|
On War #131
August 24, 2005
Some Responses
By William S. Lind
[The views expressed in this article are those of
Mr. Lind, writing in his personal capacity. They do not reflect
the opinions or policy positions of the Free Congress Foundation,
its officers, board or employees, or those of Kettle Creek Corporation.]
My two columns on the
idea of a national militia as the best response to the Fourth
Generation threat generated some responses that are worth thinking
about. We will take a look at some of them here.
Let me first clarify
one point: the militia we are talking about is a public, not a
private militia. It is funded by government, and it reports to
government (it is adcon to Congress and, unless mobilized, opcon to
the county sheriff). Our working group thought it was important to
keep the militia away from the federal executive branch as much as
possible, because the executive branch will try either to destroy it
or to turn it into a tool for Big Brother. But this militia is not
just a bunch of guys running around in the woods. It is a state
armed service, just like the four we now have —
the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard.
Now, some responses:
-
Myke asks, “I
assume that by reporting to Congress he means that the militias
would become tools of their particular representatives
…
Isn’t this the very sign of state collapse that van Creveld
warned us of?” Our working group never envisioned the militia
reporting to their local Congressman. Unless mobilized, it would
report to the county sheriff; if mobilized, to a state governor
or a CINC. As to whether it might contribute to the decline of
the state, that depends on what kind of state we envision. The
militia does represent decentralization away from Washington.
But I think America’s current over-centralization is itself a
factor in the state’s crisis of legitimacy. Both here and
generally, it seems to me that decentralization and citizen
involvement may help restore legitimacy to the state.
-
Two readers, Marion
and Herbert, asked whether the Swiss militia model might be
relevant. The answer is clearly yes. Switzerland’s defense has
been based on a militia for a very long time, and it has enabled
Switzerland to preserve its neutrality, maintain its liberties
and decentralized political system (real power lies at the
cantonal, not the federal level of government) and keep its
defense expenditures down. The Swiss militia is an ideal basis
for defending Switzerland from 4GW. In fact, Switzerland already
has an arrangement other countries will need to move to in a 4GW
world: the regular armed services support the militia, instead
of the other way around.
-
Keith asks, “Is Mr.
Lind expecting the militia force he refers to, to replace
existing 'standing armies?' … I could not imagine such a
force being suitably equipped (or trained) for expeditionary
warfare … how can we do without modern, professional armed
forces?” Our working group, and some though not all others at
Col. Wyly’s conference, saw the current armed forces as “legacy”
forces. They represent a way of war that is passing, war between
states. As we see in Iraq and Afghanistan, they do not succeed
very well in Fourth Generation wars. We thought the first-line
militia companies we envision would be better suited to 4GW, in
large part because they would be trained to de-escalate
confrontations, rather than call in F-18s to drop 2000 pound
bombs in urban neighborhoods. The winding down of the legacy
forces would come gradually, but the combination of their vast
cost and declining utility means they are passing into history.
-
Dee noted that not
all urban areas have sheriffs. If the militia there reported to
the mayor, directly or through the police chief, they could
become dangerously politicized. I agree. Does anyone know how
many places lack sheriffs?
-
Thomas noted that
in addition to the example of volunteer fire departments, we can
point to three other militia-type organizations already in
existence: the Civil Air Patrol, the Coast Guard Auxiliary and
some state militias that remain separate from the National
Guard. Karl pointed out that 10 U.S.C. 330 already provides
legal authorization for an “Unorganized Militia” and a “Select
Militia.” He notes, “This Code is still in effect, just ignored
…” Nathan adds that since 1988, many counties have had
“Local Emergency Planning Committees.” He adds, “The LEPCs
could, by working with the sheriff (most do, closely, anyway
today) be the coordinating catalyst to transform or spin off the
militia companies.”
These are all useful
questions or ideas. The militia concept still needs a lot of work if
it is to become viable. And the larger question still remains: is a
militia the best answer to the question of what kind of state armed
service America needs to defend against Fourth Generation threats?
The difference between
the people who wrote responses to my columns and Washington is that
the former are thinking about that question.
Word document available upon request.
To interview Mr. Lind, please contact:
Phyllis Hughes (pehughes@freecongress.org)
Free Congress Foundation
717 Second St., N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
Phone 202-543-8474
The Free Congress Foundation, is a 28-year-old Washington,
DC-based conservative educational foundation (think tank) that teaches
people how to be effective in the political process, advocates judicial
reform, promotes cultural conservatism, and works against the government
encroachment of individual liberties.
Archive of On War
|