I think that it is very fair to say that once a descriptive term gets applied to an iconic individual, group, or activity; there is a point in which that term cannot be separated and is forevermore linked to this icon. I am speaking about the symbology of the word, and normally how it is removed from polite use because it relates to a sinister actor. For example, we don’t see many swastikas these days, and because of the same association there are not many children around named Adolph.
I would say certainly that the Confederate battle flag falls into this category. Its use and abuse by the white supremist hate groups has made it impossible to look at that symbol and not think of that legacy of hate; and then by association connect those contemporary hate groups with the historical article. Clearly, there are some that are history and lineage minded see it as a symbol of heritage, and not hate- but as time goes on, those that of the history mind will concede that their position is being eroded, as it becomes more difficult to defend. The contemporary use has usurped the position of heritage, as depressing as that is for those sons of the south.
I come from immigrants that fought for the Union, but I hold no ill will for those that marched with the grey. I do also believe that American civil war history (the one from 1861-1865) is important from the perspective of both sides; especially in this day and age when we seem to be experiencing a similar, extremely divided inability for rational or common discourse. Understanding the causation, and the linkage of events that caused the spiral into that war, would help us to understand our current division and avoid future based bloodshed. I am afraid that my view here is viewed as radical, simply because it is not a passionate one, absent emotion and based upon calculation and reason, and it does not serve a very narrow set of self-interests. Radical to think this way these days.
All said, we must concede that words are important. I have done my most growth as a mental engineer when I have been out of my personal comfort zone, and have had tense and very awkward discussions that avoided political correctness, were frank and impolite, candid and rough edged- with colleagues that shared mutual and infinite trust and because of this trust were immune to offense. Nothing was discussed in these conferences other than to understand the individual occurrences, how they connected to the larger problem, the actors likely frame of reference at the time, and then how to frame a solution that was not at political but clearly versed in the right. In this spirit I would like to introduce you to the M word.
“Militia.”
Likely, your first imagery is right wing nut jobs running around in the woods with AR-15s, praying for an eventual lurking despot who will send steel soled storm troopers for the final tyranny vs freedom loving showdown. Or maybe you pictured Timothy McVeigh, who was convinced so completely that the first notion was coming that he attempted to generate the conditions to make it so. Or, if you are more turned towards the historical than the conspiratorial, maybe it was Paul Revere and small bands of farmers and framers that picked up yon musket and won the independence. Regardless, the word is heading to a place of antiquity, of conspiracy, of insult, of offense, of politics, or of all; and more than likely it is already arrived at one or more.
I will tell you that the use of the word militia has morphed so much from the historical, that it will mean different things to different people. That it is so poly-morphic that it is not sensible to describe exactly what the word means; but at its most basic it is a physical group of individuals that are at least quasi-capable of limited military action. Once we have defined the type of afterwards , we can add our own topping; starting with nutjob/ antiquated/ offensive/ right wing/ Antifa, et al.
The one variety of the M word is there are some that are institutionalized under a state/ province/ region military authority as an auxiliary for its main line defense and /or reserve force. Several states in the US have state militias (although they have dropped the M word for something more pleasing) , which are constitutional bodies, reporting to the military authority and exhibiting not only its own hierarchy, but also the requisite layers of bureaucracy. These bodies of troops are often criticized for being inferior, and in large measure both currently and historically they are and were in the ability, capacity, and motivation sense. Who would wish to be a militiaman, when one could be a regular or a guardsman, after all? Maybe the explanation is that it consists of those that were not otherwise qualified for US service but still wished to serve, which is exactly good enough for me. Regardless, history has not been kind to militia units in the US.
Another variety of the M word are those bodies of local citizenry that form together to face a threat that the central government cannot protect them against. Neighbors, that have organized to generate local security, and have only primitive hierarchy and no bureaucracy. We military men have seen these forces used with great effect, and in those locations in the world that angels fear to tread. Militias of this sort were highly effective in Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and in history in places like the old west; even though these members were just citizens and not professional soldiers. In fact, the militia system was the lynchpin of the surge in Al Anbar province- although no one in the Iraqi Army could tolerate the M word either, so they were called Iraqi Local Police. “Militia bad, police good.”[1]
The Afghans had a similar experience in Helmond and other contentious provinces with the agency known as the Afghan Local Police or ALP. The Afghan Ministry of the Interior did not like these guys either, and constantly deflected praise and attention from the security successes of the ALP. The first reason they did so was that the ALP was not their idea, rather they were led, trained, equipped and overseen by US Special Forces Units; the second is that the ALP did not have to display any loyalty or deference to the Afghan MOI. [2]
I personally do not think that this central dislike of either the IP or the ALP is too difficult to imagine or understand. Localized security gave the local elders real leverage over the established hierarchy, and a real voice in their own destiny as they had become independent in a sense. Imagine a Sheik, that is so successful in mobilizing a local force that it makes the main national police or military unnecessary in his region. The temptation at this point to exercise this leverage, i.e. become a “warlord”, comes plainly into focus.
If the mainstream security forces decided to conduct an operation in an area where the militia was strong enough, this elder, Sheik, Warlord, whatever- has the power to opt out. If the mainstream forces persist, and insist, he has an army to fight them. Decentralizing the power to the populace invites incidences of both noncompliance and corruption- assuming the mainstream force was itself not corrupt, which in those countries was a dangerous assumption. Clearly the division of interests and the power to assume footing on said interests could place the local militias and mainstream security forces at cross purposes, absent no centralizing theme to unite them.
In those countries with this division understood, and honestly with US backing and insistence, the mainstream Iraqi and Afghan security forces held their nose and grudgingly allowed local forces a tenuous existence. The US force in country was single-minded of purpose, which was to generate security in the region, and the local militias were the only vehicle in which to do so.
This is the main point that deserves some visualization and examination. In an area in those countries that is confronted by a threat actor in the immediate, with mainstream security forces responding and on site notionally in x hours; what do the locals do from the immediate to x hours? They either fight, comply with the threat actor, or die alongside their families, which would be certain to bear the same fate absent compliance, and in many cases still would perish with reluctant compliance. “Fighting in your own back yard” becomes the centralizing theme with local forces, be they of the M word variety or labeled something more politically palatable, i.e. “police”. The notion is sensible and the logic sound, as an individual fighting for his family in the next room will fight very hard indeed.
Clearly the local force has value added in the security spectrum, just based upon timeliness of response and the motivations of the members discussed. The ideal is for this force to be only powerful enough, just to hold until the mainstream forces can respond; and hopefully not exercise political leverage or be corrosive to the mainstream force objectives while preparing to do so.
I would think that this last paragraph has utility in the US, during this day and age. With a threat actor (riot/ looting/ crime/ terror/ active shooter) attack in progress, and the US police force x minutes or y hours from being able to respond, what does an American on site to do do when faced with such a situation? Can they or we respond in a manner that secures their home, or business, or those areas that must be defended for x or y time in anticipation of the eventual police response? If we cannot- we must be made to be prepared to face this threat by oneself, as a moral imperative.
Security of the citizenry is only discussed at one point in the US Bill of Rights in the Constitution and that is the highly debated second amendment.[3] It uses the M word, and that is the character of debate- what exactly is the organized militia? If the reader will forgive the transition, one must entertain the possibility that the framers were possibly not directly talking about the institutional, rather the intentional. If the intent was not the group, or the body, or a military auxiliary type unit itself, but rather an instruction to the citizens of the new Republic- that the citizen himself was the primary responder in respect to his own security – then the M word, and the amendment itself, takes on a whole new possibility of importance.
Is it possible, that the framers understood that in the most dire of circumstances, the police or the military would be insufficient or not timely enough to protect every single citizen in the manner that the government would prefer? If so, the second amendment establishes both a right to security, but imposes and makes clear to the individual that it is his- the citizens’- primary responsibility, and not the police or the military to obtain or exercise this on his behalf. Further, it guarantees a right to have the tools at hand to see to this level of defense. If this understanding is correct, then every citizen, absent military membership of any other sort, is the militia. A militia of one, possibly, but clearly a militiaman.
It is my belief that this is on course. It does promote a notion of the independent American, for issues both prosperous and tragic. As we do know the framers where of this mind when they placed pen to paper, this is not a long assumption by any means.
It also establishes a counterweight for those possibilities of corruption by national mainstream security forces. Certainly, this has not been seen in the US contemporarily, but incidences of this corruption and oppression are written in the margins of US history, and those of us that did deal with security forces in Iraq and Afghanistan- especially Afghanistan- understand that it is within the folds of human nature to use corruptive means to gain personal power.
In closing, my advice to the organized militias of one, is firstly- don’t be obnoxious. Credibility and the view of your rights and now stated responsibility for your own defense is something that must be cherished and can and will be lost if you openly act like a horse’s behind. In other words, do not use weapons as a prop for protest; it is undignified, and undermines the greater intent.
Secondly, political bias will place you as a prepared individual/independent American/ dignified militia of one; into the nutjob category, and by my view rightfully so. Security has no politic, as it neither matters what the fellow’s views on civil rights are if he is shooting at you. Non-political in defense of self/ family/ enclave is righteousness.
Resist any temptation to appoint a commander, staff, or include bureaucracy into any formation that does not require it to be so. This is the government’s prevue to do so, and not the citizen’s. Once formed it is no longer in support of basic security, rather a complicated mixture of its own interests. I believe that mutual assistance in terms of security is acceptable and actually wise, and if not conspiracy minded, recommended. I have recently heard of four or five individuals from different cities that have generated a compact between each other with a common purpose and interest, that being “When the rioters are outside of your business, I will come to you and stand a post to help you secure it- when they are in my city and outside of mine, I expect the same.” I personally consider this approach very workable.
Lastly, be able to use your tools RESPONSIBLY, which rolls right back into the credibility issue. No individual militia member is capable of securing anything if he shoots off his own foot- physically, mentally, or morally. I am not only talking about weapons and kit here, but also the ground on which you are needing to fight, the right that needs to be fought for- and the proper planned method to do so. If one is standing a post and is not clear of where the high ground is, morally, mentally, and physically his presence with a firearm is more of a hazard than of any help.
Hold the High Ground!
[1] How to Win in Al Anbar https://abcnews.go.com/images/US/how_to_win_in_anbar_v4.pdf
[2] https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1300/RR1399/RAND_RR1399.pdf
[3] Second Amendment, US constitution. https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-ii