.

And while I think you continue to overlook the cumulative effect of what would be not dozens, but likely hundreds to thousands of similar attacks, even at the bare minimum, every troop chasing their tails to find me as I give them merrry hell is one troop not looking for you, and another day to train.

You know, to a metaphysical certainty, that on the day I'm not going to be the only one doing it, so a far more practical solution than gainsaying it would be to roll with it, and figure out how to make it work for you.

Because droids dropping in your lap with the plans showing the secret shortcut to destroy the Empire only happens in the movies.

-Aesop

AM said...

Aesop,

How many Muslims with terrorist sympathies did NOT join Malvo? The numbers of Muslims in the US is not insignificant, and yet no one joined them.

TSA Viper teams have conducted those random checkpoints, and so far no one has opened up on them with a deer rifle.

I think that the history shows that people willing to work alone are the distinct minority (such as Malvo, McVeigh, Kaczynski) and that they are ineffective at bringing about the change they think they are working for.

Can you show me, from any point in history, where your idea of operations determines success in the outcome of a war? Can you show me, from any point in history, where your proposed tactical isolation was even a relevant factor towards victory?

This is not a rhetorical question unless you can't do it. I may be a fan of history but there is plenty that I don't know. Surely you have some historical factual basis for your belief in order to be so adamantly faithful to it.

Anonymous said...

No "muslims with terrorist sympathies" joined Malvo because until some time *after* their capture, *no one knew who was shooting or why*. The only thing known was that 99.9% of evryone, not least those in the affected area, wanted them to stop, and were only too happy to turn in tips.

Comparing apples to apples, plug in 99.9%% non-support of the population, and lay out the success of 30,000 freedom fighters in 50 states against 299,970,000 others.

TSA Viper teams have conducted those checkpoints unmolested because nobody on any side sees things having progressed to that point.

But no, at no point has sniping, raids, or ambushes ever won a war. Neither has massed airborne drops, unrestricted submarine warfare, daylight precision bombing, or strategic missile attack. Nor have truck tires, preserved rations, or brass-cased rifle ammunition. Or, for that matter, a guerrilla resistance.

Yet somehow we seem to think they all play important parts.

So demanding that any tactic meet some herculean standard of utility is reductio ad absurda with all the trimmings.

We shot Yamamoto's plane down, and bombed ball bearing plants, and sent sniper pairs to the middle of nowhere unsupported, and slit throats, blew up bridges, and ten thousand individual things because at the time, someone far above any paygrade represented on the internet thought those activities would help win a war. Not all by itself, not even mostly or significantly, but because when you're fighting for you life, you kick balls and claw eyes and bite off fingers, anything to win.

Apart from wild assumptions about Secret Squirrel working a checkpoint, please lay out the universe where your guys are going to be so dominant, they won't need any help in filling as many enemy bodybags as they can. Name the war where the hue and cry went out from on high at guerrilla HQ "Don't let anyone shoot those guys, we've got this."

Then lay out not the book, not the shelf, but the library of books, reports, and AARs about how snipers, lone, paired, or any other permutation you can think of, have been ignored, misused, squandered, and/or killed because of total lack of the barest concept from anyone of the myopic hidebound upper echelons above O-5 on when, where, or why to ever use them.

This is like watching Doomsday Preppers, where they ask Joe Sixpack what-in-hell wild apocalyptic vision of doom they're working to stave off. And most of them are comical. "I'm getting ready for a meteor strike" "the eruption of Yellowstone" "the flesh-eating zombie horde" "endless reruns of the Kardashians".
Nobody ever says "hurricanes", "floods", "tornadoes", "earthquakes", or anything remotely...sensible.

Absent any actual, realistic threat, marksmanship is sensible.
Individual movement is sensible.
Observation is sensible.
Camoflage, cover, and concealment are sensible.
Preparing a safe place to survive unmolested is sensible.

Leading or joining the cantankerous, more than half-crazy, variety of catherds that any group, militia, or whatever name 50%+1 of you can come up with, frankly is not. It's not even defensibly rational, because I've seen firsthand most of what you'll get, which is why I know you're not months but YEARS (and thousands if not millions of casualties) away from even the FC7 model. Even with Aaron Bank, William Darby, Joe Stilwell, and Robert Rogers, bodily resurrected, to start training recruits tomorrow.

And I know that, even if you don't.

-Aesop

AM said...

Aesop,

Thank you for pointing out that all those actvities in and of themselves has not won the war. You are finally getting it. There is no tactic that wins a war. There is only a concerted effort of tactical violence married to a political objective that wins a war.

It takes an overall objective to make those individual efforts into something that will win a war. Taking "tactics" that have no political effect and synchronizing them into a successful campaign.

What you are talking about isn't war or insurgency, it is murder at worst and political terrorism at best.

The German wisdom, "In the absence of orders find something and kill it" was useful because it conveyed the Commander's Intent to defeat the enemy army. You have no higher objective than simply causing violence.

You assume that there are those who will rise up with you. 30,000 people scattered across 50 states, it isn't going to happen. Not in a way that is effective at bringing about political resolution.

Yes people with guns can cause chaos. What they cannot do is turn that chaos into a political victory. It didn't work in Ireland (where the IRA was much more organized), Iraq, Beruit, Malaya or the Phillipines.

Since the "modern" IRA went active again in the late 60's it took three decades to get to the Good Friday Agreement, which did NOT get the result the IRA wanted through violent means. What it did was create a political avenue for the IRA to get what they wanted. Unfortunately in the 14 years that have passed we haven't seen the IRA able to win the hearts and minds needed to actually get the votes to unify the Emerald Isle. An insurgency must get legitimacy from the people to be effective.

And you are right that a lot of people will die if it comes to a shooting war. Going it alone will change none of that. Anyone who claims a "short, victorious war!" is a fool or a liar. Or a foolish liar.

The thoughtless brutality of Muhammed and Malvo galvinized public opinion against them. If you just want to kill people, you can do it. If you want to do something else, think through to the end result you want, then work back from there.

So what is your end state again? And how will taking pot shots achieve it? Either you don't care about an end state, or you are relying on factors way outside of your control to make your control to make your endstate happen. If you don't have a plan for victory, then all you have is a plan to create chaos.

Relying on factors outside your control is a very risky way to seek success. And eventyually you will be killed or captured if you stay in your area "minding your own business." It took us the better part of a year to drop a 500 lb bomb on Juba, but he is dead, and his legacy with him. The state never rests, and eventually the forensic evidence will be enough to have a team ball you up in the middle of the night in your pajamas.

If you don't like the militia or networks that are already out there, go ahead and form your own. You seem like a natural leader with strong opinions, shouldn't be too hard to get a few likeminded (or easily swayed) individuals to work with you.

It is funny that you claim that those in the militia/networked movements are "cat herds" because you sound exactly like someone who can't follow orders and always has a better way to do things. Yes cantankerous individuals exist. If you can't work with them that sounds like a personal problem to me.

If you want to cause trouble in the Shenendoah Valley, you can easily do that. If you want to restore a Constitutional Republic of a truly limited government, your plan does not do that.

I think that convincing you to work with others in an attempt to restore liberty is just not going to happen. But in the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Gentlemen if we don't hang together, we shall surely hang seperately."

Anonymous said...

AM

Someone calling "Circle the wagons!" in front of a line of wagons in 1850 on the Great Plains makes sense, especially when a line of unknown riders appears on the crest of a flanking hill.
Doing the same thing in the mall parking lot this weekend is charitably termed "eccentric".
Doing it all by oneself without a soul around is barking mad. (Although I had a dog once who tried to herd airliners overhead, and while fun to watch, he was simply barking.)

The only thing lacking in this war are a clear enemy, any sort of coherent friendly political leadership, any semblance of a unifying vision, any overall strategy, and...oh yes, any actual war. Distant rumblings, yes. Certainties, no.

Thus your perspicacity in noting my personal lack of a comprehnsive 9-point plan to defeat god-only-knows-what is commendable.

Once you know what sort of a war you've got yourself, get back to me. I suspect what you'd want to fight a brushfire will vary somewhat from what you'd don to quell a riot, just as the strategy and tactics we may adopt will have to take into account a number of realities as yet unknown.

When you or I can solve the equation
A+B+C+D+E+F+Gx(H-I/J)2=X,
where X equals "what we want", given no values for anything, *then* we can lecture on where a given tactic does or does not rank in the pecking order of good ideas.

I've watched so-called "militias" formed for 20 years. I've no more desire to organize or join one anything like what I've seen than a cat aspires to play shortstop or a pig to play violin.
And not because I can't give or follow orders (historically I've excelled at both with the pedigree to prove it), but because I've seen up close and personal exactly the Special Olympics Rugby Team that would entail. Which happy band of merry men the internet attracts like flies to cow patties. Squared and cubed if you throw in guns and politics, the mother's milk of Crazy.

I don't like where things are now in this country, and a considered appraisal of where they might head isn't good for restful nights. But until there's a lot more clarity about an actual conflict, and the respective sides, prudence dictates not setting sail for Utopia with the cast of F-Troop in an empty rum barrel, even granting the notion that crews fare better than solo voyages.

Prudence further dictates that in addition to shoring up the skills I possess, I do my best to add to them from experienced people with differing skills, training, and experience. As such, I respect your viewpoints.

But until the elephant makes an appearance in the flesh, and somebody with an actual earned reputation to stake announces they're forming regiments, I reserve the right to depend upon my own judgement, skills, and training, and decide if and who I'll follow and where.

I lack any expectation of ending such a war, or to be long remembered in it, but I'll damned sure do my best to get it out of the blocks if someone else launches it. And come that day, I'll give serious thought to joining together, provided I find someone that shows anything like the maturity, judgement, and intelligence to lead such venture.

To date, there's far too many people who think they can lead a charge up San Juan Hill and win by breakfast next Tuesday, who in reality could't find their backend with both hands, a map, and a rearview mirror. And they all have internet access.

Hence my policy is to "stay away from crowds".

-Aesop

Anonymous said...

AM, this is an aside, but I thought Juba was a myth?

- JMB

AM said...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juba_%28sniper%29

Juba was real enough to cause us to up our counter sniper and anti sniper tactics. Whether or not Juba was one person or a team, there was a definite increase in precision shots against Americans 2004 through 2008.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/aug/05/iraq.usa

But Juba was conducting the same sort of operations that Aesop is planning. The response won't always be to "conduct house to house raids that piss even more people off" as sometimes the appropriate response is to seed an area with sniper/sdm teams and then kill the terrorists with scoped long rifles.