The American Coalition

[fixer 4,472]

What is your take on something like this? ...

 

 

American Coalition.pdf

[SecurityGuy42 622]

I couldn't get far into it before I had to stop.  The creator is very naive.  Seems almost like an evolved flower child mentality that misses the the actual point of a militia.  I agree that militias should be involved with their communities to show their good side to gain support.  But they must never loose sight of the fact that they must be trained, equipped, and prepared for war at a moments notice.  The spirit of the Minuteman. 

And what the hell is the point of making an organizational anthem or song?

[Ideological Gambler 621]

outside of maybe group morale I dont see a point. The anthem should be that of our nation... if we even need one.

[LetFreedomRing 5,754]

It's good for a group just starting out to cherry pick from to help them organize their own local group.  I agree there are some things in it that should be left on the tree.  

[SecurityGuy42 622]

Then maybe you could find a few ideas but as I said I just couldn't get that far into reading it.  It made my head hurt.

[fixer 4,472]

When we first started the site a guy showed up and shared all about this AmCo , then he said we could have it all and went AWOL.. i was going through some old data and seen it, thought i would post it up and see what others thought

[SecurityGuy42 622]

Understandable.  My guess is the guy realized it was a stinker of a concept (from what I read).

[LetFreedomRing 5,754]

2 hours ago, SecurityGuy42 said:

Understandable.  My guess is the guy realized it was a stinker of a concept (from what I read).

Actually, I didn't read too far into it either.  

[Guest Delta 4]

Started reading it, then went to skimming it.  Not impressed. 

[Doug1943 1,614]

I believe this document has one very good point, and one very wrong assumption and a flawed method.

 

Wrong assumption: the US is going to be invaded by a foreign army  but this army can be defeated by armed civilians.

 

There are many good reasons to believe that this is a very improbable event. At most, we might see the intervention

of a foreign force to help one side in a civil war.  But if the US is ever so weak that a foreign army can actually invade, and not be

stopped by the country's professional military, then an essentially civilian militia is not going to be of much help. 

 

Okay, NOTHING is impossible. But I believe Abraham Lincoln was right when he said

Quote

"Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer. If it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."   Abraham Lincoln, Lyceum Address

Our problems are internal, unfortunately. There may well be a military aspect to them, but they are in the first place political.

 

Which brings me to the good point:  I believe it's very important for a local militia group, and for the militia movement nationally, to project an image of itself as a broad-spectrum Civilian Emergency Corps, ready and willing to help with anything involving social breakdown, from hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, to widespread rioting or terrorist violence.  This means that, like a professional military, it needs a 'tail' to back up the 'teeth'.  Men (okay, people) with guns, need others behind them (who may or may not be armed) who can lay down the wire for a field phone, drive a bulldozer and clear a path through wreckage, construct a temporary shelter or medical aid point, give medical aid, deliver supplies, compile a sitrep, etc etc.   All of these are the communications, logistics, intelligence etc. aspects of warfare, but they are also what needs to be done in largescale disasters. It's a perfect fit.

 

And ... it's necessary from a public relations point of view: if the militia movement is to grow, it has to overcome the slanders of outfits like the SPLC, who will move heaven and earth to portray it as  violence-prone outfit of semi-anarchists and kooks.

 The flawed method is over-prescription:  It's one thing to say that the US needs an armed and trained civilian militia to defend the Constitution. You can get wide agreement on that. But exactly how many men should be in a battle-group, whether they should march at 120 steps a minute or 125, etc etc. .... leave that to practice.  Most people will probably follow traditional military practice, modified to fit local customs and circumstances. The detail in this proposal has a strong air of crankish fantasy about -- I don't mean to insult the author, but much of what he says could conceivably be up for discussion, but shouldn't be prescribed beforehand.

 

And in general: I know it must be a strong temptation for the people who take the time to form a militia unit -- and all honor and respect to them! -- to want it to be a reflection of their own views on all political issues. But this is a grave

mistake.  A successful organization will know what is essential, what would be nice but not absolutely necssary, and what would be neither here nor there, in terms of what its members ought to believe.  For instance, I suspect most militia members today are conservative Republicans. But, as the Left gnaws away at the foundations of the Republic, we are going to see all kinds of people, with all kinds of beliefs, repelled from previous political allegiances, and open to recruitment. They should not be excluded because of some belief that is irrelevant to being a defender of the Republic.