Leadership 101: THE FIRST TEN BOOTS

[ROFCB Commander 664]

Today is Day Three of the twenty-day "Leadership 101" series I'll be posting. This series expresses my thoughts on some topics important to the successful leadership of a local unit, and asks other unit leaders to post their thoughts, ideas, and experiences on the same subject in hopes that together we can help those who are starting from scratch with unit-building.

 

Today's topic is "The First Ten Boots".

 

These posts are written primarily for the new unit commander, and assume for the purposes of these discussions that your unit is literally just getting started. Today's topic addresses something of note that you probably haven't thought of--who does what, when, and how?

 

The first ten boots--or the first five people in your unit (and you should probably have five interested candidates before you officially "start" a unit, though you can lay the groundwork for a unit sooner than that)--should all have very specific roles within the unit before you ever truly start to "build" the thing in the first place.

 

What are these roles, and who (what type of person) should occupy them?

 

Answering that question can be a bit interesting, because often a unit is "started" by someone simply because there is no local unit for him/her to join. Typically people who start a new venture, whether it's a business or a club or a Militia unit, automatically become the "leader" of the venture by default. This isn't always the best thing, though, and it isn't always necessary, especially if you start with more than one prospective member. The ideal situation is where you have five dedicated initial members, who are reasonable, ego-free, and willing to truly assess their individual talents in order to put people in the best possible position for success. The person whose idea it was to start the unit, for instance, may not be ideally suited to lead it--but they'd make a dandy Morale Officer (for example).

 

This 'lesson' is based on the presumption that you have (or can round up) five interested, dedicated people who have gathered around a table to decide a structure for the organization and to assume leadership posts within it. How do you choose who does what?

 

In the beginning, there are five vital positions within a new organization of this type. They are Commanding Officer, Executive Officer, Logistics Officer, Morale Officer, and Recruiting Officer.

 

Let's start with the most important one. Well no, that's not accurate--because they are equally important. It' s better to say that this position will make or break your organization based on how well suited the person who fills it is to the job.

 

That position is "Executive Officer".

 

This is your Radar O'Reilly, your Mr. Spock, your Smithers. He/she is the guy/girl who just gets things done. When he does his job right, he makes everyone else--especially the commander--look great. He's the jack-of-all-trades who just naturally knows "what's up". While technically he's the second in command, he's the guy without whom the entire operation would seemingly fall apart.

 

I don't care what organization, or what type of organization, you look at--if it's run well and efficiently, and the person in charge regularly looks like an absolute genius, it's because the Executive Officer is brilliant at his job.

 

The person you should choose for this post is the go-getter among go-getters. He's friendly, enthusiastic, sharp as a tack, gets along extremely well with everyone, very well read, gives wise counsel, is fiercely loyal, and is ridiculously dependable. He's the guy who you'd pick when you ask yourself "if I really needed to build a space shuttle in my back yard, who would I hand the project to". If you choose the right guy as your "Number One", you'll never have a difficult day as Commander.

 

I hate "ranking" these positions because there is so much important stuff that every single one of them is responsible for that to call one more important than the other just isn't correct--but your "most important" officer is the Executive, hands down.

 

The next most important, in my mind, is the Logistics officer. This is another jack-of-all-trades who just gets stuff done--except that the stuff he/she gets done is head-scratchingly difficult. He's the one who manages to get all of your supplies to the training site at the right time on the right day; he's the one who arranged the training exercise to begin with; he's got a food vendor lined up at noon, and somehow managed to get the county code enforcement officer to look the other way for your night-firing exercise. In fact--and nobody knows how he pulled this off, because the code enforcement officer is a notorious asshole--the exercise is being held on the code enforcement officer's land.

 

Yeah--he's that guy.

 

This is the fellow (or woman--in fact, this position is often ideal for a woman) who knows people, and if he doesn't know them he will five minutes after it's decided the person in question needs to be known. Five minutes of talking to this person and it seems like you grew up together. He can walk into a drunken party thrown by the Hell's Angels, wearing a business suit, and be accepted as one of them--or a board meeting full of people wearing business suits, dressed like a member of a motorcycle gang, and have them eating out of his hand in minutes.

 

This guy is your procurement specialist. Need a place to practice? He'll get you one. Need tee shirts to sell at a county fair booth? They'll be on the table before you even arrive to work your shift. An exercise facility at a discount? Free pizza for the guys? A new radio to test? This is the person who gets it for you. He's unafraid, brilliant, and an artful negotiator.

 

Donald Trump would make a great Logistics Officer.

 

The next two positions work hand-in-hand. One brings the bodies into the organization, and the other keeps them there. They are the Recruitment Officer and the Morale Officer, and you must never make the mistake of taking what either one of them does for granted.

 

The Recruitment Officer has the most easy to understand job; he is responsible for overseeing the various recruitment campaigns that you'll have running every hour of every day for the entire existence of your organization. In the world of sales, there's a phrase--ABC; Always Be Closing. Your Recruitment Officer is the director of sales for your operation--and his phrase is "Always Be Recruiting". I won't go into the various recruiting campaigns and tools that are vital to his success--that's a subject for another post--but I will tell you that the person you put into this position is the guy who could talk an Eskimo into buying ice. He's the natural bullshitter, the guy who knows all the best jokes, the "life of the party". Ideally, this fellow actually is a salesman in "real life". The skill sets are very similar.

 

The Morale Officer isn't the life of the party--he's the host. He's the guy who, when you're telling the story about that one time you got so drunk at a party that you fell backwards into the bathtub and tore the shower curtain down--it was his shower curtain. This is the fellow who just knows how to set things in motion, bend the rules when necessary, and make sure everyone has fun (but not too much fun--he knows when it's time to show you the door and get the shower curtain back up before Mom and Dad get home). He's always got something going on, makes sure everyone knows where to be and when, tracks who is bringing what covered dish. He's the guy who arranges flowers when there's a wedding or funeral, and dances with the shy kid in the corner (who remembers it for the rest of her life). This person is a great planner, a friendly face, knows what to say at exactly the right moment, and when to say nothing at all. He/she is the one who makes everyone feel welcome, and sows in them a sense of belonging. And none of it is "fake"; he truly believes it's his responsibility to ensure that your organization is a brotherhood, and everyone is everyone else's best friend. This position is often well-served by a female (for whom empathy tends to come more naturally).

 

Finally, the least important officer of the first five--or ever, if the position is staffed correctly. That's the Commander.

 

The Commander is the face of the organization, the guy who people think of when they hear the name of the unit. He's competent, above reproach, accessible, utterly believable and trusthworthy, brilliantly loyal, and firm of both character and conviction. He is not dictatorial, ego-driven, or self-important in any way. He gives credit rather than taking it, accepts compliments on behalf of his staff and not himself, and always, always, ALWAYS puts the organization first. Mostly, he protects--the people, the assets, the reputation--of the unit. The Commander is less beat cop and more traffic control officer, assigning responsibilities and seeing that things get done more than issuing edicts and beating people into submission. He's the guy you feel bad about disappointing--the one you'd rather take a beating than to even seem slightly disloyal to. And God help you if you ever ARE disloyal, because when it comes to rallying the troops, there is no one who's better at it. He can turn out the entire organization in a matter of minutes just by mere suggestion--so don't ever get on his bad side. And yet, he'll make sure you and everyone else understands that he's the least important member of the team--and he means it.

 

The Commander is obviously the backbone of the operation; like any backbone, the unit would slouch to the floor if he wasn't there, but when he is, you barely realize he's around doing his job.

 

The finest Commander I ever knew, and the one upon whom I patterned the above description, was a mail clerk in his "ordinary" life. He ran the third largest organization of it's type--a Veteran's Club--in the country (largest in the state). He was by far the most capable human being I ever met, loyal to those who deserved it, absolutely menacing to those who didn't. He could bend the rules and get away with it (he ran--for the benefit of the club, not one dime to himself--a huge illegal raffle operation; asked one time how he avoided getting caught over the years, he told me that he was never "caught" because he had never hidden what he was doing...in fact, he'd just come from the courthouse where he'd delivered that month's ticket to the county judge). He innately understood the difference between "illegal" and "not right". What he was doing didn't meet the definition for "legal", but it was very right...and his operation benefited veterans every bit as much as any VA program ever did. I watched him cover, out of his own pocket, when one of his employees came up hundreds of dollars short for a shift. I saw him destroy the career of an underling who stole from the organization, and make no effort to hide that he was the one who did it. He sat in his office playing solitaire all day--I know, because I sat there with him seven days a week--and yet the organization ran like a well-assembled swiss watch. In the entire time I knew him I only saw him make one mistake...he voted for Barack Obama. In retrospect, knowing what we now know of John McCain, perhaps even that wasn't really a mistake. Given his breadth of knowledge and insane ability to read people, maybe he wasn't so far off.

 

Strive to find that guy to run your outfit, and you'll have the best Militia unit ever assembled.

 

You'll notice that I didn't put anyone in the position of "Ninja Master" or "Range Officer". There is no provision in the first five for "Tactical Officer" or "Weapons Specialist". That's because in the greater scheme of things, those positions fall well below the others in order of priority. Without flawless operation of the positions I did list, there is no need for the others, and no way they can be successful. A successful Militia unit is built from the ground up to be a successful NON-Militia unit; it could do just as well selling used cars as training for battle. It's the organization that is important. What the organization is created FOR is secondary to the organization itself.

 

Approach it this way, and you'll be the finest Militia Commander to ever carry the title.

 

Tomorrow's installment is called LEAD, FOLLOW, OR GET OUT OF THE WAY.

[Cb85 136]

Sounds good. I think all militias should be 1/3 military training 1/3 other training, such as what is constitutional, establish sop's medical, ect.

and 1/3 fun fellowship. So every one trusts each other enough to maintain cohesion.

 

[Rascaldees 174]

I don't agree with this concept. Most militia are led by pig headed jackasses that want to be popular and using military ranks and structure only makes their ego boner harder. 

[RevRifleman 1,512]

5 minutes ago, Rascaldees said:

I don't agree with this concept. Most militia are led by pig headed jackasses that want to be popular and using military ranks and structure only makes their ego boner harder. 

 

There needs to be some degree of organization for the sake of keeping things... orderly.  That being said, I do agree that getting carried away with ranks and using military structure does create more drama than benefit.

[Rascaldees 174]

5 minutes ago, RevRifleman said:

 

There needs to be some degree of organization for the sake of keeping things... orderly.  That being said, I do agree that getting carried away with ranks and using military structure does create more drama than benefit.

My point exactly. I've been trying to unite the SC militias for a long while now. No one wants to give up power except me it seems. Granted, I had some terms to uniting with the group I joined my guys up with and we will leave if things aren't being done properly but nevertheless we made the effort. 

 

Unite your states gents. We must have fifty banners, not five hundred. 

[Cb85 136]

1 minute ago, Rascaldees said:

My point exactly. I've been trying to unite the SC militias for a long while now. No one wants to give up power except me it seems. Granted, I had some terms to uniting with the group I joined my guys up with and we will leave if things aren't being done properly but nevertheless we made the effort. 

 

Unite your states gents. We must have fifty banners, not five hundred. 

There is some benefit to not having centralized leadership if one group is compromised or infiltrated by the tyrants than the whole structure won't be taken out.  If it comes to armed conflict then you'll know who to trust by their reputation.

[Rascaldees 174]

Just now, Cb85 said:

There is some benefit to not having centralized leadership if one group is compromised or infiltrated by the tyrants than the whole structure won't be taken out.  If it comes to armed conflict then you'll know who to trust by their reputation.

If proper checks and balances are made within the group rather than a popularity contest that won't happen. 

 

And no you won't. The yokels hiding in the woods LARPing have no reputation. 

Edited July 16 by Rascaldees

[Rascaldees 174]

1 minute ago, Cb85 said:

There is some benefit to not having centralized leadership if one group is compromised or infiltrated by the tyrants than the whole structure won't be taken out.  If it comes to armed conflict then you'll know who to trust by their reputation.

Oh and try coordinating two groups with different training standards and equipment. Then try coordinating fifty so you don't end up with blue on blue fire or engaging a friendly unit because their uniforms are different. 

[Cb85 136]

1 minute ago, Rascaldees said:

If proper checks and balances are made within the group rather than a popularity contest that won't happen. 

 

And no you won't. The yokels hiding in the woods LARPing have no reputation. 

That's easy to say but when group A is infiltrated and all their family is in a cage being tortured for info. Then you'll be glad group B wasn't intricately involved with group A.

[Cb85 136]

1 minute ago, Rascaldees said:

Oh and try coordinating two groups with different training standards and equipment. Then try coordinating fifty so you don't end up with blue on blue fire or engaging a friendly unit because their uniforms are different. 

We aren't going to fighting the US army head on that be stupid. You can't win fighting head on.  All we would be doing is small unit tactics picking them off and being a thorn. At least till enough ppl see the tyranny and join up.  It would be a long process before groups would join up together. 

The initail logistics would just be too much for large groups.  

[Rascaldees 174]

1 minute ago, Cb85 said:

That's easy to say but when group A is infiltrated and all their family is in a cage being tortured for info. Then you'll be glad group B wasn't intricately involved with group A.

Why is group A's family involved at all? Kind of a conflict of interest there. It's why the military doesn't put families in the same unit. 

 

And when group A sees a different uniform they don't recognize and ambush group B and wipe them out I guess that's just an "oopsie poopsie" for them.

 

Or when two groups attack the same target location and in the midst of chaos don't realize the other is present and accidentally bomb them into meat chunks that'll just be another oopsie.

 

Or during peace when it is time to make people know who we are so that civilians don't fear us and instead HELP us it might be useful to coordinate together instead of fifty small missions into a single swift and decisive one.

 

 

There are cons to unity. They are outweighed by the pros. Otherwise it'll be best for everyone to not have uniforms or teams and just shoot with a blindfold.

[minicoopertn 41]

A militia needs to be set up with a civilian leadership. A committee. A Republic style of government never as I am a five star general dictatorship style. The more of a servant heart someone has the better leader they will be. The militant arm of a militia should be secondary to education both internally and in the local community. A militia should try to gain support and trust based upon how they act and work within the local community. Ideally when the general public is asked about their viewpoint of the militia the first thing that comes to mind should not be a bunch of guys with guns but a pillar of the community. A group that has a good relationship with law enforcement and is able to aid in local emergencies as help is requested. When it comes to tactical readiness it is important to be trained to fight but should not desire conflict. Military rank should be kept at the lowest possible rank based upon the militia size. You should not have someone refer to themselves as a general when the militia only has 10 members. As numbers increase so would the highest rank. Imagine 30 militias coming together each with 10 guys and you have 30 five star generals. Be one big ego party.

[ROFCB Commander 664]

29 minutes ago, Rascaldees said:

I don't agree with this concept. Most militia are led by pig headed jackasses that want to be popular and using military ranks and structure only makes their ego boner harder. 

Then the rank/structure isn't the problem, but the pigheaded jackasses are.  🙂

But yes--rank structure that simply strokes the ego misses the point entirely. Some form of command structure is needed to allow the imposition of order, particularly on the battlefield. Also, it allows for the proper flow of information and duty assignments. It doesn't have to be "rank", so to speak--in fact, I tend to lean away from rank as it's applied in the Military--but there has to be some "control" function in order for the system to maintain discipline (in terms of workflow, not "punishment") and the ability to move the unit from command to ground.

[Rascaldees 174]

3 minutes ago, ROFCB Commander said:

Then the rank/structure isn't the problem, but the pigheaded jackasses are.  🙂

But yes--rank structure that simply strokes the ego misses the point entirely. Some form of command structure is needed to allow the imposition of order, particularly on the battlefield. Also, it allows for the proper flow of information and duty assignments. It doesn't have to be "rank", so to speak--in fact, I tend to lean away from rank as it's applied in the Military--but there has to be some "control" function in order for the system to maintain discipline (in terms of workflow, not "punishment") and the ability to move the unit from command to ground.

There does need to be structure. I don't disagree with that. However a supply officer for a militia seems entirely unnecessary unless your militia itself is providing uniforms, food, water, guns and ammo that the members themselves aren't paying for. Otherwise what are you distributing?

[Cb85 136]

8 minutes ago, ROFCB Commander said:

Then the rank/structure isn't the problem, but the pigheaded jackasses are.  🙂

But yes--rank structure that simply strokes the ego misses the point entirely. Some form of command structure is needed to allow the imposition of order, particularly on the battlefield. Also, it allows for the proper flow of information and duty assignments. It doesn't have to be "rank", so to speak--in fact, I tend to lean away from rank as it's applied in the Military--but there has to be some "control" function in order for the system to maintain discipline (in terms of workflow, not "punishment") and the ability to move the unit from command to ground.

Absolutely!!!

[ROFCB Commander 664]

Just now, Rascaldees said:

There does need to be structure. I don't disagree with that. However a supply officer for a militia seems entirely unnecessary unless your militia itself is providing uniforms, food, water, guns and ammo that the members themselves aren't paying for. Otherwise what are you distributing?

The position is Logistics Officer, though certainly it would entail elements of supply as well. And you and I know the reality of things--that for the most part, people supply their own stuff--but thinking bigger, wouldn't it be fantastic if your unit was so accepted by the community that people donated pizza, or ammunition, or gym time, or tailoring services, to help you to succeed?

 

That's the goal of it all. We are attempting to move past the struggles of the past (where we were always short-handed, always looked down on or feared, never fully accepted or trusted) and incorporate the entire community in the effort. That's just one place where the Logistics Officer can be of great assistance.

[minicoopertn 41]

When it comes to a supply officer or logistics officer there may be situations where a supply officer can get better pricing on items and pass that on to the members. Imagine getting a discount when buying 20,000 rounds of ammo have have members agree to split the cost 10 or 20 ways. The same can be said for other items. Even thinking along the lines of the militia operating a food bank or school backpack program. During these public service operations you could ask for financial donations to the militia being up front that at least 80% will go to help people with 5% to 10% admin and education and 10% training and equipment for the militia to be better prepared for emergencies. I am sure there are ways beyond being self funded that some funding can be provided by the public who may not want to be an active member but are happy to help.

[Cb85 136]

33 minutes ago, Rascaldees said:

Why is group A's family involved at all? Kind of a conflict of interest there. It's why the military doesn't put families in the same unit. 

 

And when group A sees a different uniform they don't recognize and ambush group B and wipe them out I guess that's just an "oopsie poopsie" for them.

 

Or when two groups attack the same target location and in the midst of chaos don't realize the other is present and accidentally bomb them into meat chunks that'll just be another oopsie.

 

Or during peace when it is time to make people know who we are so that civilians don't fear us and instead HELP us it might be useful to coordinate together instead of fifty small missions into a single swift and decisive one.

 

 

There are cons to unity. They are outweighed by the pros. Otherwise it'll be best for everyone to not have uniforms or teams and just shoot with a blindfold.

Group group A family isn't involved they are at home and completely against the militia or neutral. It won't matter they'll still come after them cuz they are tyrannical. 

 

Its easier to protect your family in a small group alone. And to have better opsec if you keep it small and no centralized leadership.   We don't have encrypted channels like the US military does.  

And if everyone agreed with you you'd have more centralized leadership. Which proves my point.  

Unless that fact only proves in your eyes why your so much smarter than everyone else. 

In which case all the more argument in my opinion why leaderless is better.

[Rascaldees 174]

10 minutes ago, Cb85 said:

Group group A family isn't involved they are at home and completely against the militia or neutral. It won't matter they'll still come after them cuz they are tyrannical. 

 

Its easier to protect your family in a small group alone. And to have better opsec if you keep it small and no centralized leadership.   We don't have encrypted channels like the US military does.  

And if everyone agreed with you you'd have more centralized leadership. Which proves my point.  

Unless that fact only proves in your eyes why your so much smarter than everyone else. 

In which case all the more argument in my opinion why leaderless is better.

It's not easier with a small group of five to fend off a mob of two hundred people. Sure, you can inflict casualties and make them regret their decision but your enemy WILL win and you will all be dead.

 

Furthermore, tyranny does not mean cruel. It has been proven many times that torture is ineffective and takes long than building rapport which also usually gives more truthful information. 

 

Also having better OPSEC doesn't come from having a smaller group. Almost every militia posts what they're doing on Facebook which in turn negates any OPSEC they might have had in the first place.

 

Small groups have their place; working with bigger groups because they are much harder to find. Also kidnapping a person's family takes resources and time and is terrible for propaganda. It's easier to just wait until they're alone then take them out with a sniper or drone strike. Or even a hit team if we want a more direct route. Collateral damage helps exactly no governments. 

 

And I personally don't give a damn how smart anyone is. A genius can be wrong, even experts make mistakes and everyone should experience failure. It makes us human. I do, however, have eyes and if small teams were what won wars then Iraq would have beaten the piss out of the US, Nazi Germany would have won WWII and Russia would be child's play for any nation.

 

When you have four riflemen against twelve and your four are extremely more skilled they will still die. Because twelve riflemen put out more suppressive fire than four. They'll just pin you down and kill you anyways.

 

Additionally, almost everyone I talk to thinks militia are hiding in the woods LARPing and jacking themselves off to gun magazines while whispering about communists being everywhere. They are not wrong and it's thinking like that which makes them exactly right. In turn? It means we are losing the propaganda war and until we see that we are doomed to fail. 

 

No one likes politics but a united front wins those too. More people agreeing with you means more people are inclined to listen.

[Rascaldees 174]

43 minutes ago, ROFCB Commander said:

The position is Logistics Officer, though certainly it would entail elements of supply as well. And you and I know the reality of things--that for the most part, people supply their own stuff--but thinking bigger, wouldn't it be fantastic if your unit was so accepted by the community that people donated pizza, or ammunition, or gym time, or tailoring services, to help you to succeed?

 

That's the goal of it all. We are attempting to move past the struggles of the past (where we were always short-handed, always looked down on or feared, never fully accepted or trusted) and incorporate the entire community in the effort. That's just one place where the Logistics Officer can be of great assistance.

I agree whole heartedly. That's what I'm trying to do in my state. I still think the position is unnecessary until we reach that point though.

[Cb85 136]

23 minutes ago, Rascaldees said:

It's not easier with a small group of five to fend off a mob of two hundred people. Sure, you can inflict casualties and make them regret their decision but your enemy WILL win and you will all be dead.

 

Furthermore, tyranny does not mean cruel. It has been proven many times that torture is ineffective and takes long than building rapport which also usually gives more truthful information. 

 

Also having better OPSEC doesn't come from having a smaller group. Almost every militia posts what they're doing on Facebook which in turn negates any OPSEC they might have had in the first place.

 

Small groups have their place; working with bigger groups because they are much harder to find. Also kidnapping a person's family takes resources and time and is terrible for propaganda. It's easier to just wait until they're alone then take them out with a sniper or drone strike. Or even a hit team if we want a more direct route. Collateral damage helps exactly no governments. 

 

And I personally don't give a damn how smart anyone is. A genius can be wrong, even experts make mistakes and everyone should experience failure. It makes us human. I do, however, have eyes and if small teams were what won wars then Iraq would have beaten the piss out of the US, Nazi Germany would have won WWII and Russia would be child's play for any nation.

 

When you have four riflemen against twelve and your four are extremely more skilled they will still die. Because twelve riflemen put out more suppressive fire than four. They'll just pin you down and kill you anyways.

 

Additionally, almost everyone I talk to thinks militia are hiding in the woods LARPing and jacking themselves off to gun magazines while whispering about communists being everywhere. They are not wrong and it's thinking like that which makes them exactly right. In turn? It means we are losing the propaganda war and until we see that we are doomed to fail. 

 

No one likes politics but a united front wins those too. More people agreeing with you means more people are inclined to listen.

A small group can pick and chose its engagements.  And then fade into the woods.

And just cuz something isn't good for propaganda don't mean they won't do it. 

If that was the case the nazis wouldn't have killed millions nor would have Hillary deleted thousands of emails.  

Also the serous groups arnt pissing around on fb. If they are they are screwed when the stuff comes our way. Our government will just track them down and end them.

the serous guys are using tails and a vpn to coordinate stuff. 

 

 

 

Edited July 16 by Cb85

[Cb85 136]

10 minutes ago, Cb85 said:

A small group can pick and chose its engagements.  And then fade into the woods.

And just cuz something isn't good for propaganda don't mean they won't do it. 

If that was the case the nazis wouldn't have killed millions nor would have Hillary deleted thousands of emails.  

Also the serous groups arnt pissing around on fb. If they are they are screwed when the stuff comes our way. Our government will just track them down and end them.

the serous guys are using tails and a vpn to coordinate stuff. 

 

 

 

Also why d you automatically assume there are 200 against you.  The purpose on the militia initially will be to hit small targets and then fade. This forces the enemy to have to spread out its forces being they never know where they might get hit. 

 

There re are room for both ideals.  But there is no Good reason to have centralized leadership in a state where under 100 militia members are active and none of them know each other well enough to know weather the other groups are trust worthy. Maybe in your state you have sufficient numbers to justify that. But not here.

[ROFCB Commander 664]

53 minutes ago, Rascaldees said:

I agree whole heartedly. That's what I'm trying to do in my state. I still think the position is unnecessary until we reach that point though.

If you don't have the personnel, or the right person, to fill it--obviously don't let that stop you from proceeding in whatever way you are able. But if you have that person, better to hit the ground running with the position because that's the one that won't always find immediate success, but rather will work to make in-roads for the future. Also, better to build on the solid foundation than to try to add to it later (unless you have little choice). Gotta go with the personnel you have, though. Don't let the lack of a Logistics Officer keep you from building the organization in other ways.

[Rascaldees 174]

39 minutes ago, Cb85 said:

Also why d you automatically assume there are 200 against you.  The purpose on the militia initially will be to hit small targets and then fade. This forces the enemy to have to spread out its forces being they never know where they might get hit. 

 

There re are room for both ideals.  But there is no Good reason to have centralized leadership in a state where under 100 militia members are active and none of them know each other well enough to know weather the other groups are trust worthy. Maybe in your state you have sufficient numbers to justify that. But not here.

The couple in Saint Louis seemed to have 200 people against them. And if you hit and "fade into the woods" my response as a larger group is to burn the forest down and force you to fight on equal (ish) terms that I pick.

[Cb85 136]

4 minutes ago, Rascaldees said:

The couple in Saint Louis seemed to have 200 people against them. And if you hit and "fade into the woods" my response as a larger group is to burn the forest down and force you to fight on equal (ish) terms that I pick.

Yea history has shown the tyrants will do terrible stuff in secret. But burning down hundreds of thousands of acres of forest is a very visible thing that could also burn the tyrants own base down 

its much less likely. 

Theyd have to be very desperate.