Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In a different thread there was a discussion about national v local leadership and several members disagreed with a national leadership role and laid out several reasons why such a thing would be a bad idea and why actions, and the decision to act, should be left up to local leaders. I disagree with this sentiment wholeheartedly, and thought I would list my reasons why in a separate thread so as not to detract from the original thread.

Purpose. Local leaders are very good at collecting and analyzing information in their local areas, but rarely have knowledge beyond their scope of operations. Information will become far more scarce in a SHTF situation. For instance, if you have Local Team A that operates in one area of a state, and Local Team B in a different area of the same or neighboring state, who both identify, and decide to move on, a target, it is going to get very messy and they are going to step on each others toes and possibly kill each other unless they have a means of working the situation out for who is going to take point, who is going to act as a reserve, etc. This is most easily accomplished through a centralized source that has a wider view of what is going on. In the end you need a dedicated group of people collecting and analyzing information to determine if something is even worth the effort. In other words, to determine if a battle is even worth fighting, or winnable, you need to have information. As a local leader you can see what's going on in front of you, but you have no idea if what is going on in front of you will have any effect on the enemy. Imagine discovering, and attacking, an enemy supply convoy only to find out that another friendly group had that supply convoy under surveillance to find out where it was going because they had information that the enemy base, while hidden, had a number of exploitable weaknesses that could have brought the enemy in the area to their knees. Ooops!

Back when I studied American History, I recall reading an article from a British newspaper that was published shortly after the Colonies had won the War for Independence. The journalist was describing the chaos of the former Colonies and how we did not agree on anything and were willing to fighting anyone, including ourselves. He described the former colonies as a monster with 13 fists and no head. Our Constitution solved that problem because it provided for a central command structure, and make no mistakes about it, without a central, national, command structure we will waste any and all efforts to win a war, even if the war is in the court of public opinion.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...

Important Information

Use of this site is confirmation and acceptance of your understanding of our Terms of Use , Privacy Policy and site Guidelines . We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.