Organizing the Militia
by
William S. Lind
by William S. Lind
This
column continues, on the results of Colonel Mike Wyly’s Modern
War Symposium, and specifically the discussion of what a state armed
service designed for Fourth Generation war might look like. Since
our number one goal should be to prevent 4GW attacks on American
soil, our working group at the Symposium concluded such a service
should be a militia.
The
militia would be organized into three levels of types of companies.
The first would be deployable world-wide, when our country had to
respond to some event overseas. We anticipate that many of its members
would be cops, as is true now of some Reserve and National Guard
units, which means it would have a natural inclination toward de-escalating
situations. This is what the FMFM 1-A, Fourth Generation War,
suggests is the key to success in many 4GW situations.
The
second type of militia company would be deployable nationwide. It
would be equipped with fewer weapons than first-line companies,
and would be called up to maintain domestic order and control our
borders. The third-line companies would be something entirely new.
They would not be armed at all. Rather, they would contain people
with skills needed to restore basic services after a 4GW attack.
For example, these companies would have a lot of old guys who know
how to make things like water treatment plants and banks work without
computers, since one obvious target of 4GW warriors will be our
computer systems. All militia units, but especially the third-line
companies, would have networks of civilian experts they could plug
into immediately for any knowledge or skills they needed.
As
is traditional with militia, no company could be called up for more
than 90 days. When called up, they would be paid by whatever level
of government called them up. Of course, they would perform their
most important 4GW function, neighborhood watch, all the time, not
just when mobilized.
We
tried in our discussions to identify and find remedies to typical
militia weaknesses. One weakness seen often in militia history is
that units degenerate into mere social clubs. To prevent this, all
companies would participate in annual play-offs in the form of free-play
exercises against other companies. The winner would advance to the
next level. Our hope is that these competitions would become big
deals in communities across America, spurring the militiamen on
to greater efforts.
Another
typical militia weakness is doctrinal stagnation. To counter this,
the militia would have its own General Staff, made up of the kind
of "military dinks" who have been into military history
and war games since they were kids. The General Staff would oversee
doctrine, training and the regular round of free-play exercises.
It would not vet individual militia members, since this would create
centralization, but it would have the power to dissolve companies
that performed poorly, became social clubs or got taken over by
MS-13 and the like.
All
recruitment would be voluntary. Volunteers could choose what type
of company they wanted to join, level one, two or three, depending
on their interests and skills. Companies could refuse any volunteer.
Volunteers for first-line companies would provide their own gear,
including personal weapons; crew-served weapons would be provided
by the General Staff, which would also provide training funds. Second-line
companies would be given basic gear, including light weapons. Third-line
companies would bring their own tools. We thought carefully about
where funding was to come from, because regardless of formal chains-of-command,
real control goes to whoever provides the money.
This
thought led to one last innovation: the militia’s General Staff
would report to Congress, not the Executive Branch, except for those
units which were mobilized, where the General Staff would report
to the mobilizing authority (often a state governor). Congress will
be generous to local militia units, because they will be made up
of voters. But that was not our motive. Rather, we feared that if
the militia came under the Executive Branch, it would promptly move
to destroy it because it hates anything that does not give more
power to Big Brother. All a President would have to do is turn the
militia over to the Pentagon or DHS; either would delight in putting
the knife into something that was bottom-up instead of top-down.
That’s exactly what the Bush Justice Department did to the country’s
most promising community policing program, the Police Corps.
Unfortunately,
the Modern War Symposium broke up before each working group made
a final presentation, so I cannot report on what the other groups
did (lesson: three days is the maximum length for a conference;
everyone leaves on the fourth). But I think we did make some progress
on the question of what a state armed force intended for 4GW might
look like. If the militia idea is on the right track, it would reinforce
rather than undermine the qualities of a true republic. That in
turn means it could strike directly at the origin of 4GW, the state’s
crisis of legitimacy. Of course, it also means that everyone in
Washington will see it as a threat, because Washington is united
in its pursuit of the national security state and the total power
it offers to the center. And that, in turn, is at least part of
the origin of the state’s legitimacy crisis.
Like
the original, I suspect this Gordian knot may end up getting cut
rather than unraveled.
August
11, 2005
William
Lind [send him mail]
is Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free
Congress Foundation. The views expressed in this article are those
of Mr. Lind, writing in his personal capacity.
Copyright
© 2005 William S. Lind
William
Lind Archives
|