Folks,
I have been using the wolf, sheep, sheepdog metaphor for many years now but it was only recently that I discovered others were doing the same thing, often in words more learned and eloquent than my own. I have previously discussed the works of LTC Dave Grossman. Here is a portion of his book, On Combat.
On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs
(From the book, On Combat, by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman)
"Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself.
The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for?"
- William J. Bennett In a lecture to the United States Naval Academy, November 24, 1997
One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: “Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident.” This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.
Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.
Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.
I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin’s egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.
“Then there are the wolves,” the old war veteran said, “and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy.” Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.
“Then there are sheepdogs,” he went on, “and I’m a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf.” Or, as a sign in one California law enforcement agency put it, “We intimidate those who intimidate others.”
If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen: a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath--a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? Then you are a sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.
The gift of aggression
"What goes on around you... compares little with what goes on inside you."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Everyone has been given a gift in life. Some people have a gift for science and some have a flair for art. And warriors have been given the gift of aggression. They would no more misuse this gift than a doctor would misuse his healing arts, but they yearn for the opportunity to use their gift to help others. These people, the ones who have been blessed with the gift of aggression and a love for others, are our sheepdogs. These are our warriors.
One career police officer wrote to me about this after attending one of my Bulletproof Mind training sessions:
"I want to say thank you for finally shedding some light on why it is that I can do what I do. I always knew why I did it. I love my [citizens], even the bad ones, and had a talent that I could return to my community. I just couldn’t put my finger on why I could wade through the chaos, the gore, the sadness, if given a chance try to make it all better, and walk right out the other side."
Let me expand on this old soldier’s excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial; that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids’ schools. But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid’s school. Our children are dozens of times more likely to be killed, and thousands of times more likely to be seriously injured, by school violence than by school fires, but the sheep’s only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their children is just too hard, so they choose the path of denial.
The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.
Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn’t tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, “Baa.”
Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog. As Kipling said in his poem about “Tommy” the British soldier:
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind,"
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.
The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door. Look at what happened after September 11, 2001, when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?
Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.
Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, “Thank God I wasn’t on one of those planes.” The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, “Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference.” When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.
While there is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, he does have one real advantage. Only one. He is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.
There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory acts of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.
However, when there were cues given by potential victims that indicated they would not go easily, the cons said that they would walk away. If the cons sensed that the target was a "counter-predator," that is, a sheepdog, they would leave him alone unless there was no other choice but to engage.
One police officer told me that he rode a commuter train to work each day. One day, as was his usual, he was standing in the crowded car, dressed in blue jeans, T-shirt and jacket, holding onto a pole and reading a paperback. At one of the stops, two street toughs boarded, shouting and cursing and doing every obnoxious thing possible to intimidate the other riders. The officer continued to read his book, though he kept a watchful eye on the two punks as they strolled along the aisle making comments to female passengers, and banging shoulders with men as they passed.
As they approached the officer, he lowered his novel and made eye contact with them. “You got a problem, man?” one of the IQ-challenged punks asked. “You think you’re tough, or somethin’?” the other asked, obviously offended that this one was not shirking away from them.
“As a matter of fact, I am tough,” the officer said, calmly and with a steady gaze.
The two looked at him for a long moment, and then without saying a word, turned and moved back down the aisle to continue their taunting of the other passengers, the sheep.
Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I’m proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.
Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, “Let’s roll,” which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers--athletes, business people and parents--from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.
“Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?”
"here is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men."
- Edmund Burke in Reflections on the Revolution in France
Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn’t have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.
If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior’s path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.
For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to slaughter you and your loved ones.
I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, “I will never be caught without my gun in church.” I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a police officer he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas, in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down 14 people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy’s body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, “Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?”
Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for “heads to roll” if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids’ school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them. Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, “Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?”
The warrior must cleanse denial from his thinking. Coach Bob Lindsey, a renowned law enforcement trainer, says that warriors must practice “when/then” thinking, not “if/when.” Instead of saying,“If it happens then I will take action,” the warrior says, “When it happens then I will be ready.”
It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.
Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: You didn’t bring your gun; you didn’t train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by fear, helplessness, horror and shame at your moment of truth.
Chuck Yeager, the famous test pilot and first man to fly faster than the speed of sound, says that he knew he could die. There was no denial for him. He did not allow himself the luxury of denial. This acceptance of reality can cause fear, but it is a healthy, controlled fear that will keep you alive:
"I was always afraid of dying. Always. It was my fear that made me learn everything I could about my airplane and my emergency equipment, and kept me flying respectful of my machine and always alert in the cockpit."
- Brigadier General Chuck Yeager in Yeager, An Autobiography
Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation:
"..denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn’t so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling. Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level."
And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.
If you are a warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be “on” 24/7 for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself... “Baa.”
This business of being a sheep or a sheepdog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-grass sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.
The only problem I have with the description above is the assumption on the part of some that only policemen and soldiers can be sheepdogs. The armed citizenry is, by definition, the largest body of sheepdogs around. It's time we acted like it, don't you think?
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Steeling the Mind: Two Books for Serious Sheepdogs
Folks,
I was chatting with a trainer of warriors last evening and he raised the point that most of the Three Percent, dedicated though they are, are not prepared for the grim realities they may face in the coming period. Take knives, for one example. How many of us tote a K-Bar or a Randall when in the boonies? Many. How many of us wrap the grips in five-fifty cord?
A knife is a tool, certainly, and most K-Bars are used for housekeeping in camp. But most of us also carry that knife as a weapon of last resort, though we acknowledge intellectually that it can be used as an offensive weapon as well. To use a knife on a man effectively takes training. It also takes the psychological acceptance of the realities of killing a la Charlie Quintard.
Back to the five-fifty cord. There is nothing more slippery than blood. Any of you who have dressed a deer know that. For those of you that don't, go dip your combat knife in used motor oil and then try to do anything with it. Take care not to gut yourself when the knife inevitably slips. That's what wrapping the grips in cord prevents: the slippage that occurs when a knife, used in extremis, is covered in viscous, slippery, coppery-smelling human blood.
Wrapping your knife with cord is not only warrior-practical, it's psychological. It is, in some sense, declarative. It says that "I have chosen the path that may lead to the death of another human, even if it is in justifiable self defense." This is what they mean when they say, "War to the knife and knife to the hilt." It means being willing to go all the way to victory. It means having the will to win.
As members of the armed citizenry, there are a number of things we can readily see we must do to improve our own contribution to credible deterrence. First, we must make ourselves physically fit. Second, we must have the tools for the job. Third, and more important than the tool itself, is the ability to use it, i.e. marksmanship. Fourth is to build up the logistics of liberty. Beans and bullets are always thought of first and they are critical but what about boots? Bob Wright, my long-time friend and New Mexico patriot leader judged the seriousness of a militiaman by whether he owned one pair of boots or two, or three. Fifth is training beyond good marksmanship, team tactics, etc. But as my friend the warrior observed last night, we must train the mind to battle as well as the body.
The way this is accomplished in units, regular military and militia, is stress innoculation training. The US military does this with SERE school. Descriptions of SERE are found here and here.
In future, I will be discussing how we can adapt the military stress innoculation training experience to our own praxis. For now, however, let me suggest that you take advantage of winter downtime to absorb two books on the subject of killology.
Killology is a neologism which attempts to define the study of the psychological and physiological effects of combat on humans. The term was invented by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, of the Killology Research Group in his 1996 book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Back Bay Books (ISBN 0-3163301-1-6).
Grossman has since joined the Warrior Science Group, whose website is here.
Wikipedia describes killology and Grossman's book thusly:
Grossman's theory, based on the World War Two research of S.L.A. Marshall, is that most of the population deeply resists killing another human.
Modern military training allegedly overrides this instinct, by:
using man-shaped targets instead of bulls-eye targets
practicing and drilling how soldiers would actually fight
dispersing responsibility for the killing throughout the group
displacing responsibility for the killing onto an authority figure, i.e. the commanding officer and the military hierarchy. (See the Milgram experiment)
By the time of the United States involvement in the Vietnam War, says Grossman, 90 percent of U.S. soldiers would fire their weapons at other people.
The act of killing is psychologically traumatic for the killer, even more so than constant danger or witnessing the death of others.
Grossman further argues that violence in television, movies and video games contributes to real-life violence by a similar process of training and desensitization.
Grossman followed On Killing with On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace, PPCT Research Publications, 2004 (ISBN 0-9649205-1-4) co-authored with Loren Christensen.
Again from Wikipedia:
This book explores in detail what physically and mentally happens to most people when confronted with a deadly threat. Both authors have written previous books dealing with this subject. This collaboration brings together the best both have to offer.
Authors
Col. Grossman has an extensive military background as a member of the Army Rangers. His book, On Killing, was written over a decade ago and is still one of the definitive words on the subject. Through research and interviews, Col. Grossman was able to open a window into the soul of a "warrior" and explain why even when directly threatened, it is not a simple thing to take another human being's life.
Loren Christensen is a former police officer and co-author of another use of force book, Deadly Force Encounters. That book focused on law enforcement experiences with lethal force. Again through interviews and research, Christensen, and his co-author Dr. Alexis Artwohl, gave a human face to the peace officer forced to kill.
On Combat combines the world of the military combat veteran with that of the police officer. The authors contention is that both are worthy of the term "warrior". The "warrior" is the 1% who protects the 98% from the remaining 1% who would do them harm.
Sections
The book is divided into four sections. Each section deals with a different aspect of combat but always from the perspective of how a human deals with combat.
The Physiology of Combat
The first section is titled, "The Physiology of Combat: The Anatomy of the Human Body in Battle". The authors describe a basic element of combat as the "Universal Human Phobia". That phobia is the innate human aversion to killing one of their own. With only a small percentage of the population as an exception, human beings will find it difficult to take another human's life in a face to face confrontation.
Equally as important to understand is the body's reactions to being attacked. Interpersonal human aggression creates a "toxic and corrosive" atmosphere in the daily work of warriors everywhere. Our bodies will respond in ways that we may not be able to control but must understand nonetheless if we are to competently handle a lethal threat. Automatic systems designed for thoughtless survival kick into gear. Adrenaline is released, digestive processes cease and even bladder and sphincter control is lost. These are things to prepare for and not be surprised should they happen.
The automatic systems in place are the sympathetic (SNS) and parasympathetic (PNS) nervous systems. The SNS arouses you to action when necessary and the PNS works to regain control and establish a balance in your body. The snapping back of your body from the arousal to an attempt at normalcy can be a dangerous condition. Napoleon said, "The moment of greatest vulnerability is the instant immediately after victory." It may not only be a physical collapse but also a dangerous mental collapse as well.
Maintaining good sleep habits, which would include a minimum of 7-9 hours of uninterrupted sleep, is very important to aid in the bodies' maintenance. Less than that places unneeded stress on the body. There is an amount of stress is actually beneficial, however, that is caused by increasing your heart rate. The increase must be caused by SNS arousal. Heart rate increases caused by exercise will not have the same effect. The authors emphasize that the numbers are not precise and different people will have different experiences depending on factors such as training and physical fitness levels. Of particular interest is the fact that it appears that an hormonal induced heart rate of 115-145 bpm produces an optimal level of performance in those skills most necessary for combat and survival. Complex motor skills, visual reaction time and cognitive reaction time are all at their peak.
The reason for bringing this information to the reader's attention is to emphasize the importance of realistic and stressful training which can create almost an "autopilot" response to a deadly threat. It is also important not to allow your heart rate to climb too much higher than 145 bpm. Generally, your skill level and reaction times begin to deteriorate when heart rates go beyond 145 bpm.
One major way to combat stress and its negative effects is through tactical breathing. The authors describe that there are only two autonomic nervous system actions you can consciously control; breathing and blinking. Of the two, controlling your breathing will be of great benefit during a stressful situation. You can decrease your heart rate by practicing tactical breathing. The breaths should be deep 'belly breaths', that is, during inhaling, your stomach expands like a balloon.
Each step is done while mentally counting to four. The four simple steps to this breathing are:
In through the nose, two, three, four.
Hold two, three, four.
Out through the lips two, three, four.
Hold two, three, four.
This tactical breathing sequence is most effective when repeated at least four times.
Perceptual distortion
Section two of the book discusses the possible perceptual distortions that may occur during a lethal force encounter. The authors use information collected by Dr. Alexis Artwohl and Loren Christensen in preparation for the writing of their book, Deadly Force Encounters. The findings were based on a survey of 141 officers. These findings described the most common distortions that occurred.
Perceptual Distortions in Combat
85% Diminished sound (auditory exclusion)
16% Intensified sounds
80% Tunnel vision
4% Automatic pilot ("scared speechless")
72% Heightened visual clarity
65% Slow motion time
16% Fast motion time
7% Temporary paralysis
51% Memory loss for parts of the event
47% Memory loss for some of the subject's actions
40% Dissociation (detachment)
26% Intrusive distracting thoughts
22% Memory distortions
It is important to note that some people may have experienced more than one type of distortion while others experience none at all. Again, having knowledge of a possible experiential distortion will prepare an officer for its occurrence, thereby providing an 'inoculation' against its effects.
Mental attitude
Section three describes the mental attitude necessary to be a warrior. The book goes into greater detail about stress inoculation and its importance to effective, realistic training. There are also some important training principles outlined.
Principle 1: Never "Kill" a Warrior in Training. Learners are expected to complete a scenario even if hit, stabbed or shot. As a trainer, tell them, "You're not dead until I tell you you're dead!" Don't give up, always win.
Principle 2: Try to Never Send a Loser off Your Training Site. Have your participants go through a scenario as many times as necessary in order to have them succeed. Scenarios designed to make the trainee look foolish or fail just prove that the training designers are incompetent.
Principle 3: As a Trainer, Never Talk Trash about Your Students. Don't ridicule or try to tell funny stories about the last trainee who tried to complete your scenario. Your role as a trainer/leader is not only to pass along knowledge but also to inspire. You cannot do this when you are not respected. If criticism is to be given, give it in private. If praise is warranted, do so publicly.
Encourage your learners not to worry over a 'bad' day of training. Fix the problem, correct the deficiency, strive to improve and move on.
The will to do the job (kill if necessary) is sometimes enough to change a situation from one of having to use lethal force to something less. The determination to perform the ultimate act may be perceived by the intended recipient of your force and in itself be enough to deter their actions. If you've got that steel-eyed certainty in your eyes, the bad guy may not wish to actually test your resolve. You are the weapon; everything else is just a tool.
Your resolve to succeed must include the possibility of losing some blood. You can loose a half-gallon of blood and your body will continue to mechanically function. Ceasing to fight before that much blood is lost is due to a lack of will, not lack of hydraulics.
You need three very simple things in order to survive a lethal encounter; the right weapon, the skill to use that weapon, and the mental decision to use that weapon, even if it means that someone may die. This decision must be made well in advance of a time during the confrontation with the deadly threat. At the time you are confronted with violence is not the time to wonder whether or not you can respond with deadly force if necessary.
The remaining chapters in this section discuss the history of weaponry (and its effect on combat), and some superior reasoning for the increase in school violence. Although both subjects were interesting, I chose not to include them in this review since my emphasis was on the mental and emotional preparation for deadly force use.
Aftermath
The fourth and last section of the book deals with the aftermath; what does a person feel like after they have taken a life. One of the most common reactions expressed is relief, "Better him than me". This feeling can often lead to guilt of sorts, "Why did he make me kill him." Although the feeling of relief is perfectly natural, allowing that to progress into guilt is not. After all, winning a deadly force encounter is certainly cause to feel happy about being alive.
The authors contend that there are ways of handling an emotional upheaval such as having to kill someone. First, you cannot act like it did not happen. You should talk about it, preferably with a mental health professional. Second, after a year or so has passed, you should not be unduly affected emotionally by remembering the event. As the authors put it, "The memory must be separated from the emotion." If the fear of the repeat of such an event has a significant negative impact on your day to day life you should seek the help of a mental health professional. Examples of this could include: not being able to go near the area an event occurred without feeling anxiety or having nightmares about the event.
The critical incident debrief is also an excellent way to assist personnel in getting through what can be an emotionally tough time. By debriefing we can reconstruct the event in hopes of finding out what worked and what didn't. We can also fill in the holes (if any exist) by bringing all involved parties together and thereby get a much better overall view of the incident. A positive emotional side-effect of this is that pain shared with others is divided amongst the group and not the sole burden of any one person. Additionally, joy shared is multiplied and everyone can feel better at another person's accomplishment and success.
Another important way to assist is simply by letting your friend or loved one know that you are glad they are O.K. It is not necessary to try and approve or justify their actions but just let them know that you are happy that they're O.K. An offer of your personal time to listen or help with anything else they might need would go far in letting them know how important that they are.
One of the last points to be made in this book is the idea of justice not vengeance. Although not considered to be a major problem in law enforcement, it is nonetheless important to emphasize that killing, when justified and necessary, is not something to be glorified or celebrated. It is just something that is. Being forced to kill another human being is not something we do with a hatred of the crook or glee at their demise. We just do it. We must strive to dispassionately but effectively protect others as well as ourselves.
No one I know wants to go to war. We should all pray every day that God never allows the terrible hand of civil war to again touch this land. But that doesn't mean we should not steel our minds to the bloody prospect. Reading these two Grossman books are an excellent start.
I was chatting with a trainer of warriors last evening and he raised the point that most of the Three Percent, dedicated though they are, are not prepared for the grim realities they may face in the coming period. Take knives, for one example. How many of us tote a K-Bar or a Randall when in the boonies? Many. How many of us wrap the grips in five-fifty cord?
A knife is a tool, certainly, and most K-Bars are used for housekeeping in camp. But most of us also carry that knife as a weapon of last resort, though we acknowledge intellectually that it can be used as an offensive weapon as well. To use a knife on a man effectively takes training. It also takes the psychological acceptance of the realities of killing a la Charlie Quintard.
Back to the five-fifty cord. There is nothing more slippery than blood. Any of you who have dressed a deer know that. For those of you that don't, go dip your combat knife in used motor oil and then try to do anything with it. Take care not to gut yourself when the knife inevitably slips. That's what wrapping the grips in cord prevents: the slippage that occurs when a knife, used in extremis, is covered in viscous, slippery, coppery-smelling human blood.
Wrapping your knife with cord is not only warrior-practical, it's psychological. It is, in some sense, declarative. It says that "I have chosen the path that may lead to the death of another human, even if it is in justifiable self defense." This is what they mean when they say, "War to the knife and knife to the hilt." It means being willing to go all the way to victory. It means having the will to win.
As members of the armed citizenry, there are a number of things we can readily see we must do to improve our own contribution to credible deterrence. First, we must make ourselves physically fit. Second, we must have the tools for the job. Third, and more important than the tool itself, is the ability to use it, i.e. marksmanship. Fourth is to build up the logistics of liberty. Beans and bullets are always thought of first and they are critical but what about boots? Bob Wright, my long-time friend and New Mexico patriot leader judged the seriousness of a militiaman by whether he owned one pair of boots or two, or three. Fifth is training beyond good marksmanship, team tactics, etc. But as my friend the warrior observed last night, we must train the mind to battle as well as the body.
The way this is accomplished in units, regular military and militia, is stress innoculation training. The US military does this with SERE school. Descriptions of SERE are found here and here.
In future, I will be discussing how we can adapt the military stress innoculation training experience to our own praxis. For now, however, let me suggest that you take advantage of winter downtime to absorb two books on the subject of killology.
Killology is a neologism which attempts to define the study of the psychological and physiological effects of combat on humans. The term was invented by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, of the Killology Research Group in his 1996 book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Back Bay Books (ISBN 0-3163301-1-6).
Grossman has since joined the Warrior Science Group, whose website is here.
Wikipedia describes killology and Grossman's book thusly:
Grossman's theory, based on the World War Two research of S.L.A. Marshall, is that most of the population deeply resists killing another human.
Modern military training allegedly overrides this instinct, by:
using man-shaped targets instead of bulls-eye targets
practicing and drilling how soldiers would actually fight
dispersing responsibility for the killing throughout the group
displacing responsibility for the killing onto an authority figure, i.e. the commanding officer and the military hierarchy. (See the Milgram experiment)
By the time of the United States involvement in the Vietnam War, says Grossman, 90 percent of U.S. soldiers would fire their weapons at other people.
The act of killing is psychologically traumatic for the killer, even more so than constant danger or witnessing the death of others.
Grossman further argues that violence in television, movies and video games contributes to real-life violence by a similar process of training and desensitization.
Grossman followed On Killing with On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace, PPCT Research Publications, 2004 (ISBN 0-9649205-1-4) co-authored with Loren Christensen.
Again from Wikipedia:
This book explores in detail what physically and mentally happens to most people when confronted with a deadly threat. Both authors have written previous books dealing with this subject. This collaboration brings together the best both have to offer.
Authors
Col. Grossman has an extensive military background as a member of the Army Rangers. His book, On Killing, was written over a decade ago and is still one of the definitive words on the subject. Through research and interviews, Col. Grossman was able to open a window into the soul of a "warrior" and explain why even when directly threatened, it is not a simple thing to take another human being's life.
Loren Christensen is a former police officer and co-author of another use of force book, Deadly Force Encounters. That book focused on law enforcement experiences with lethal force. Again through interviews and research, Christensen, and his co-author Dr. Alexis Artwohl, gave a human face to the peace officer forced to kill.
On Combat combines the world of the military combat veteran with that of the police officer. The authors contention is that both are worthy of the term "warrior". The "warrior" is the 1% who protects the 98% from the remaining 1% who would do them harm.
Sections
The book is divided into four sections. Each section deals with a different aspect of combat but always from the perspective of how a human deals with combat.
The Physiology of Combat
The first section is titled, "The Physiology of Combat: The Anatomy of the Human Body in Battle". The authors describe a basic element of combat as the "Universal Human Phobia". That phobia is the innate human aversion to killing one of their own. With only a small percentage of the population as an exception, human beings will find it difficult to take another human's life in a face to face confrontation.
Equally as important to understand is the body's reactions to being attacked. Interpersonal human aggression creates a "toxic and corrosive" atmosphere in the daily work of warriors everywhere. Our bodies will respond in ways that we may not be able to control but must understand nonetheless if we are to competently handle a lethal threat. Automatic systems designed for thoughtless survival kick into gear. Adrenaline is released, digestive processes cease and even bladder and sphincter control is lost. These are things to prepare for and not be surprised should they happen.
The automatic systems in place are the sympathetic (SNS) and parasympathetic (PNS) nervous systems. The SNS arouses you to action when necessary and the PNS works to regain control and establish a balance in your body. The snapping back of your body from the arousal to an attempt at normalcy can be a dangerous condition. Napoleon said, "The moment of greatest vulnerability is the instant immediately after victory." It may not only be a physical collapse but also a dangerous mental collapse as well.
Maintaining good sleep habits, which would include a minimum of 7-9 hours of uninterrupted sleep, is very important to aid in the bodies' maintenance. Less than that places unneeded stress on the body. There is an amount of stress is actually beneficial, however, that is caused by increasing your heart rate. The increase must be caused by SNS arousal. Heart rate increases caused by exercise will not have the same effect. The authors emphasize that the numbers are not precise and different people will have different experiences depending on factors such as training and physical fitness levels. Of particular interest is the fact that it appears that an hormonal induced heart rate of 115-145 bpm produces an optimal level of performance in those skills most necessary for combat and survival. Complex motor skills, visual reaction time and cognitive reaction time are all at their peak.
The reason for bringing this information to the reader's attention is to emphasize the importance of realistic and stressful training which can create almost an "autopilot" response to a deadly threat. It is also important not to allow your heart rate to climb too much higher than 145 bpm. Generally, your skill level and reaction times begin to deteriorate when heart rates go beyond 145 bpm.
One major way to combat stress and its negative effects is through tactical breathing. The authors describe that there are only two autonomic nervous system actions you can consciously control; breathing and blinking. Of the two, controlling your breathing will be of great benefit during a stressful situation. You can decrease your heart rate by practicing tactical breathing. The breaths should be deep 'belly breaths', that is, during inhaling, your stomach expands like a balloon.
Each step is done while mentally counting to four. The four simple steps to this breathing are:
In through the nose, two, three, four.
Hold two, three, four.
Out through the lips two, three, four.
Hold two, three, four.
This tactical breathing sequence is most effective when repeated at least four times.
Perceptual distortion
Section two of the book discusses the possible perceptual distortions that may occur during a lethal force encounter. The authors use information collected by Dr. Alexis Artwohl and Loren Christensen in preparation for the writing of their book, Deadly Force Encounters. The findings were based on a survey of 141 officers. These findings described the most common distortions that occurred.
Perceptual Distortions in Combat
85% Diminished sound (auditory exclusion)
16% Intensified sounds
80% Tunnel vision
4% Automatic pilot ("scared speechless")
72% Heightened visual clarity
65% Slow motion time
16% Fast motion time
7% Temporary paralysis
51% Memory loss for parts of the event
47% Memory loss for some of the subject's actions
40% Dissociation (detachment)
26% Intrusive distracting thoughts
22% Memory distortions
It is important to note that some people may have experienced more than one type of distortion while others experience none at all. Again, having knowledge of a possible experiential distortion will prepare an officer for its occurrence, thereby providing an 'inoculation' against its effects.
Mental attitude
Section three describes the mental attitude necessary to be a warrior. The book goes into greater detail about stress inoculation and its importance to effective, realistic training. There are also some important training principles outlined.
Principle 1: Never "Kill" a Warrior in Training. Learners are expected to complete a scenario even if hit, stabbed or shot. As a trainer, tell them, "You're not dead until I tell you you're dead!" Don't give up, always win.
Principle 2: Try to Never Send a Loser off Your Training Site. Have your participants go through a scenario as many times as necessary in order to have them succeed. Scenarios designed to make the trainee look foolish or fail just prove that the training designers are incompetent.
Principle 3: As a Trainer, Never Talk Trash about Your Students. Don't ridicule or try to tell funny stories about the last trainee who tried to complete your scenario. Your role as a trainer/leader is not only to pass along knowledge but also to inspire. You cannot do this when you are not respected. If criticism is to be given, give it in private. If praise is warranted, do so publicly.
Encourage your learners not to worry over a 'bad' day of training. Fix the problem, correct the deficiency, strive to improve and move on.
The will to do the job (kill if necessary) is sometimes enough to change a situation from one of having to use lethal force to something less. The determination to perform the ultimate act may be perceived by the intended recipient of your force and in itself be enough to deter their actions. If you've got that steel-eyed certainty in your eyes, the bad guy may not wish to actually test your resolve. You are the weapon; everything else is just a tool.
Your resolve to succeed must include the possibility of losing some blood. You can loose a half-gallon of blood and your body will continue to mechanically function. Ceasing to fight before that much blood is lost is due to a lack of will, not lack of hydraulics.
You need three very simple things in order to survive a lethal encounter; the right weapon, the skill to use that weapon, and the mental decision to use that weapon, even if it means that someone may die. This decision must be made well in advance of a time during the confrontation with the deadly threat. At the time you are confronted with violence is not the time to wonder whether or not you can respond with deadly force if necessary.
The remaining chapters in this section discuss the history of weaponry (and its effect on combat), and some superior reasoning for the increase in school violence. Although both subjects were interesting, I chose not to include them in this review since my emphasis was on the mental and emotional preparation for deadly force use.
Aftermath
The fourth and last section of the book deals with the aftermath; what does a person feel like after they have taken a life. One of the most common reactions expressed is relief, "Better him than me". This feeling can often lead to guilt of sorts, "Why did he make me kill him." Although the feeling of relief is perfectly natural, allowing that to progress into guilt is not. After all, winning a deadly force encounter is certainly cause to feel happy about being alive.
The authors contend that there are ways of handling an emotional upheaval such as having to kill someone. First, you cannot act like it did not happen. You should talk about it, preferably with a mental health professional. Second, after a year or so has passed, you should not be unduly affected emotionally by remembering the event. As the authors put it, "The memory must be separated from the emotion." If the fear of the repeat of such an event has a significant negative impact on your day to day life you should seek the help of a mental health professional. Examples of this could include: not being able to go near the area an event occurred without feeling anxiety or having nightmares about the event.
The critical incident debrief is also an excellent way to assist personnel in getting through what can be an emotionally tough time. By debriefing we can reconstruct the event in hopes of finding out what worked and what didn't. We can also fill in the holes (if any exist) by bringing all involved parties together and thereby get a much better overall view of the incident. A positive emotional side-effect of this is that pain shared with others is divided amongst the group and not the sole burden of any one person. Additionally, joy shared is multiplied and everyone can feel better at another person's accomplishment and success.
Another important way to assist is simply by letting your friend or loved one know that you are glad they are O.K. It is not necessary to try and approve or justify their actions but just let them know that you are happy that they're O.K. An offer of your personal time to listen or help with anything else they might need would go far in letting them know how important that they are.
One of the last points to be made in this book is the idea of justice not vengeance. Although not considered to be a major problem in law enforcement, it is nonetheless important to emphasize that killing, when justified and necessary, is not something to be glorified or celebrated. It is just something that is. Being forced to kill another human being is not something we do with a hatred of the crook or glee at their demise. We just do it. We must strive to dispassionately but effectively protect others as well as ourselves.
No one I know wants to go to war. We should all pray every day that God never allows the terrible hand of civil war to again touch this land. But that doesn't mean we should not steel our minds to the bloody prospect. Reading these two Grossman books are an excellent start.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Lies, Damn Lies and so-called "Journalists": another Fairy Tale from a Grimm
Lies, Damn Lies and so-called "Journalists": another Fairy Tale from a Grimm
Fred Grimm, resident anti-firearm zealot at the Miami Herald has laid another lying turd upon the 'journalism" world entitled "What a blast! Holiday fun at the gun show" which you can find here.
Well, you know me. I had to write him back. And his editor, and the letters to the editor lady, and the assistant editor, etc. Anyway, here is my reply:
Brother Grimm:
You claim: "Gun shows also offer a decided shopping advantage over gun stores. Gun-show vendors aren't required to run the background checks meant to bar felons and lunatics. Thanks to gun shows, felons and lunatics also have a shot at holiday weaponry."
This is a damn lie and if your eyes were truly open at the show you would have seen every licensed dealer filling out paperwork and calling in the background checks. The only people who were not doing so were private collectors, selling to other private persons within the state.
Let me explain. The legal basis for all gun control laws is the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Get it? INTERstate? Not INTRAstate. In fact, almost all private sellers these days get ID from their buyers in order to protect themselves, i.e. to make sure the buyer has ID, is a resident of the state, that they sign a bill of sale, etc. In addition, many private sales are refused because the buyer, even after ID verification, does not meet the "smell test."
What you apparently object to is that the Feds have not yet seized control over the entire private sales of arms, regardless of the legal fig leaf required to do so.
This is just the sort of ends-justify-the-means we have come to expect from lefties like you, our new president and the socialists who surround him.
And you wonder why we don't believe you and are buying firearms as fast as we can afford them? Think about it. Are we buying these firearms just to turn them in later on in the next "Assault Weapons Ban?"
I don't think so. And if you do, you're buying into your own fairy tale, Brother Grimm.
Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
Fred Grimm, resident anti-firearm zealot at the Miami Herald has laid another lying turd upon the 'journalism" world entitled "What a blast! Holiday fun at the gun show" which you can find here.
Well, you know me. I had to write him back. And his editor, and the letters to the editor lady, and the assistant editor, etc. Anyway, here is my reply:
Brother Grimm:
You claim: "Gun shows also offer a decided shopping advantage over gun stores. Gun-show vendors aren't required to run the background checks meant to bar felons and lunatics. Thanks to gun shows, felons and lunatics also have a shot at holiday weaponry."
This is a damn lie and if your eyes were truly open at the show you would have seen every licensed dealer filling out paperwork and calling in the background checks. The only people who were not doing so were private collectors, selling to other private persons within the state.
Let me explain. The legal basis for all gun control laws is the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Get it? INTERstate? Not INTRAstate. In fact, almost all private sellers these days get ID from their buyers in order to protect themselves, i.e. to make sure the buyer has ID, is a resident of the state, that they sign a bill of sale, etc. In addition, many private sales are refused because the buyer, even after ID verification, does not meet the "smell test."
What you apparently object to is that the Feds have not yet seized control over the entire private sales of arms, regardless of the legal fig leaf required to do so.
This is just the sort of ends-justify-the-means we have come to expect from lefties like you, our new president and the socialists who surround him.
And you wonder why we don't believe you and are buying firearms as fast as we can afford them? Think about it. Are we buying these firearms just to turn them in later on in the next "Assault Weapons Ban?"
I don't think so. And if you do, you're buying into your own fairy tale, Brother Grimm.
Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
A Pragmatist's View of History: The Final Chapter
MostlyGenius, a proper prag, has responded here to my last.
Like most prags (poor henpecked Snowflake comes to mind) trying to pin them down on their own response to further assault on our traditional rights is like trying to nail jello to the wall. They will not give you a straight answer to the pertinent questions. This mercifully short answer to BigBrain's latest is my last until he feels like giving us a straight answer to the $64,000 question.
The World According to MostlyGenius:
World War II was fought inconsistently with some sleight of hand because after being attacked at Pearl Harbor, the United States struck back and carried the war to Japan by means of the Doolittle Raid. This return aggression was inconsistent with defending the homes and families of Americans which the War Department was tasked to do. However, the pragmatists agree that the attack on Pearl Harbor was the "go signal" for opening a wider war, they just wouldn't have done it that way. It is uncertain how they would have done it because they refuse to answer certain pertinent questions.
A Prag's critique of Lexington and Concord:
"I am skeptical that the Minutemen and local militias can actually operate in a maneuver war against the British column because I cannot speak to the skill, readiness and training of the Patriot forces. Of course you won't catch me dead out in woods training myself, but I'm still skeptical of anyone who does. Sam Adams and that Hancock smuggler should stop making trouble and the King's troops wouldn't be out trying to apprehend them. My solution is to do nothing and maybe the Lobsters will go back into Boston peaceably without hurting me. Beside, the Patriots didn't need those cannon to hunt deer with anyway."
More could be concluded from the Prag critique if they would just answer one stinking question:
"What will YOU do when the regime draws the line of 'legality' behind where you now stand?"
Specifically, if they seize control of all private intra-state sales through the "Gun show loophole" will you comply?
Also, if they pass an "AWB with teeth" will you hand in your now-proscribed semi-auto rifles and bolt actions of large calibers? Are you going to just roll over and hand them in? And if you claim that you won't, how will you resist?
Until BigBrain and his kind answer THOSE questions with yes or no answers, everything else they postulate is liquid excrement.
The difference between us is that we Three Percenters can answer those questions unambiguously while the Prags run away from them. The Fudds of course are still seeking their first clue.
Let me repeat my first reaction: We are the Three Percent and this is as far as the bastards are going.
Like most prags (poor henpecked Snowflake comes to mind) trying to pin them down on their own response to further assault on our traditional rights is like trying to nail jello to the wall. They will not give you a straight answer to the pertinent questions. This mercifully short answer to BigBrain's latest is my last until he feels like giving us a straight answer to the $64,000 question.
The World According to MostlyGenius:
World War II was fought inconsistently with some sleight of hand because after being attacked at Pearl Harbor, the United States struck back and carried the war to Japan by means of the Doolittle Raid. This return aggression was inconsistent with defending the homes and families of Americans which the War Department was tasked to do. However, the pragmatists agree that the attack on Pearl Harbor was the "go signal" for opening a wider war, they just wouldn't have done it that way. It is uncertain how they would have done it because they refuse to answer certain pertinent questions.
A Prag's critique of Lexington and Concord:
"I am skeptical that the Minutemen and local militias can actually operate in a maneuver war against the British column because I cannot speak to the skill, readiness and training of the Patriot forces. Of course you won't catch me dead out in woods training myself, but I'm still skeptical of anyone who does. Sam Adams and that Hancock smuggler should stop making trouble and the King's troops wouldn't be out trying to apprehend them. My solution is to do nothing and maybe the Lobsters will go back into Boston peaceably without hurting me. Beside, the Patriots didn't need those cannon to hunt deer with anyway."
More could be concluded from the Prag critique if they would just answer one stinking question:
"What will YOU do when the regime draws the line of 'legality' behind where you now stand?"
Specifically, if they seize control of all private intra-state sales through the "Gun show loophole" will you comply?
Also, if they pass an "AWB with teeth" will you hand in your now-proscribed semi-auto rifles and bolt actions of large calibers? Are you going to just roll over and hand them in? And if you claim that you won't, how will you resist?
Until BigBrain and his kind answer THOSE questions with yes or no answers, everything else they postulate is liquid excrement.
The difference between us is that we Three Percenters can answer those questions unambiguously while the Prags run away from them. The Fudds of course are still seeking their first clue.
Let me repeat my first reaction: We are the Three Percent and this is as far as the bastards are going.
"S-No-Balls Will Tell"
Somebody sent me this nice postcard and titled it: "S-No Balls Will Tell"
Since it's got a snowflake in it, I guess it's a Christmas card. My very first of the season. The caption is a little cryptic. Can someone explain it to me? ;-)
Mike
Since it's got a snowflake in it, I guess it's a Christmas card. My very first of the season. The caption is a little cryptic. Can someone explain it to me? ;-)
Mike
Pragmatism is as Pragmatism Does.
Folks,
The "brillianter" Mostly Genius has responded to my reply here. I, being a gentleman, have responded to his response. You will find below his missive, dissected with my rejoinders ad seriatim. To paraphrase Mrs. Gump, pragmatism is as pragmatism does. Enjoy.
Ad seriatim, Mr. Prag:
Allow me to proceed directly to the first stated aims above: “to defend ourselves and our liberty and property at our front door steps.” This is sophistry. If these ‘front door steps’ were an actual physical threshold then all of the talk about organizing into fire teams and the like becomes nonsensical.
MBV: The only sophistry going on here is in the attribution of it to me. My front door step is an "actual physical threshold" to me. So is my neighbor's. So are those of all my friends. So, indeed, is yours. The regime that passes more citizen disarmament laws will move beyond that threshold, that tripwire, to enforce its diktat. Yet the threat is both personal and universal. The jack booted thugs who kick in my door, and then my friend's door, and so on seek to impose their will upon ALL of us, to take the traditional liberty and property of ALL of us. The only "nonsensical" business here is that the federal government, having declared war on its own people, should expect that after the first house, or ten or twenty, that others will sit meeking waiting for their personal Alamo moment. (And indeed the only people summoning this chimera for the sole purpose of, well, sophistry.) The fact that a man prepares for conflict does not mean he wants it, or that he seeks it. It means he wishes to be ready for it. What do you think the Second Amendment means? And if the threat is, at the point of his doorstep, numerically superior -- as it would be if he waited alone -- then he seeks like-minded friends and neighbors to be ready collectively for what is a collective threat. To do otherwise would be, might I say, "nonsensical."
The lone householder against the government doesn’t generate much news or political change as is evidenced by the gangsters who shoot the police in the course of their drug raids.
MBV: "The lone householder." Why do you prags conjur this silly vision? In the present case, there ARE no "lone" householders. The entire point of the concept of the Three Percent is that we are not only NOT alone, but that we will resist together to attacks of a predatory regime. You are correct that today individuals who are victimized in ATF abuses (for just one example) do not excite the interest of the media or even of a blogosphere whose participants are self-alleged to be supporters of the Second Amendment. Witness the savaging of David Olofson. But when they come for me, or any other Three Percenter, simply because they have moved the line of the "law" behind us and we refuse to move, THAT becomes a political conflict. By declaring ourselves Three Percenters we make that certain and unambiguous.
Rather these “front door steps” actually represent some ever changing line in the sand. There is some set of criteria that means it’s time to load your rifles and take to the streets, but Vanderboegh doesn’t want to get into details about that.
MBV: Au contraire my synapse-over-burdened blogger. I have been as plain as day, within the boundaries of the sedition laws, about the details insofar as they can be anticipated without the details of the threat scenario. The truth is that that we are working out the "resistance canon," as my friend Pete at Western Rifle Shooters Association calls it, on the Internet and in conversations and meetings between like-minded Three Percenters. In the largest sense, we are attempting the restoration of a republic, something that as far as I know has never been successfully done in the history of the world. That includes much more beyond the mere rattles of "Don't Tread on Me," but the political and cultural portion of that dream has no hope of success without the shield of the armed citizenry. You want details? Read our blogs. We have not been shy. If we are to prevent conflict the other side must understand the details as we see them.
The Vanderboegh and his ilk stood idle during the last wave of gun control laws and the major government over-reaches of Waco and Ruby Ridge.
MBV: No we did not "stand idle" in the 90s. Indeed, we fought a cold war with the feds and their racist terrorist catspaws. There is a book soon to be released by University of Michigan Press by Professor Robert Churchill called Shake Their Guns In the Tyrant's Face. Some of what we did is in there. You are without a clue of what the men and women of the constitutional militia movement accomplished in the 90s or you woulod not make that statement. It is true that Ruby Ridge and Waco caught all of us by surprise. But we reacted. Unlike you we did not "stand idle."
Now apparently they have had enough and are going to do something next time, or maybe the time after that.
MBV: No. Not the time after that. Next time. Now, if they wish. That's up to them. We're not done talking, but we are done moving back. How can our statements be interpreted otherwise? The funny thing is that but for a minority whose jobs would be threatened by public identification, most of us post under our real names. We have taken a stand. Everyone can see that. We have been plain and unambiguous about our intentions to defend our liberty and our property from further depredation. WE USE OUR REAL NAMES. Do you understand the significance of that? I mean really? Our critics, Fudds, Prags and Wolves, hide behind pseudonyms. We do not. You ought to try taking a stand on something once in your life, BigBrain. You'll find that it's liberating. Just be sure you do it with your real name.
The deterrent value of this action (mentioned in item B) is pretty low since there is no action.
MBV: Let us remind you, gentle readers, of the passage BigBrain here is referring to:
"b. to warn anyone who desires further encroachments upon our liberty and property that there will be consequences for their actions, thus, hopefully, to reduce the threat becoming reality."
"No action," eh. We managed to get YOUR attention, now didn't we? There is also a growing understanding in the gun confiscation community that the Three Percenters exist. Oh, they call us "nut obs" and "tin foil hat" folks, but they at least concede our existence. As far as our mental state, as I've said repeatedly over the past decade or so, even if we ARE crazy that just complicates their problem, doesn't it?
Credible deterrence comes from a variety of sources, among them the announced intentions of your selected enemy. If he says, "Now I've got this big stick, and you've been pushing me around for a while and if you push me one more time, I might use it," that's not very credible, is it? But, if he says, "You see this stick? You've finally pissed me off and I'm going to bash your head in with it in self defense if you don't cease and desist." Deterrence is only accomplished by unambiguous language expressing unalterable will. After that, they might still decide they can kill you. But they also know that you will be doing your dead level best to kill them too. Note that if you don't even make the statement, you certainly won't achieve a change in your opponent's behavior.
As to it being the point of decision (mentioned in item C): one could certainly argue that the time of decision is long past, but Vanderboegh’s short list of courses of action are not all that is available.
MBV: Again, let's recall the item referred to:
c. to make it plain to every one, prags included, that the time is fast approaching — thanks to the “authorities” — when they will have to choose, so they’d better get ready to shoot, shit, or hit the fence.
To which he replies in part:
"(O)ne could certainly argue that the time of decision is long past."
Huh? Is BigBrain saying that we missed the tyranny resistance train in the 90s and there won't be another one along, ever? In the context of his argument it is at the least a puzzlement. But then he concludes:
"but Vanderboegh’s short list of courses of action are not all that is available."
Sorry, but not even Vanderboegh believes that there aren't other COA's available. I'm just pointing out the most critical and salient ones to my mind. Remember, all I'm saying is that we must announce our intentions unambiguously, prepare, and then await further developments. Obama, God love him, may be content (as was Bill Clinton) with the adulation that the office brings his needy, narcissistic personality (although unlike Hillary, I believe BHO's wife would cut his testicles off if she caught him with a Monica). It could well be that he has said what he had to to get to this place and he will not wish to risk a 1994 moment by tackling gun control, at least not yet. Maybe. But if not, we cannot remain silent lest they mistake our intentions..
Olofson, Ruby Ridge, Waco, and countless other encroachments and atrocities that the government is responsible for is certainly cause for alarm. We can agree that this represents unchecked government tyranny. We differ as to what is the course of action to reverse this encroachment.
MBV: Again, I ask, what will the prags like BigBrain do when the administration moves the line of the "law" behind where we stand now? Our opponents have swept the political field. Shall we trust the courts like poor Olofson? The treatment of David Olofson proves that no one -- NO ONE -- indicted on a federal gun charge can expect a fair trial. Again, I ask, I demand, what will you DO? The truth is that absent any other expressed sentiment, we must conclude that they will back up, again. Go back to failed politics, again. All the while expecting a different result -- but too timid to do anything else..
True to form, Vanderboegh appeals to the founding fathers, ignoring that the founding fathers resisted a government that they had no voice in, and that they created a system that doesn’t require bloodshed to affect change.
MBV: I'm sorry, I must have missed something. What place and time is BigBrain living in? Look around and smell the excrement. A President with unchallengeable majority in both houses of Congress, willing allies in the media, proposing among other things, a new "civilian security force" that for all we know could look like the Ton-Ton Macoutes as much as the Civilian Conservation Corps. The Founders wouldn't have any problem with the Three Percent. The Founders, being better, more courageous men, wouldn't have waited this long. I cringe when I think about the conversations I'm going to have with Sam Adams and Patrick Henry in Heaven. They will not be happy with how we waited so long to redress greivances so acute and so far from what they intended for our Republic..
As I have said before I think we are largely in agreement on what we would like to see as “change” but I certainly disagree with how he thinks it can be achieved.
MBV: Fair enough. But instead of calling us names and denying our authenticity, if you wish the political solution to work, you should exbrace our reality and run to the public saying, "You really need to stop what you're doing or else you'll have to deal with these crazies. That's how politics works. And if you don't believe it does, you haven't studied the Civil Rights Movement..
And finally the cheap rhetorical trick that is his hallmark: the out of context, ‘bad ass’ military quote. The subtext is that he and his supporters are just like these bloody heroes, and anyone who disagrees is a rifle-dropper. I find it highly presumptuous to compare a icy foxhole on foreign soil with your own hearth and home (assuming it was under assault) and say they are the same position. Today they are like paratroopers, they have already been Spartans and minutemen.
MBV: Anyone who was not grasping for straws in a losing argument would have left this alone. The fact is that I have had emails from veterans of the 82nd Airborne thanking me for reminding folks of what American courage looks like. If I reach back to other times in American history for examples of courageous defiance it is because we find so few examples of it in our own time. Let's repeat what I wrote:
"We Three Percenters are merely in the position of the 82nd Airborne trooper up on the Elsenborn Ridge in December, 1944. As he dug his fighting position, some refugees from the 106th Infantry Division were streaming past him and his buddies, fleeing the destruction of their division at the hands of the Germans. One of them, overcome by curiousity at the sight of somebody who wasn’t running, called out, 'Who are you guys?' The paratrooper answered, 'I’m 82nd Airborne, and this is as far as the bastards are getting.'”
Note, I did not say we were as valorous as the 82nd Airborne in 1944. I can tell you we are not. Not yet, anyway. I only said we are in the same position as the Airborne in the Battle of the Bulge. A powerful enemy comes. People to our left and right are backing up, indeed fleeing before, that enemy's power. We need, now, today, that glider infantryman's guts. If we are to defend our liberty, we must have that kind of unconquerable will and determination. And we need it, I might add, because the prags, our supposed self-declared allies, are already looking to the rear, spying out an escape route, unwilling to confront the Leviathan that approaches. It is as if the tank destroyer crew of the 106th said to the Airborne enlisted man: "I think we are largely in agreement that we would like to stop those Panzers across the valley that are headed this way, but we certainly disagree with how you think that can be achieved."
In the real event, the TD fell into position behind the 82nd man, and gradually as other refugees regained their courage from the 82nd's example, a formidable road block developed. Other units tied into the flanks, and a line was formed. In the end, the 82nd enlisted man was right. It was as far as the Germans got on his part of the front.
As for us Three Percenters, this is as far as we're backing up. If they draw the line behind us, we will stand where we are. After they come to compel the first few in our homes and succeed in killing us, in effect declaring war upon the lives, liberties and property of the entire American people, the rest of us Three Percenters will defend ourselves by a war of manuever that will make them wish they'd never thought of it. What you think about us is immaterial. We will do what our principles call us to do. Is that "detailed" enough for you, MostlyGenius?.
The "brillianter" Mostly Genius has responded to my reply here. I, being a gentleman, have responded to his response. You will find below his missive, dissected with my rejoinders ad seriatim. To paraphrase Mrs. Gump, pragmatism is as pragmatism does. Enjoy.
Ad seriatim, Mr. Prag:
Allow me to proceed directly to the first stated aims above: “to defend ourselves and our liberty and property at our front door steps.” This is sophistry. If these ‘front door steps’ were an actual physical threshold then all of the talk about organizing into fire teams and the like becomes nonsensical.
MBV: The only sophistry going on here is in the attribution of it to me. My front door step is an "actual physical threshold" to me. So is my neighbor's. So are those of all my friends. So, indeed, is yours. The regime that passes more citizen disarmament laws will move beyond that threshold, that tripwire, to enforce its diktat. Yet the threat is both personal and universal. The jack booted thugs who kick in my door, and then my friend's door, and so on seek to impose their will upon ALL of us, to take the traditional liberty and property of ALL of us. The only "nonsensical" business here is that the federal government, having declared war on its own people, should expect that after the first house, or ten or twenty, that others will sit meeking waiting for their personal Alamo moment. (And indeed the only people summoning this chimera for the sole purpose of, well, sophistry.) The fact that a man prepares for conflict does not mean he wants it, or that he seeks it. It means he wishes to be ready for it. What do you think the Second Amendment means? And if the threat is, at the point of his doorstep, numerically superior -- as it would be if he waited alone -- then he seeks like-minded friends and neighbors to be ready collectively for what is a collective threat. To do otherwise would be, might I say, "nonsensical."
The lone householder against the government doesn’t generate much news or political change as is evidenced by the gangsters who shoot the police in the course of their drug raids.
MBV: "The lone householder." Why do you prags conjur this silly vision? In the present case, there ARE no "lone" householders. The entire point of the concept of the Three Percent is that we are not only NOT alone, but that we will resist together to attacks of a predatory regime. You are correct that today individuals who are victimized in ATF abuses (for just one example) do not excite the interest of the media or even of a blogosphere whose participants are self-alleged to be supporters of the Second Amendment. Witness the savaging of David Olofson. But when they come for me, or any other Three Percenter, simply because they have moved the line of the "law" behind us and we refuse to move, THAT becomes a political conflict. By declaring ourselves Three Percenters we make that certain and unambiguous.
Rather these “front door steps” actually represent some ever changing line in the sand. There is some set of criteria that means it’s time to load your rifles and take to the streets, but Vanderboegh doesn’t want to get into details about that.
MBV: Au contraire my synapse-over-burdened blogger. I have been as plain as day, within the boundaries of the sedition laws, about the details insofar as they can be anticipated without the details of the threat scenario. The truth is that that we are working out the "resistance canon," as my friend Pete at Western Rifle Shooters Association calls it, on the Internet and in conversations and meetings between like-minded Three Percenters. In the largest sense, we are attempting the restoration of a republic, something that as far as I know has never been successfully done in the history of the world. That includes much more beyond the mere rattles of "Don't Tread on Me," but the political and cultural portion of that dream has no hope of success without the shield of the armed citizenry. You want details? Read our blogs. We have not been shy. If we are to prevent conflict the other side must understand the details as we see them.
The Vanderboegh and his ilk stood idle during the last wave of gun control laws and the major government over-reaches of Waco and Ruby Ridge.
MBV: No we did not "stand idle" in the 90s. Indeed, we fought a cold war with the feds and their racist terrorist catspaws. There is a book soon to be released by University of Michigan Press by Professor Robert Churchill called Shake Their Guns In the Tyrant's Face. Some of what we did is in there. You are without a clue of what the men and women of the constitutional militia movement accomplished in the 90s or you woulod not make that statement. It is true that Ruby Ridge and Waco caught all of us by surprise. But we reacted. Unlike you we did not "stand idle."
Now apparently they have had enough and are going to do something next time, or maybe the time after that.
MBV: No. Not the time after that. Next time. Now, if they wish. That's up to them. We're not done talking, but we are done moving back. How can our statements be interpreted otherwise? The funny thing is that but for a minority whose jobs would be threatened by public identification, most of us post under our real names. We have taken a stand. Everyone can see that. We have been plain and unambiguous about our intentions to defend our liberty and our property from further depredation. WE USE OUR REAL NAMES. Do you understand the significance of that? I mean really? Our critics, Fudds, Prags and Wolves, hide behind pseudonyms. We do not. You ought to try taking a stand on something once in your life, BigBrain. You'll find that it's liberating. Just be sure you do it with your real name.
The deterrent value of this action (mentioned in item B) is pretty low since there is no action.
MBV: Let us remind you, gentle readers, of the passage BigBrain here is referring to:
"b. to warn anyone who desires further encroachments upon our liberty and property that there will be consequences for their actions, thus, hopefully, to reduce the threat becoming reality."
"No action," eh. We managed to get YOUR attention, now didn't we? There is also a growing understanding in the gun confiscation community that the Three Percenters exist. Oh, they call us "nut obs" and "tin foil hat" folks, but they at least concede our existence. As far as our mental state, as I've said repeatedly over the past decade or so, even if we ARE crazy that just complicates their problem, doesn't it?
Credible deterrence comes from a variety of sources, among them the announced intentions of your selected enemy. If he says, "Now I've got this big stick, and you've been pushing me around for a while and if you push me one more time, I might use it," that's not very credible, is it? But, if he says, "You see this stick? You've finally pissed me off and I'm going to bash your head in with it in self defense if you don't cease and desist." Deterrence is only accomplished by unambiguous language expressing unalterable will. After that, they might still decide they can kill you. But they also know that you will be doing your dead level best to kill them too. Note that if you don't even make the statement, you certainly won't achieve a change in your opponent's behavior.
As to it being the point of decision (mentioned in item C): one could certainly argue that the time of decision is long past, but Vanderboegh’s short list of courses of action are not all that is available.
MBV: Again, let's recall the item referred to:
c. to make it plain to every one, prags included, that the time is fast approaching — thanks to the “authorities” — when they will have to choose, so they’d better get ready to shoot, shit, or hit the fence.
To which he replies in part:
"(O)ne could certainly argue that the time of decision is long past."
Huh? Is BigBrain saying that we missed the tyranny resistance train in the 90s and there won't be another one along, ever? In the context of his argument it is at the least a puzzlement. But then he concludes:
"but Vanderboegh’s short list of courses of action are not all that is available."
Sorry, but not even Vanderboegh believes that there aren't other COA's available. I'm just pointing out the most critical and salient ones to my mind. Remember, all I'm saying is that we must announce our intentions unambiguously, prepare, and then await further developments. Obama, God love him, may be content (as was Bill Clinton) with the adulation that the office brings his needy, narcissistic personality (although unlike Hillary, I believe BHO's wife would cut his testicles off if she caught him with a Monica). It could well be that he has said what he had to to get to this place and he will not wish to risk a 1994 moment by tackling gun control, at least not yet. Maybe. But if not, we cannot remain silent lest they mistake our intentions..
Olofson, Ruby Ridge, Waco, and countless other encroachments and atrocities that the government is responsible for is certainly cause for alarm. We can agree that this represents unchecked government tyranny. We differ as to what is the course of action to reverse this encroachment.
MBV: Again, I ask, what will the prags like BigBrain do when the administration moves the line of the "law" behind where we stand now? Our opponents have swept the political field. Shall we trust the courts like poor Olofson? The treatment of David Olofson proves that no one -- NO ONE -- indicted on a federal gun charge can expect a fair trial. Again, I ask, I demand, what will you DO? The truth is that absent any other expressed sentiment, we must conclude that they will back up, again. Go back to failed politics, again. All the while expecting a different result -- but too timid to do anything else..
True to form, Vanderboegh appeals to the founding fathers, ignoring that the founding fathers resisted a government that they had no voice in, and that they created a system that doesn’t require bloodshed to affect change.
MBV: I'm sorry, I must have missed something. What place and time is BigBrain living in? Look around and smell the excrement. A President with unchallengeable majority in both houses of Congress, willing allies in the media, proposing among other things, a new "civilian security force" that for all we know could look like the Ton-Ton Macoutes as much as the Civilian Conservation Corps. The Founders wouldn't have any problem with the Three Percent. The Founders, being better, more courageous men, wouldn't have waited this long. I cringe when I think about the conversations I'm going to have with Sam Adams and Patrick Henry in Heaven. They will not be happy with how we waited so long to redress greivances so acute and so far from what they intended for our Republic..
As I have said before I think we are largely in agreement on what we would like to see as “change” but I certainly disagree with how he thinks it can be achieved.
MBV: Fair enough. But instead of calling us names and denying our authenticity, if you wish the political solution to work, you should exbrace our reality and run to the public saying, "You really need to stop what you're doing or else you'll have to deal with these crazies. That's how politics works. And if you don't believe it does, you haven't studied the Civil Rights Movement..
And finally the cheap rhetorical trick that is his hallmark: the out of context, ‘bad ass’ military quote. The subtext is that he and his supporters are just like these bloody heroes, and anyone who disagrees is a rifle-dropper. I find it highly presumptuous to compare a icy foxhole on foreign soil with your own hearth and home (assuming it was under assault) and say they are the same position. Today they are like paratroopers, they have already been Spartans and minutemen.
MBV: Anyone who was not grasping for straws in a losing argument would have left this alone. The fact is that I have had emails from veterans of the 82nd Airborne thanking me for reminding folks of what American courage looks like. If I reach back to other times in American history for examples of courageous defiance it is because we find so few examples of it in our own time. Let's repeat what I wrote:
"We Three Percenters are merely in the position of the 82nd Airborne trooper up on the Elsenborn Ridge in December, 1944. As he dug his fighting position, some refugees from the 106th Infantry Division were streaming past him and his buddies, fleeing the destruction of their division at the hands of the Germans. One of them, overcome by curiousity at the sight of somebody who wasn’t running, called out, 'Who are you guys?' The paratrooper answered, 'I’m 82nd Airborne, and this is as far as the bastards are getting.'”
Note, I did not say we were as valorous as the 82nd Airborne in 1944. I can tell you we are not. Not yet, anyway. I only said we are in the same position as the Airborne in the Battle of the Bulge. A powerful enemy comes. People to our left and right are backing up, indeed fleeing before, that enemy's power. We need, now, today, that glider infantryman's guts. If we are to defend our liberty, we must have that kind of unconquerable will and determination. And we need it, I might add, because the prags, our supposed self-declared allies, are already looking to the rear, spying out an escape route, unwilling to confront the Leviathan that approaches. It is as if the tank destroyer crew of the 106th said to the Airborne enlisted man: "I think we are largely in agreement that we would like to stop those Panzers across the valley that are headed this way, but we certainly disagree with how you think that can be achieved."
In the real event, the TD fell into position behind the 82nd man, and gradually as other refugees regained their courage from the 82nd's example, a formidable road block developed. Other units tied into the flanks, and a line was formed. In the end, the 82nd enlisted man was right. It was as far as the Germans got on his part of the front.
As for us Three Percenters, this is as far as we're backing up. If they draw the line behind us, we will stand where we are. After they come to compel the first few in our homes and succeed in killing us, in effect declaring war upon the lives, liberties and property of the entire American people, the rest of us Three Percenters will defend ourselves by a war of manuever that will make them wish they'd never thought of it. What you think about us is immaterial. We will do what our principles call us to do. Is that "detailed" enough for you, MostlyGenius?.
Mumbai and Buddy Teams
Folks,
This is a long post from another blog, including discussion, but it is important and pertinent to Absolved and especially the chapters about The Squad and the upcoming Doctrine. There is much discussion, some of it uninformed, of the origins and modern use of the "buddy team."
The buddy team is in fact just the codification of a sociological fact about soldiery that probably goes back to the hoplites. Soldiers form friendships for the most compelling of reasons: the bond keeps them alive, shares the burdens of soldiering and provides a human connection in an insane and violent battlefield. The blog entry "A Marine Officer on the Mumbai tactics" first appeared on 29 November at The Belmont Club. I reproduce it below, as well as some of the more pertinent replies.
A Marine infantry officer sends these observations on the terrorist tactics used at Mumbai.
From what I can gather there are a few interesting observations to be made of the tactics in use in Mumbai:
It appears the attackers were organized into buddy pairs, allowing one to shoot while the other moved, and so forth. Interestingly, the buddy pair has is a later innovation in small unit tactics and has only been slow to trickle through regular infantry formations. In World War I, the smallest element of maneuver (on paper) might have been a battalion or company. The Germans, in developing “storm troop tactics” then innovated even smaller maneuver elements, which we might call squads today. The role of platoons and squads became only greater in WWII. After WWII, General S.L.A. Marshall conducted a massive study of the reactions of men in combat (See “Men Against Fire”) and the result of his work was the genesis of the Fire Team. The Fire Team is now the smallest doctrinal unit of maneuver in the US military. In the Marine Corps, it is led by a Corporal, includes an automatic rifleman with a Squad Automatic Weapon, and two more riflemen.
During the Iraq War, two innovations have taken place: first, within the Marine Corps, the concept of the “buddy pair” or “buddy team” has spread dramatically, though it is still not doctrinal (it should be). The idea may have begun in the special forces, though I am not sure. The advantage of smaller and smaller units of maneuver is that if they rehearse their actions and build cohesion within the unit, they develop ever greater levels of capability *at that level*. A well-trained buddy pair with the right mindset and enough ammo can take over a city block, house by house, while under fire. The other innovation that has taken place in Iraq is to take the Fire Team and make it into a motorized element, inside one vehicle. This is less in favor now that everyone realizes that moving around in vehicles makes you seem more like robots to the locals and they then have less of a problem with killing you. In any case, all of these changes have one large thing in common — a decentralizing of decisionmaking and maneuver.
And now in Mumbai it would seem we have seen the ultimate result: autonomous buddy-pairs, with a great deal of rehearsals and navigation practice, each with its own set of goals, possibly redundant comms with brevity codes. I would imagine that each team had multiple preplanned routes to each of its objectives before they finally converged on the location for the last stand. Along the way, as some have wondered, they may have stopped for quick logistics reloads of ammo and water.
Here are some thoughts, in no order:
1. The school shooting at Columbine springs to mind when looking for analogies.
2. One of the advantages of a buddy pair, as mentioned above, is the ability to fire and move. One fires while the other moves, and then they switch. In this way, moving from cover to cover, they take ground. But this concept becomes interesting when considered against the fact that the terrorists seemingly had no one firing against them, and they did not have to disciplined in taking well-aimed shots . . .
3. . . . A photographer noted how “cool” and “professional” they looked as they sprayed from the hip. Shooting from the hip is not extremely professional, but this only is if one wants to take well-aimed shots. Perhaps shooting from the hip is very professional if one wants to spray in across a broad angle while maintaining a wider field of view than if behind the sights of your weapon. In other words, if facing no armed opposition, you have the luxury of spraying broadly, and the most dangerous thing to you is an armed threat that comes from outside your narrowed peripheral vision while using your iron sights.
4. Note this sentence, from the AP article: “They weren’t aiming at anyone in particular. It was like they wanted to empty their magazines and do as much damage here as possible before heading to the Taj,” I would argue that the terrorists, while being superbly motivated, and having planned intricately for their assault, are nevertheless poor marksmen. Given the details that we are learning of their attack, the most surprising thing is that more people weren’t killed.
5. It seems that there is a convergence taking place within the realm of small-unit tactics. Infantry units, terrorists, police forces, criminal and narco-gangs, and so forth are all converging in terms of the tactics they use against one another. The only tactical difference between 5 terrorist buddy pairs and a Marine rifle squad is their goal: the former seeks a position to create the most carnage indiscriminately for the longest period of time while the latter might be sweeping or clearing an area or conducting a manhunt, meaning it seeks to use the utmost precision in its application of force. If I may presume: the terrorists have learned fire and movement from us, from watching us, and from reading our manuals, which are posted online. But our tactics are not geared toward indiscriminate slaughter. The question is, will they develop any tactical innovations that allow them that advantage?
7. Starling:
Wretchard, thanks for posting these comments. I found them very informative. As a management theorist with a specific interest in organization structure and design, the discussion about the merits of decentralization and team/group composition certainly resonates.
One of several comments that caught my eye was this one: “The Fire Team is now the smallest doctrinal unit of maneuver in the US military. In the Marine Corps, it is led by a Corporal, includes an automatic rifleman with a Squad Automatic Weapon, and two more riflemen.”
Knowing nothing whatsoever about military maneuvers and tactics, I had assumed that a sniper team was the smallest “doctrinal unit”, i.e. a spotter and a shooter.
Again, thanks for passing along the observations.
Nov 29, 2008 - 7:36 pm
8. wretchard:
The Marine infantry officer adds in a subsequent e-mail:
There’s another big tie in here with deception: you did a post not long ago about the need for the military to wear uniforms, etc. (you’ve done more in the past I know). Here, we have terrorists with no uniforms, and still of unknown and unconfirmed origin, asking for the damned passports of innocent people. And yet our military must wear uniforms or else void international law. Something isn’t right here.
One advantage that terrorist buddy pairs have is that they can confidently fire on anyone. The odds they will engage another terrorist buddy pair are almost nil. And if they kill man, woman or beast it simply adds to their tally. One problem facing a response team is that they have to have postive ID on the enemy. A blue on blue or accidental killing of a civilian is a definite, it not a probable contingency.
My own guess, and I am not an infantryman, is that defensive tactics should aim to nullify the maneuverability and relative invisibility of terrorist buddy pairs. If they are immobilized, or at least localized, then the buddy pairs can easily be overmatched. Their advantages are also their disadvantages. They have limited stocks of ammo and a relatively low rate of fire.
A terrorist buddy pair’s greatest killing potential is either in the first few minutes and when they have gained a position (such as in the Taj Hotel) in which the urban terrain favors them. At all points in between they will be dead meat for a professional police or military force in platoon or greater strength. Of the two windows of opportunity, the most deadly is the first few minutes. Imagine a school, a shopping mall or a stadium. In the first twenty minutes, a number of buddy teams assaulting inward from the entrances could trap most people in it. By the time a response team got there, they would have segued to defense.
But if they can be contained, then at least they can’t move on to the next hotel, the next building, the next mass killing ground.
There are only two long term defenses I can imagine, as a layman. The first is subsidiarity. The second is intelligence. Subsidiarity will mean the existence of enough armament at the grassroots level to create uncertainty for the terrorist buddy pairs. This is the concept upon which the air marshal idea relies. The possibility you may encounter an armed man in the first minutes when you are supposed to enjoy surprise could ruin everything. Instead of losing one terrorist per hundred casualties, the terrorist might be killed after only shooting two or three. Intelligence is the other defense. The Mumbai attackers had support cells. They had to train somewhere, be transported somehow, set up their resupply points in some fashion. All of these activities have signatures.
Ultimately, our relative safety depends on knowledge. What purpose, I was asked at recent party, did US troops serve in Afghanistan? I said intelligence. Their chief utility was that they could pick up something. The rumor of war. If you broke contact with the enemy you gained a certain degree of safety but only at the risk of losing information. Now there are many ways to gain intelligence, not all of them having to do with putting infantry in far away places. But the principle is the same. We must always know what the bad guys are up to and that means getting close to them in some way.
Nov 29, 2008 - 7:36 pm
17. Starling:
Excerpts from a short, but telling, article in the Times of India on why it took Indian commandos over 9 hours to respond:
Why did NSG take 9 hrs to get there?
The terrorists strike Mumbai at 9.30pm. Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh is in Kerala. He is briefed about the attack on the city’s prime locations. By the time Deshmukh grasps the enormity of the situation, 90 minutes have gone by.
He rings Union home minister Shivraj Patil at 11pm and asks for NSG commandos. “How many men?” Patil asks. “200,” says the CM. Patil calls NSG chief J K Dutt and tells him to send 200 battle-ready commandos to Mumbai.
Most of the NSG men have to be roused from sleep. They don their uniforms, strap on safety gear, collect ammo and firearms. It is discovered that the only plane that can take 200 men, the IL 76, is not in Delhi but Chandigarh. Precious minutes are ticking by.
The IL 76 pilot is woken, the plane refuelled. It reaches Delhi at 2am. By the time the commandos get in and the plane takes off, four-and-a-half hours have elapsed. Experts say that unless a response is mounted within 30 minutes of an attack, the enemy can assume key defensive positions.
It takes the aircraft almost three hours to land at Mumbai airport. Unlike the Boeing and Airbus, IL 76 is a slow plane. By the time the NSG commandos board the waiting buses it is 5.25am.
The buses take another 40 minutes to reach the designated place in south Mumbai where the commandos are briefed, divided into different groups and sent out on their mission.
By the time they start their operation, it is 7am — in other words, nine-and-a-half hours after the terror strike.
Many lives might have been saved had this delay not happened. The obvious question is why is the NSG stationed only in Delhi. When Indian cities are vulnerable to terror attacks, why is there no commando force like the NSG, or its units, in every city?
19. wretchard:
Why did NSG take 9 hrs to get there?
This is why subsidiarity is important. In a country as vast as India — or the United States or Australia — it can take hours to fly a terrorist response team to a given location. That concedes the first deadly minutes to the enemy. They have to be shut down and contained within an hour. We know how to contain many types of dangers, fire for example. Buckets of sand, CO2 extinguishers, etc, building evacuation plans, etc are there to provide a subsidiary response until the fire company gets there.
Unfortunately it has become the tendency to centralize responses to violence ever more. Hardly a week passes without a story about some hapless Briton being hailed before the judge because he conked some house-breaker on the head. You’re supposed to wait and not provoke the house-breaker until the proper policemen came. While this allowed the politicians to gather the powers of life and death into their hands and prevent “abuse” this also lengthened the response times. Today we shudder at ROTC training on campus. We take, as an indice of civilization, the proliferation of “gun free zones”. Those zones are “come and get it” dinner bells for Mumbai-style terrorists.
There was at one time, the idea of a “well-regulated militia” to span the distance between vigilanteeism and waiting for help which might take too long to come. If the Indians had a number of local counter-terror teams it could help them response more quickly next time.
Nov 29, 2008 - 8:19 pm
20. F:
The idea of personal self-defense still exists in the US: many of my friends have concealed carry permits, and I applied for one myself a month ago (it takes around 3 months to be issued in Nevada). Of course the next question is, would I draw and use a weapon, especially after the emphasis placed by my instructor on all the legal and personal safety reasons NOT to use my firearm.
That said, I barely avoided being in the Japanese embassy in Lima when it was stormed by Shining Path guerrillas in 1997. Several of my colleagues were there, though, and recalled seeing many of the guests in attendance (mostly diplomats or aid personnel) ditching their personal weapons in the bushes rather than using them against the handful of terrorists who had scaled the back wall. If only 3-4 of the armed guests had successfully taken down a terrorist in the first moments it would probably have stopped the attack immediately. Perhaps with a little loss of innocent life, but as it is the embassy was held for several months and finally stormed by Peruvian armed forces (who managed to kill all the terrorists without loss of innocent life.)
As for why the Indian policemen didn’t shoot back, I was stationed in India in 1965-67, and in those days (and presumably today) policemen were not routinely issued ammunition.
Nov 29, 2008 - 8:50 pm
25. fred:
I have some nagging doubts in my mind about the alleged military-like way of operating these jihadis exhibited. They had to know that they would be operating in an environment where it was extremely unlikely that any of their targets would be carrying weapons. They had to know that the Indian police would be confused and ineffective during the initial stages of the assault, which is when most of the casualties were inflicted. Why would they need to employ a buddy system of fire and maneuver? Fire and maneuver presumes an environment where hostile fire is to be expected to stand between one and one’s objective. They had the element of surprise as well as being able to grossly outclass their targets in terms of firepower.
Reading the lead-in article only causes me to have more questions about the jihadis, not fewer. Still, they show some exposure to military training. Plus, it would appear that they were were well armed and logistically supported. If this was six months in planning, then the greatest worry the Indian government has is the presence of logistical support cells within the target society. And all of us here know that support cells are THE hardest of the Islamic nuts to crack. The enemy designs it that way. Combatants are cannon fodder. Expendable. But the logistical support cells are critical and must be protected at all costs. It is that end of the operation that gives the enemy the ability to project terror well beyond the deaths of the gunmen.
Nov 29, 2008 - 9:08 pm
26. Cannoneer No. 4:
Buddy System
Pair every youth with another in the same ability group. Buddies check in and out of the swimming area together. Emphasize that each buddy lifeguards his buddy. Check everyone in the water about every 10 minutes, or as needed to keep the buddies together. The adult in charge signals for a buddy check with a single blast of a whistle or ring of a bell, and call “Buddies!” The adult counts slowly to 10 while buddies join and raise hands and remain still and silent. Guards check all areas, count the pairs, and compare the total with the number known to be in the water. Signal two blasts or bells to resume swimming. Signal three blasts or bells for checkout. — Boy Scouts of America Safe Swim Defense, in use since before 1968.
Nov 29, 2008 - 9:11 pm
27. James:
Buddy pairs may be maneuverable but what happens if you have armed opposition? If one of the pair is hit the other is left with very few choices and none of them are good. A two man team may work well when things are going well for you, but in the worst case scenario situation, you’re both dead.
Nov 29, 2008 - 9:11 pm
33. wretchard:
This excerpt from the Telegraph details information taken from the sole surviving terrorist. The attack team was gathered in “a remote mountain camp in Muzaffarabad, in Pakistan- administered Kashmir … During the months of training they were taught the use of explosives and close quarter combat. It was ingrained upon every man that ammunition would be in short supply and therefore every bullet should count.” They were then taken to Rawalpindi, the military heart of Pakistan, where they met with another team of six trained in another camp. They referred to each other by assumed names, which SOP for clandestine ops. At Rawalpindi they received an intel briefing and sandtabled, as it were, their attack. They launched from Karachi and were nearly turned by the Indian navy.
Here the team improvised. They hijacked a fishing boat, the Kuber and killed the crew. Using the fishing boat they made their way past the Indian coastguards. All in all, they were challenged more frequently than the 9/11 attackers but their initiative and training won them through. In close combat inside the hotels with the premier Indian counterterror force, they proved formidable.
Major General RK Hooda, the senior Indian commander, acknowledged the group, the Deccan Mujadeen, were better equipped and had a better knowledge of the battleground than India’s soldiers.
After the battle, one member of India’s National Security Guard, who led one of the assault groups against the terrorists occupying the Taj Mahal hotel, said they were the “best fighters” he had ever encountered.
He said: “They were obviously trained by professionals in urban guerrilla fighting. They used their environment and situation brilliantly, leading us (the NSG) on a dangerous chase through various tiers of the hotel which they obviously knew well. Their fire discipline too was excellent and they used their ammunition judiciously, mostly to draw us out.
“It was amply clear they came to kill a large number of people and to eventually perish in their horrific endeavour,” he said. “Negotiating with the Indian authorities or escaping was not an option for them.”
While the attack team only consisted of ten men, there are many other implied components. The men who recruited and trained them. The men who recruited and trained the Team B. The intel briefers. The providers of the Zodiac boats. The men who coordinated the whole shebang. So it was, despite appearances, an expensive operation, though considering the damage it inflicted, very cost effective.
The best time to intercept this type of operation is to detect it in its training stage. Once the attack team had landed, then luck, tactical skill, the availability of local response and numerous other circumstantial factors would determine its outcome.
Nov 29, 2008 - 9:28 pm
34. raff:
Buddy Pairs. Taught to me in battle school in canada in the early 80’s. Use of buddy pairs demonstrated quite nicely in the film HEAT.
Nov 29, 2008 - 9:33 pm 35.
F: Cannoneer #4 (#24): Actually, in the Lima dip corps of the nineties, probably more of us carried than not. Urban terrorism was winding down, but was not completely gone and car bombs still rocked the city now and then. As for “backing their play,” that’s a bigger “if”. When you’re standing at a long table of hors d’oeuvres with a drink in one hand and a sandwich in the other, chatting with a colleague, the thought of drawing and shooting, especially when a handful (and it was only a handful) of bad guys are shooting AK-47s into the air, is probably pretty alien. But if one of my fellow dips had made the first play he probably would have found himself in good company. Now whether there were any sober shooters in the party, well that’s another issue.
In the 27 years I was in that line of work I carried only about 5 years (but I did carry in Lima). Only once was I threatened in a way that could possibly have lead to me using my heat. I didn’t, and a very drunk French cooperant walked away alive as I shook my head in slow amazement at how stupid he had been and how I close I had come to completely (and tragically) misinterpreting his actions. The lesson I took away from that will probably slow my draw if the situation ever presents itself again. As Jeff Cooper used to teach, you need to know you’re prepared to use your firearm before you strap it on the first time. Nov 29, 2008 - 9:47 pm
36. exhelodrvr:
“It was ingrained upon every man that ammunition would be in short supply and therefore every bullet should count.” ”
That doesn’t go with shooting from the hip.
Nov 29, 2008 - 10:04 pm
37. The Anti Jihadist:
Another commenter remarked on the North Hollywood shootout ten years ago. It’s not a coincidence that the two perps–a buddy pair–in that incident were not taken down until they split up. Perhaps they should have watched ‘Heat’ a few more times (in that movie’s big set-piece shootout, the buddy pair escape whilst the lone ‘gunman’ goes down).
Nov 29, 2008 - 10:49 pm
51. Tim san:
I am pretty certain that the whole “buddy pair” concept came from close quarter battle (CQB) training. Every CQB trained team member knows when they come to an open door or hallway the point hesitates until he gets a “bump” from behind ensuring he has a wing man for the dynamic entry. Conversely going in alone was considered nothing short of a mortal sin. Back in 96 - 98 time frame only Force Recon (Marine Corps) and the SF community trained in CQB - you had to have a clearance to attend the assault breacher course and the whole bag of techniques and procedures was considered classified. Today Close Quarters Battle drill is standard infantry training and also most likely the source of buddy pairs - although in CQB it is not always the same buddy backing you up when you run a house.
I would like to think that armed Americans would be able to disrupt a similar attack if it were perpetrated in a Red State with shall issue CCW laws. Last year and off duty police officer went up against a lone rifle wielding assailant in the Trolley Mall of Salt Lake City with a favorable outcome. Of course that was a single assailant - fighting in buddy pairs makes that a lot harder to do. But in similar circumstances I would not hesitate to do the same even against 2 or more armed assailants - at the distances these shooting are averaging a good pistol fighter is not significantly at a disadvantage against marginal riflemen because the riflemen tend to spray on full auto which from the hip is not well aimed fire and off the shoulder is defacto anti aircraft fire after the 3rd round. Nobody wants to find himself armed with only a pistol at a proper gunfight but it is better than nothing and with a little luck and some solid training I would think the average CCW holder could stall an attack like this very early as it unfolds. Those who do not rush to the sound of gun fire and hold up with others would be very problematic for terrorist gunmen to run down too. Trapped people, like trapped animals, tend to fight (well some do many just accept their fate) and if you have mothers with children included they can fight very well - especially if they have a pistol and a clue how to use it. Terrorist expected to walk into hotel rooms facing unarmed people who can do very little to stop their attackers. In the United States that scenario would be true only if the terrorists picked a city where the population has been disarmed - Washington DC, Baltimore, Chicago, San Francisco….those types of places with entrenched Democratic machines who, provided cover by a clueless and compliant media, never have to answer for the carnage in their streets when compared Red State cities like Salt Lake.
It is a matter of time before we see a similar attack in America. The group who planned this operation can obviously plan well - like so many Muslim extremist groups their execution was piss poor. Ten guys, total surprise, three days of active shooting, unlimited ammo, and cops who go to ground or run at the sound of gunfire and the total tally is maybe 300 KIA? That is a bad execution of what appears to be a solid plan. But still an attack or two or even more like that launched simultaneously across the country would bring huge amounts of stress to our complacent population and our fragile economy - even with piss poor execution. But one thing all if us can count on is that the planners know where armed Americans are and where they are not. If you live in a Blue State with restrictive CCW laws you are at a much greater risk from this sort of event than I am.
These kinds of attacks are coming and in the aftermath of the first wave it will be very interesting to see what our elected betters choose to do about it. There are a lot of options to include encouraging CCW holders to carry instead of discouraging this healthy habit. I doubt Cannoneer #4, myself or any of the other regular commenter’s here will be lucky enough to see a “buddy Team” of young terrorists pop up in front of us at the local mall or hotel (I carry a full size Kimber .45 when in CONUS just in case I do get lucky) but I promise you if we did those boys would not escape our tender mercies without a few leaky holes in their torso. Sheepdogs aren’t sheepdogs because they enjoy the title - they are sheepdogs because they cannot be anything else. Our country still produces far more than our share because unlike most people around the world we remain free men. Free to own firearms if we want, free to say or publish what we want, and most importantly free to protect ourselves, our families, and any stranger in need - with lethal force. I work with former military men from around the globe and the Brits, Aussies, Kiwi’s, Canadians, all of them know that they no longer come from lands where men can be called free. All of them have a single goal it seems and that is to live in America (I already told them that Ted Kennedy has ruined their chances because they are not poor, illiterate or from the third world) because there a man is still free. And free men don’t let ten teenagers run amuck for 72 hours shooting people in the largest city of the land. Only serfs or slaves would tolerate that.
Nov 30, 2008 - 2:56 am 52.
56. Limpet6:
The buddy pair is hardly rocket science. For a start you have unarmed civilians outgunned. So you don’t need anything more than a one-man team so long as you are firing. The problem is the firing gaps. So you have to riflemen work together to cover the gaps.
They didn’t need much in the way of “borrowed tactics.” This was like a bank job.
Walk through it the scenario and a deserted area and the problems would come to you.
Don’t ascribe great things to these bullies. Their advantage was training with self-loading rifles and a supply of grenades.
By the way, Underwater Demolition used the buddy pair as the basic tactical element in WWII. I don’t think these Pakistani punks stole it from them.
Nov 30, 2008 - 6:18 am
This is a long post from another blog, including discussion, but it is important and pertinent to Absolved and especially the chapters about The Squad and the upcoming Doctrine. There is much discussion, some of it uninformed, of the origins and modern use of the "buddy team."
The buddy team is in fact just the codification of a sociological fact about soldiery that probably goes back to the hoplites. Soldiers form friendships for the most compelling of reasons: the bond keeps them alive, shares the burdens of soldiering and provides a human connection in an insane and violent battlefield. The blog entry "A Marine Officer on the Mumbai tactics" first appeared on 29 November at The Belmont Club. I reproduce it below, as well as some of the more pertinent replies.
A Marine infantry officer sends these observations on the terrorist tactics used at Mumbai.
From what I can gather there are a few interesting observations to be made of the tactics in use in Mumbai:
It appears the attackers were organized into buddy pairs, allowing one to shoot while the other moved, and so forth. Interestingly, the buddy pair has is a later innovation in small unit tactics and has only been slow to trickle through regular infantry formations. In World War I, the smallest element of maneuver (on paper) might have been a battalion or company. The Germans, in developing “storm troop tactics” then innovated even smaller maneuver elements, which we might call squads today. The role of platoons and squads became only greater in WWII. After WWII, General S.L.A. Marshall conducted a massive study of the reactions of men in combat (See “Men Against Fire”) and the result of his work was the genesis of the Fire Team. The Fire Team is now the smallest doctrinal unit of maneuver in the US military. In the Marine Corps, it is led by a Corporal, includes an automatic rifleman with a Squad Automatic Weapon, and two more riflemen.
During the Iraq War, two innovations have taken place: first, within the Marine Corps, the concept of the “buddy pair” or “buddy team” has spread dramatically, though it is still not doctrinal (it should be). The idea may have begun in the special forces, though I am not sure. The advantage of smaller and smaller units of maneuver is that if they rehearse their actions and build cohesion within the unit, they develop ever greater levels of capability *at that level*. A well-trained buddy pair with the right mindset and enough ammo can take over a city block, house by house, while under fire. The other innovation that has taken place in Iraq is to take the Fire Team and make it into a motorized element, inside one vehicle. This is less in favor now that everyone realizes that moving around in vehicles makes you seem more like robots to the locals and they then have less of a problem with killing you. In any case, all of these changes have one large thing in common — a decentralizing of decisionmaking and maneuver.
And now in Mumbai it would seem we have seen the ultimate result: autonomous buddy-pairs, with a great deal of rehearsals and navigation practice, each with its own set of goals, possibly redundant comms with brevity codes. I would imagine that each team had multiple preplanned routes to each of its objectives before they finally converged on the location for the last stand. Along the way, as some have wondered, they may have stopped for quick logistics reloads of ammo and water.
Here are some thoughts, in no order:
1. The school shooting at Columbine springs to mind when looking for analogies.
2. One of the advantages of a buddy pair, as mentioned above, is the ability to fire and move. One fires while the other moves, and then they switch. In this way, moving from cover to cover, they take ground. But this concept becomes interesting when considered against the fact that the terrorists seemingly had no one firing against them, and they did not have to disciplined in taking well-aimed shots . . .
3. . . . A photographer noted how “cool” and “professional” they looked as they sprayed from the hip. Shooting from the hip is not extremely professional, but this only is if one wants to take well-aimed shots. Perhaps shooting from the hip is very professional if one wants to spray in across a broad angle while maintaining a wider field of view than if behind the sights of your weapon. In other words, if facing no armed opposition, you have the luxury of spraying broadly, and the most dangerous thing to you is an armed threat that comes from outside your narrowed peripheral vision while using your iron sights.
4. Note this sentence, from the AP article: “They weren’t aiming at anyone in particular. It was like they wanted to empty their magazines and do as much damage here as possible before heading to the Taj,” I would argue that the terrorists, while being superbly motivated, and having planned intricately for their assault, are nevertheless poor marksmen. Given the details that we are learning of their attack, the most surprising thing is that more people weren’t killed.
5. It seems that there is a convergence taking place within the realm of small-unit tactics. Infantry units, terrorists, police forces, criminal and narco-gangs, and so forth are all converging in terms of the tactics they use against one another. The only tactical difference between 5 terrorist buddy pairs and a Marine rifle squad is their goal: the former seeks a position to create the most carnage indiscriminately for the longest period of time while the latter might be sweeping or clearing an area or conducting a manhunt, meaning it seeks to use the utmost precision in its application of force. If I may presume: the terrorists have learned fire and movement from us, from watching us, and from reading our manuals, which are posted online. But our tactics are not geared toward indiscriminate slaughter. The question is, will they develop any tactical innovations that allow them that advantage?
7. Starling:
Wretchard, thanks for posting these comments. I found them very informative. As a management theorist with a specific interest in organization structure and design, the discussion about the merits of decentralization and team/group composition certainly resonates.
One of several comments that caught my eye was this one: “The Fire Team is now the smallest doctrinal unit of maneuver in the US military. In the Marine Corps, it is led by a Corporal, includes an automatic rifleman with a Squad Automatic Weapon, and two more riflemen.”
Knowing nothing whatsoever about military maneuvers and tactics, I had assumed that a sniper team was the smallest “doctrinal unit”, i.e. a spotter and a shooter.
Again, thanks for passing along the observations.
Nov 29, 2008 - 7:36 pm
8. wretchard:
The Marine infantry officer adds in a subsequent e-mail:
There’s another big tie in here with deception: you did a post not long ago about the need for the military to wear uniforms, etc. (you’ve done more in the past I know). Here, we have terrorists with no uniforms, and still of unknown and unconfirmed origin, asking for the damned passports of innocent people. And yet our military must wear uniforms or else void international law. Something isn’t right here.
One advantage that terrorist buddy pairs have is that they can confidently fire on anyone. The odds they will engage another terrorist buddy pair are almost nil. And if they kill man, woman or beast it simply adds to their tally. One problem facing a response team is that they have to have postive ID on the enemy. A blue on blue or accidental killing of a civilian is a definite, it not a probable contingency.
My own guess, and I am not an infantryman, is that defensive tactics should aim to nullify the maneuverability and relative invisibility of terrorist buddy pairs. If they are immobilized, or at least localized, then the buddy pairs can easily be overmatched. Their advantages are also their disadvantages. They have limited stocks of ammo and a relatively low rate of fire.
A terrorist buddy pair’s greatest killing potential is either in the first few minutes and when they have gained a position (such as in the Taj Hotel) in which the urban terrain favors them. At all points in between they will be dead meat for a professional police or military force in platoon or greater strength. Of the two windows of opportunity, the most deadly is the first few minutes. Imagine a school, a shopping mall or a stadium. In the first twenty minutes, a number of buddy teams assaulting inward from the entrances could trap most people in it. By the time a response team got there, they would have segued to defense.
But if they can be contained, then at least they can’t move on to the next hotel, the next building, the next mass killing ground.
There are only two long term defenses I can imagine, as a layman. The first is subsidiarity. The second is intelligence. Subsidiarity will mean the existence of enough armament at the grassroots level to create uncertainty for the terrorist buddy pairs. This is the concept upon which the air marshal idea relies. The possibility you may encounter an armed man in the first minutes when you are supposed to enjoy surprise could ruin everything. Instead of losing one terrorist per hundred casualties, the terrorist might be killed after only shooting two or three. Intelligence is the other defense. The Mumbai attackers had support cells. They had to train somewhere, be transported somehow, set up their resupply points in some fashion. All of these activities have signatures.
Ultimately, our relative safety depends on knowledge. What purpose, I was asked at recent party, did US troops serve in Afghanistan? I said intelligence. Their chief utility was that they could pick up something. The rumor of war. If you broke contact with the enemy you gained a certain degree of safety but only at the risk of losing information. Now there are many ways to gain intelligence, not all of them having to do with putting infantry in far away places. But the principle is the same. We must always know what the bad guys are up to and that means getting close to them in some way.
Nov 29, 2008 - 7:36 pm
17. Starling:
Excerpts from a short, but telling, article in the Times of India on why it took Indian commandos over 9 hours to respond:
Why did NSG take 9 hrs to get there?
The terrorists strike Mumbai at 9.30pm. Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh is in Kerala. He is briefed about the attack on the city’s prime locations. By the time Deshmukh grasps the enormity of the situation, 90 minutes have gone by.
He rings Union home minister Shivraj Patil at 11pm and asks for NSG commandos. “How many men?” Patil asks. “200,” says the CM. Patil calls NSG chief J K Dutt and tells him to send 200 battle-ready commandos to Mumbai.
Most of the NSG men have to be roused from sleep. They don their uniforms, strap on safety gear, collect ammo and firearms. It is discovered that the only plane that can take 200 men, the IL 76, is not in Delhi but Chandigarh. Precious minutes are ticking by.
The IL 76 pilot is woken, the plane refuelled. It reaches Delhi at 2am. By the time the commandos get in and the plane takes off, four-and-a-half hours have elapsed. Experts say that unless a response is mounted within 30 minutes of an attack, the enemy can assume key defensive positions.
It takes the aircraft almost three hours to land at Mumbai airport. Unlike the Boeing and Airbus, IL 76 is a slow plane. By the time the NSG commandos board the waiting buses it is 5.25am.
The buses take another 40 minutes to reach the designated place in south Mumbai where the commandos are briefed, divided into different groups and sent out on their mission.
By the time they start their operation, it is 7am — in other words, nine-and-a-half hours after the terror strike.
Many lives might have been saved had this delay not happened. The obvious question is why is the NSG stationed only in Delhi. When Indian cities are vulnerable to terror attacks, why is there no commando force like the NSG, or its units, in every city?
19. wretchard:
Why did NSG take 9 hrs to get there?
This is why subsidiarity is important. In a country as vast as India — or the United States or Australia — it can take hours to fly a terrorist response team to a given location. That concedes the first deadly minutes to the enemy. They have to be shut down and contained within an hour. We know how to contain many types of dangers, fire for example. Buckets of sand, CO2 extinguishers, etc, building evacuation plans, etc are there to provide a subsidiary response until the fire company gets there.
Unfortunately it has become the tendency to centralize responses to violence ever more. Hardly a week passes without a story about some hapless Briton being hailed before the judge because he conked some house-breaker on the head. You’re supposed to wait and not provoke the house-breaker until the proper policemen came. While this allowed the politicians to gather the powers of life and death into their hands and prevent “abuse” this also lengthened the response times. Today we shudder at ROTC training on campus. We take, as an indice of civilization, the proliferation of “gun free zones”. Those zones are “come and get it” dinner bells for Mumbai-style terrorists.
There was at one time, the idea of a “well-regulated militia” to span the distance between vigilanteeism and waiting for help which might take too long to come. If the Indians had a number of local counter-terror teams it could help them response more quickly next time.
Nov 29, 2008 - 8:19 pm
20. F:
The idea of personal self-defense still exists in the US: many of my friends have concealed carry permits, and I applied for one myself a month ago (it takes around 3 months to be issued in Nevada). Of course the next question is, would I draw and use a weapon, especially after the emphasis placed by my instructor on all the legal and personal safety reasons NOT to use my firearm.
That said, I barely avoided being in the Japanese embassy in Lima when it was stormed by Shining Path guerrillas in 1997. Several of my colleagues were there, though, and recalled seeing many of the guests in attendance (mostly diplomats or aid personnel) ditching their personal weapons in the bushes rather than using them against the handful of terrorists who had scaled the back wall. If only 3-4 of the armed guests had successfully taken down a terrorist in the first moments it would probably have stopped the attack immediately. Perhaps with a little loss of innocent life, but as it is the embassy was held for several months and finally stormed by Peruvian armed forces (who managed to kill all the terrorists without loss of innocent life.)
As for why the Indian policemen didn’t shoot back, I was stationed in India in 1965-67, and in those days (and presumably today) policemen were not routinely issued ammunition.
Nov 29, 2008 - 8:50 pm
25. fred:
I have some nagging doubts in my mind about the alleged military-like way of operating these jihadis exhibited. They had to know that they would be operating in an environment where it was extremely unlikely that any of their targets would be carrying weapons. They had to know that the Indian police would be confused and ineffective during the initial stages of the assault, which is when most of the casualties were inflicted. Why would they need to employ a buddy system of fire and maneuver? Fire and maneuver presumes an environment where hostile fire is to be expected to stand between one and one’s objective. They had the element of surprise as well as being able to grossly outclass their targets in terms of firepower.
Reading the lead-in article only causes me to have more questions about the jihadis, not fewer. Still, they show some exposure to military training. Plus, it would appear that they were were well armed and logistically supported. If this was six months in planning, then the greatest worry the Indian government has is the presence of logistical support cells within the target society. And all of us here know that support cells are THE hardest of the Islamic nuts to crack. The enemy designs it that way. Combatants are cannon fodder. Expendable. But the logistical support cells are critical and must be protected at all costs. It is that end of the operation that gives the enemy the ability to project terror well beyond the deaths of the gunmen.
Nov 29, 2008 - 9:08 pm
26. Cannoneer No. 4:
Buddy System
Pair every youth with another in the same ability group. Buddies check in and out of the swimming area together. Emphasize that each buddy lifeguards his buddy. Check everyone in the water about every 10 minutes, or as needed to keep the buddies together. The adult in charge signals for a buddy check with a single blast of a whistle or ring of a bell, and call “Buddies!” The adult counts slowly to 10 while buddies join and raise hands and remain still and silent. Guards check all areas, count the pairs, and compare the total with the number known to be in the water. Signal two blasts or bells to resume swimming. Signal three blasts or bells for checkout. — Boy Scouts of America Safe Swim Defense, in use since before 1968.
Nov 29, 2008 - 9:11 pm
27. James:
Buddy pairs may be maneuverable but what happens if you have armed opposition? If one of the pair is hit the other is left with very few choices and none of them are good. A two man team may work well when things are going well for you, but in the worst case scenario situation, you’re both dead.
Nov 29, 2008 - 9:11 pm
33. wretchard:
This excerpt from the Telegraph details information taken from the sole surviving terrorist. The attack team was gathered in “a remote mountain camp in Muzaffarabad, in Pakistan- administered Kashmir … During the months of training they were taught the use of explosives and close quarter combat. It was ingrained upon every man that ammunition would be in short supply and therefore every bullet should count.” They were then taken to Rawalpindi, the military heart of Pakistan, where they met with another team of six trained in another camp. They referred to each other by assumed names, which SOP for clandestine ops. At Rawalpindi they received an intel briefing and sandtabled, as it were, their attack. They launched from Karachi and were nearly turned by the Indian navy.
Here the team improvised. They hijacked a fishing boat, the Kuber and killed the crew. Using the fishing boat they made their way past the Indian coastguards. All in all, they were challenged more frequently than the 9/11 attackers but their initiative and training won them through. In close combat inside the hotels with the premier Indian counterterror force, they proved formidable.
Major General RK Hooda, the senior Indian commander, acknowledged the group, the Deccan Mujadeen, were better equipped and had a better knowledge of the battleground than India’s soldiers.
After the battle, one member of India’s National Security Guard, who led one of the assault groups against the terrorists occupying the Taj Mahal hotel, said they were the “best fighters” he had ever encountered.
He said: “They were obviously trained by professionals in urban guerrilla fighting. They used their environment and situation brilliantly, leading us (the NSG) on a dangerous chase through various tiers of the hotel which they obviously knew well. Their fire discipline too was excellent and they used their ammunition judiciously, mostly to draw us out.
“It was amply clear they came to kill a large number of people and to eventually perish in their horrific endeavour,” he said. “Negotiating with the Indian authorities or escaping was not an option for them.”
While the attack team only consisted of ten men, there are many other implied components. The men who recruited and trained them. The men who recruited and trained the Team B. The intel briefers. The providers of the Zodiac boats. The men who coordinated the whole shebang. So it was, despite appearances, an expensive operation, though considering the damage it inflicted, very cost effective.
The best time to intercept this type of operation is to detect it in its training stage. Once the attack team had landed, then luck, tactical skill, the availability of local response and numerous other circumstantial factors would determine its outcome.
Nov 29, 2008 - 9:28 pm
34. raff:
Buddy Pairs. Taught to me in battle school in canada in the early 80’s. Use of buddy pairs demonstrated quite nicely in the film HEAT.
Nov 29, 2008 - 9:33 pm 35.
F: Cannoneer #4 (#24): Actually, in the Lima dip corps of the nineties, probably more of us carried than not. Urban terrorism was winding down, but was not completely gone and car bombs still rocked the city now and then. As for “backing their play,” that’s a bigger “if”. When you’re standing at a long table of hors d’oeuvres with a drink in one hand and a sandwich in the other, chatting with a colleague, the thought of drawing and shooting, especially when a handful (and it was only a handful) of bad guys are shooting AK-47s into the air, is probably pretty alien. But if one of my fellow dips had made the first play he probably would have found himself in good company. Now whether there were any sober shooters in the party, well that’s another issue.
In the 27 years I was in that line of work I carried only about 5 years (but I did carry in Lima). Only once was I threatened in a way that could possibly have lead to me using my heat. I didn’t, and a very drunk French cooperant walked away alive as I shook my head in slow amazement at how stupid he had been and how I close I had come to completely (and tragically) misinterpreting his actions. The lesson I took away from that will probably slow my draw if the situation ever presents itself again. As Jeff Cooper used to teach, you need to know you’re prepared to use your firearm before you strap it on the first time. Nov 29, 2008 - 9:47 pm
36. exhelodrvr:
“It was ingrained upon every man that ammunition would be in short supply and therefore every bullet should count.” ”
That doesn’t go with shooting from the hip.
Nov 29, 2008 - 10:04 pm
37. The Anti Jihadist:
Another commenter remarked on the North Hollywood shootout ten years ago. It’s not a coincidence that the two perps–a buddy pair–in that incident were not taken down until they split up. Perhaps they should have watched ‘Heat’ a few more times (in that movie’s big set-piece shootout, the buddy pair escape whilst the lone ‘gunman’ goes down).
Nov 29, 2008 - 10:49 pm
51. Tim san:
I am pretty certain that the whole “buddy pair” concept came from close quarter battle (CQB) training. Every CQB trained team member knows when they come to an open door or hallway the point hesitates until he gets a “bump” from behind ensuring he has a wing man for the dynamic entry. Conversely going in alone was considered nothing short of a mortal sin. Back in 96 - 98 time frame only Force Recon (Marine Corps) and the SF community trained in CQB - you had to have a clearance to attend the assault breacher course and the whole bag of techniques and procedures was considered classified. Today Close Quarters Battle drill is standard infantry training and also most likely the source of buddy pairs - although in CQB it is not always the same buddy backing you up when you run a house.
I would like to think that armed Americans would be able to disrupt a similar attack if it were perpetrated in a Red State with shall issue CCW laws. Last year and off duty police officer went up against a lone rifle wielding assailant in the Trolley Mall of Salt Lake City with a favorable outcome. Of course that was a single assailant - fighting in buddy pairs makes that a lot harder to do. But in similar circumstances I would not hesitate to do the same even against 2 or more armed assailants - at the distances these shooting are averaging a good pistol fighter is not significantly at a disadvantage against marginal riflemen because the riflemen tend to spray on full auto which from the hip is not well aimed fire and off the shoulder is defacto anti aircraft fire after the 3rd round. Nobody wants to find himself armed with only a pistol at a proper gunfight but it is better than nothing and with a little luck and some solid training I would think the average CCW holder could stall an attack like this very early as it unfolds. Those who do not rush to the sound of gun fire and hold up with others would be very problematic for terrorist gunmen to run down too. Trapped people, like trapped animals, tend to fight (well some do many just accept their fate) and if you have mothers with children included they can fight very well - especially if they have a pistol and a clue how to use it. Terrorist expected to walk into hotel rooms facing unarmed people who can do very little to stop their attackers. In the United States that scenario would be true only if the terrorists picked a city where the population has been disarmed - Washington DC, Baltimore, Chicago, San Francisco….those types of places with entrenched Democratic machines who, provided cover by a clueless and compliant media, never have to answer for the carnage in their streets when compared Red State cities like Salt Lake.
It is a matter of time before we see a similar attack in America. The group who planned this operation can obviously plan well - like so many Muslim extremist groups their execution was piss poor. Ten guys, total surprise, three days of active shooting, unlimited ammo, and cops who go to ground or run at the sound of gunfire and the total tally is maybe 300 KIA? That is a bad execution of what appears to be a solid plan. But still an attack or two or even more like that launched simultaneously across the country would bring huge amounts of stress to our complacent population and our fragile economy - even with piss poor execution. But one thing all if us can count on is that the planners know where armed Americans are and where they are not. If you live in a Blue State with restrictive CCW laws you are at a much greater risk from this sort of event than I am.
These kinds of attacks are coming and in the aftermath of the first wave it will be very interesting to see what our elected betters choose to do about it. There are a lot of options to include encouraging CCW holders to carry instead of discouraging this healthy habit. I doubt Cannoneer #4, myself or any of the other regular commenter’s here will be lucky enough to see a “buddy Team” of young terrorists pop up in front of us at the local mall or hotel (I carry a full size Kimber .45 when in CONUS just in case I do get lucky) but I promise you if we did those boys would not escape our tender mercies without a few leaky holes in their torso. Sheepdogs aren’t sheepdogs because they enjoy the title - they are sheepdogs because they cannot be anything else. Our country still produces far more than our share because unlike most people around the world we remain free men. Free to own firearms if we want, free to say or publish what we want, and most importantly free to protect ourselves, our families, and any stranger in need - with lethal force. I work with former military men from around the globe and the Brits, Aussies, Kiwi’s, Canadians, all of them know that they no longer come from lands where men can be called free. All of them have a single goal it seems and that is to live in America (I already told them that Ted Kennedy has ruined their chances because they are not poor, illiterate or from the third world) because there a man is still free. And free men don’t let ten teenagers run amuck for 72 hours shooting people in the largest city of the land. Only serfs or slaves would tolerate that.
Nov 30, 2008 - 2:56 am 52.
56. Limpet6:
The buddy pair is hardly rocket science. For a start you have unarmed civilians outgunned. So you don’t need anything more than a one-man team so long as you are firing. The problem is the firing gaps. So you have to riflemen work together to cover the gaps.
They didn’t need much in the way of “borrowed tactics.” This was like a bank job.
Walk through it the scenario and a deserted area and the problems would come to you.
Don’t ascribe great things to these bullies. Their advantage was training with self-loading rifles and a supply of grenades.
By the way, Underwater Demolition used the buddy pair as the basic tactical element in WWII. I don’t think these Pakistani punks stole it from them.
Nov 30, 2008 - 6:18 am
"The Shagged Sheep": an Amazing Tale of Censorship, Scholarly Sources & Ayatollah Khomeini's Advice to the Lovelorn Sheepherder
Folks,
You can't make this stuff up. Go here.
Those of you who haven't read Mark Steyn's America Alone need to go out and find a copy. Steyn is being attacked by the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission for writing hateful things about the Ayatollah Khomeini and other members of the Jihadi Death Cult. But this latest "kerfluffle" to use Steyn's term, is a step through the looking glass of political correctness. Here's a sample:
Signora Fallaci then moves on to the livelier examples of contemporary Islam -- for example, Ayatollah Khomeini's "Blue Book" and its helpful advice on romantic matters: "If a man marries a minor who has reached the age of nine and if during the defloration he immediately breaks the hymen, he cannot enjoy her any longer." I'll say. I know it always ruins my evening. Also: "A man who has had sexual relations with an animal, such as a sheep, may not eat its meat. He would commit sin." Indeed. A quiet cigarette afterwards as you listen to your favourite Johnny Mathis LP and then a promise to call her next week and swing by the pasture is by far the best way. It may also be a sin to roast your nine-year-old wife, but the Ayatollah's not clear on that.
A cheap joke en passant. Indeed, insofar as I dwelt on the ovine fornication, it was to suggest to La Fallaci that, even for us flagrant Islamophobes, it was not perhaps the most useful avenue of attack:
I enjoy the don't-eat-your-sexual-partner stuff as much as the next infidel, but the challenge presented by Islam is not that the cities of the Western world will be filling up with sheep-shaggers. If I had to choose, I'd rather Mohammed Atta was downriver in Egypt hitting on the livestock than flying through the windows of Manhattan skyscrapers. But he’s not.
And that’s it. That’s all I said. And no one would remember had not El Mo’s sock puppets included the sheep-shagging line in the dossier they submitted to the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission.
You can't make this stuff up. Go here.
Those of you who haven't read Mark Steyn's America Alone need to go out and find a copy. Steyn is being attacked by the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission for writing hateful things about the Ayatollah Khomeini and other members of the Jihadi Death Cult. But this latest "kerfluffle" to use Steyn's term, is a step through the looking glass of political correctness. Here's a sample:
Signora Fallaci then moves on to the livelier examples of contemporary Islam -- for example, Ayatollah Khomeini's "Blue Book" and its helpful advice on romantic matters: "If a man marries a minor who has reached the age of nine and if during the defloration he immediately breaks the hymen, he cannot enjoy her any longer." I'll say. I know it always ruins my evening. Also: "A man who has had sexual relations with an animal, such as a sheep, may not eat its meat. He would commit sin." Indeed. A quiet cigarette afterwards as you listen to your favourite Johnny Mathis LP and then a promise to call her next week and swing by the pasture is by far the best way. It may also be a sin to roast your nine-year-old wife, but the Ayatollah's not clear on that.
A cheap joke en passant. Indeed, insofar as I dwelt on the ovine fornication, it was to suggest to La Fallaci that, even for us flagrant Islamophobes, it was not perhaps the most useful avenue of attack:
I enjoy the don't-eat-your-sexual-partner stuff as much as the next infidel, but the challenge presented by Islam is not that the cities of the Western world will be filling up with sheep-shaggers. If I had to choose, I'd rather Mohammed Atta was downriver in Egypt hitting on the livestock than flying through the windows of Manhattan skyscrapers. But he’s not.
And that’s it. That’s all I said. And no one would remember had not El Mo’s sock puppets included the sheep-shagging line in the dossier they submitted to the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission.
Monday, December 1, 2008
A "Must Read" at WRSA
http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2008/11/overview-of-battlespace.html
"And that's all I got to say about that." -- Forrest Gump.
"And that's all I got to say about that." -- Forrest Gump.
"This is as far as the bastards are going."
I took my professional reputation in my hands to debate with someone advertised as a large brain, the humble "MostlyGenius" at the website brillianter.com, found here.
Sayeth MostlyGenius to another Three Percenter on 29 November in the year of our Lord 2008 at 9:57 am:
Not one of the groups on your list represents the situation that the 3% will find themselves in: A scattered group of individuals acting independently without the external support of another nation and without the support of the local populace.
Asymmetric warfare also includes a difference in tactics and the use of political and media assets as well as a difference in the size or capabilities of the belligerents.
While fighting the agents the of the government might seem glorious and moral, the downside is that you have to get the neighbors silence and convince them that either you are acting in their best interest and/or that they have more to fear from you than they do your foes.
My argument is not that the 3% doesn’t have the right goals, it is rather that the tactics they espouse will not improve the rights of citizens or achieve their aims.
To which I replied:
"This is as far as the bastards are getting."
It is risky, I know, disputing someone with the humble title of "MostlyGenius," but I will chance it.
Let us start the ball with your last statement:
"My argument is not that the 3% doesn’t have the right goals, it is rather that the tactics they espouse will not improve the rights of citizens or achieve their aims."
Our aims are:
a. to defend ourselves and our liberty and property at our front door steps. We will not back up any more. It is the feds who will bring the war to us, first.
b. to warn anyone who desires further encroachments upon our liberty and property that there will be consequences for their actions, thus, hopefully, to reduce the threat from becoming reality.
c. to make it plain to every one, prags included, that the time is fast approaching -- thanks to the "authorities" -- when they will have to choose, so they'd better get ready to shoot, shit, or hit the fence.
Our tactics are defined by those aims.
The Founders would be entirely at peace with those aims, and our tactics. If the defense of liberty is not YOUR aim, then I suggest you look in the mirror and quit pretending to the rest of us. How else, other than resistance, will you defend our traditional liberties in the coming period? The possibility of further predations of liberty like an "upgraded" AWB, or the seizure of control over the private sale of all firearms ("Loophole") is upon us. What will you do when they pass and begin to be enforced?
Will you just roll over -- again?
We are done rolling over. We are done backing up. You will have to decide what YOU will do when the feds come to enforce compliance on ME at the point of a gun. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I will resist, also at the point of a gun. If the Olofson case proved anything it proved that you can no longer even count on a fair trial in the federal courts. So, if I refuse to go to federal prison for the crime of being innocent, my only rational response is to sell myself as dearly as possible to prevent others from suffering my fate.
I will die, at least, a free man. And if you do nothing, you will live . . . as nothing. Your choice.
It is our enemies who are in the driver's seat. It is the enemies of the Founders' Republic who will be on the offensive. We Three Percenters are merely in the position of the 82nd Airborne trooper up on the Elsenborn Ridge in December, 1944.
As he dug his fighting position, some refugees from the 106th Infantry Division were streaming past him and his buddies, fleeing the destruction of their division at the hands of the Germans. One of them, overcome by curiousity at the sight of somebody who wasn't running, called out, "Who are you guys?" The paratrooper answered, "I'm the 82nd Airborne, and this is as far as the bastards are getting."
After I posted this I went back to check my memory. It was even better than I wrote MostlyGenius. The refugees were in a tank destroyer and the 82nd man, PFC Martin of the 325th Glider Infantry Regiment, glanced up at them and asked, "Are you lookin' for a safe place?" The tank destroyermen said that they were. To which PFC Martin famously replied, "Well, buddy, just pull your vehicle behind me. I'm the 82nd Airborne and this is as far as the bastards are going."
You can find more information on this incident here.
Remember folks, we are the Three Percent, and this is as far as the bastards are going.
Sayeth MostlyGenius to another Three Percenter on 29 November in the year of our Lord 2008 at 9:57 am:
Not one of the groups on your list represents the situation that the 3% will find themselves in: A scattered group of individuals acting independently without the external support of another nation and without the support of the local populace.
Asymmetric warfare also includes a difference in tactics and the use of political and media assets as well as a difference in the size or capabilities of the belligerents.
While fighting the agents the of the government might seem glorious and moral, the downside is that you have to get the neighbors silence and convince them that either you are acting in their best interest and/or that they have more to fear from you than they do your foes.
My argument is not that the 3% doesn’t have the right goals, it is rather that the tactics they espouse will not improve the rights of citizens or achieve their aims.
To which I replied:
"This is as far as the bastards are getting."
It is risky, I know, disputing someone with the humble title of "MostlyGenius," but I will chance it.
Let us start the ball with your last statement:
"My argument is not that the 3% doesn’t have the right goals, it is rather that the tactics they espouse will not improve the rights of citizens or achieve their aims."
Our aims are:
a. to defend ourselves and our liberty and property at our front door steps. We will not back up any more. It is the feds who will bring the war to us, first.
b. to warn anyone who desires further encroachments upon our liberty and property that there will be consequences for their actions, thus, hopefully, to reduce the threat from becoming reality.
c. to make it plain to every one, prags included, that the time is fast approaching -- thanks to the "authorities" -- when they will have to choose, so they'd better get ready to shoot, shit, or hit the fence.
Our tactics are defined by those aims.
The Founders would be entirely at peace with those aims, and our tactics. If the defense of liberty is not YOUR aim, then I suggest you look in the mirror and quit pretending to the rest of us. How else, other than resistance, will you defend our traditional liberties in the coming period? The possibility of further predations of liberty like an "upgraded" AWB, or the seizure of control over the private sale of all firearms ("Loophole") is upon us. What will you do when they pass and begin to be enforced?
Will you just roll over -- again?
We are done rolling over. We are done backing up. You will have to decide what YOU will do when the feds come to enforce compliance on ME at the point of a gun. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I will resist, also at the point of a gun. If the Olofson case proved anything it proved that you can no longer even count on a fair trial in the federal courts. So, if I refuse to go to federal prison for the crime of being innocent, my only rational response is to sell myself as dearly as possible to prevent others from suffering my fate.
I will die, at least, a free man. And if you do nothing, you will live . . . as nothing. Your choice.
It is our enemies who are in the driver's seat. It is the enemies of the Founders' Republic who will be on the offensive. We Three Percenters are merely in the position of the 82nd Airborne trooper up on the Elsenborn Ridge in December, 1944.
As he dug his fighting position, some refugees from the 106th Infantry Division were streaming past him and his buddies, fleeing the destruction of their division at the hands of the Germans. One of them, overcome by curiousity at the sight of somebody who wasn't running, called out, "Who are you guys?" The paratrooper answered, "I'm the 82nd Airborne, and this is as far as the bastards are getting."
After I posted this I went back to check my memory. It was even better than I wrote MostlyGenius. The refugees were in a tank destroyer and the 82nd man, PFC Martin of the 325th Glider Infantry Regiment, glanced up at them and asked, "Are you lookin' for a safe place?" The tank destroyermen said that they were. To which PFC Martin famously replied, "Well, buddy, just pull your vehicle behind me. I'm the 82nd Airborne and this is as far as the bastards are going."
You can find more information on this incident here.
Remember folks, we are the Three Percent, and this is as far as the bastards are going.
History Once Again Has a Firesign Theatre Moment: "We're Bringing the War Back Home. . ."
Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security
By Spencer S. Hsu and Ann Scott Tyson
The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.
So says the Washington Post here.
Pete at WRSA said the other day that Firesign Theatre, the prescient radio comedy troupe of the late Sixties and early Seventies, would have a good case for suing "the Future" (as represented by the present day political establishment) for copyright infringement. Very little of what they so wackily predicted has not come to pass. Witness the electronic society of Dr. Memory and the hologram president from "I Think We're All Bozos On This Bus" done in 1971. But here, with this story, we have another Firesign moment. Does anyone else besides me recall this song?
We're bringing the war back home
Where it ought to have been before!
We'll kill all the bees
And spiders and flies
And we wont play in iceboxes lying on their sides
We'll wash our hands after wee-wee.
And if we're a girl, before!
And we'll march,march,march, et cetera!
'Til we never do march no more!
Now, class, for our next Firesign hologram moment, we will discuss how to deal with oppressive troops on your own soil. It is called: "Shoes For Industry." As the descendant of Dutchmen, I am uniquely qualified to teach this subject.
By Spencer S. Hsu and Ann Scott Tyson
The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.
So says the Washington Post here.
Pete at WRSA said the other day that Firesign Theatre, the prescient radio comedy troupe of the late Sixties and early Seventies, would have a good case for suing "the Future" (as represented by the present day political establishment) for copyright infringement. Very little of what they so wackily predicted has not come to pass. Witness the electronic society of Dr. Memory and the hologram president from "I Think We're All Bozos On This Bus" done in 1971. But here, with this story, we have another Firesign moment. Does anyone else besides me recall this song?
We're bringing the war back home
Where it ought to have been before!
We'll kill all the bees
And spiders and flies
And we wont play in iceboxes lying on their sides
We'll wash our hands after wee-wee.
And if we're a girl, before!
And we'll march,march,march, et cetera!
'Til we never do march no more!
Now, class, for our next Firesign hologram moment, we will discuss how to deal with oppressive troops on your own soil. It is called: "Shoes For Industry." As the descendant of Dutchmen, I am uniquely qualified to teach this subject.
New Poster Contest
I received a somewhat breathless email about the dangers of the Zetas and a reference to "the One Percent." This term has been used by law enforcement for years to describe lawless gangs. Although I'm totally lacking in media skills, I would like to see a poster with a representation of the Zetas, MS-13, Bloods, Crips, Aryan Brotherhood and Ku Klux Klan all together on one side (you could even throw in ATF and the FBI's Hostage Roasting Team), facing the overwhelming numbers of the armed citizenry in battle gear on the other. The caption: Hey, "One Percent." Meet the Three Percent.
Or words to that effect.
May we have the submissions please? Winner will get a signed copy of Absolved when out.
Or words to that effect.
May we have the submissions please? Winner will get a signed copy of Absolved when out.
Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner
For those of you who haven't yet, be sure and bookmark David Codrea's Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner and go there regularly. Like David's War on Guns and Peter's Western Rifle Shooters Association blog, it should be regular reading to broaden your Second Amendment knowledge base and sharpen your gun-rights debating skills. Here's today's post:
http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Cleveland-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2008m12d1-Im-gonna-sit-right-down-and-write-myself-a-letter
http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Cleveland-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2008m12d1-Im-gonna-sit-right-down-and-write-myself-a-letter
Guessing Game
Folks,
The real fellow upon whom the Jack Durer character in Absolved is based sent me this. It is worthy of repetition and consideration.
Who am I?
I was raised in one country but my father was born in another. I was not his only child. He fathered several children with a number of women.
I became very close to my mother because my father showed little interest in me. Then my mother died at an early age from cancer. Later in life, questions arose over my real name. My birth records were sketchy and no one was able to produce a reliable birth certificate.
I grew up practicing one faith, but converted to Christianity because this was widely accepted in my country. But I practiced non-traditional beliefs and did not follow mainstream Christianity.
I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career.
I wrote a book about my struggles growing up. It was clear to those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.
I became active in local politics when I was in my 30's and then burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office when I was in my 40's. I had a virtually non-existent resume, very little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization. Yet I was a powerful speaker who managed to draw incredibly large crowds during my public appearances.
At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign policy. I was critical of my country in the last war. But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country's economy. I had a plan on how we could do better. I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess.
Mine was a people's campaign. I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics and was able to gain widespread popular support. I offered the people the hope that together we could change our country and the world.
I spoke on behalf of the downtrodden including persecuted minorities such as Jews, but my actual views were not widely known until after I became my nation's leader. However; anyone could have easily learned what I really believed if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with. But they did not. Then I became the most powerful man in the world. And then the world learned the truth.
Who am I?
Think you know?
My first name is Adolf.
The real fellow upon whom the Jack Durer character in Absolved is based sent me this. It is worthy of repetition and consideration.
Who am I?
I was raised in one country but my father was born in another. I was not his only child. He fathered several children with a number of women.
I became very close to my mother because my father showed little interest in me. Then my mother died at an early age from cancer. Later in life, questions arose over my real name. My birth records were sketchy and no one was able to produce a reliable birth certificate.
I grew up practicing one faith, but converted to Christianity because this was widely accepted in my country. But I practiced non-traditional beliefs and did not follow mainstream Christianity.
I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career.
I wrote a book about my struggles growing up. It was clear to those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.
I became active in local politics when I was in my 30's and then burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office when I was in my 40's. I had a virtually non-existent resume, very little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization. Yet I was a powerful speaker who managed to draw incredibly large crowds during my public appearances.
At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign policy. I was critical of my country in the last war. But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country's economy. I had a plan on how we could do better. I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess.
Mine was a people's campaign. I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics and was able to gain widespread popular support. I offered the people the hope that together we could change our country and the world.
I spoke on behalf of the downtrodden including persecuted minorities such as Jews, but my actual views were not widely known until after I became my nation's leader. However; anyone could have easily learned what I really believed if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with. But they did not. Then I became the most powerful man in the world. And then the world learned the truth.
Who am I?
Think you know?
My first name is Adolf.
Alan Korwin on Brady plans
Firearms rights advocate Alan Korwin has a post here detailing Ma Brady and the Bunch gang's plans for our liberty and property. Among the salient points:
Push to end all private sales tops list: "Universal background checks for EVERY gun sold in this country."
And this:
Campaign talk about making the phony "assault-weapons" ban permanent has morphed into "enact a stronger, comprehensive federal ban on military-style assault weapons." They're drafting it right now (Congress doesn't draft these things, interest groups do and hand it to them on platters).
The only thing that could be "stronger" than Clinton's total ban on the sale of new products would be to go after existing firearms in civilian hands, which Clinton left alone. That would require contrabanding, outright confiscations or at a minimum, registration schemes. We'll have to wait for the bill to drop to see what they plan.
"Comprehensive," and "military-style" seem like code words for "more guns banned," far greater lists and categories than Clinton was able to get enacted. Normal capacity magazines like police use will undoubtedly be included, and if the past is prologue, the lists of guns will include standard household firearms the public has safely owned for decades, with little concern for criminals who misuse firearms (already strictly illegal and widely unenforced). Never forget -- "assault" is a type of behavior, not a type of hardware.
I've said it before and it bears repeating. If the Bradys get Obama to go after CRIMINAL MISUSE of firearms, they'll have widespread support from NRA types and the marksmanship community as a whole. If they instead go after private property the community already peaceably owns, they'll meet outraged resistance.
Push to end all private sales tops list: "Universal background checks for EVERY gun sold in this country."
And this:
Campaign talk about making the phony "assault-weapons" ban permanent has morphed into "enact a stronger, comprehensive federal ban on military-style assault weapons." They're drafting it right now (Congress doesn't draft these things, interest groups do and hand it to them on platters).
The only thing that could be "stronger" than Clinton's total ban on the sale of new products would be to go after existing firearms in civilian hands, which Clinton left alone. That would require contrabanding, outright confiscations or at a minimum, registration schemes. We'll have to wait for the bill to drop to see what they plan.
"Comprehensive," and "military-style" seem like code words for "more guns banned," far greater lists and categories than Clinton was able to get enacted. Normal capacity magazines like police use will undoubtedly be included, and if the past is prologue, the lists of guns will include standard household firearms the public has safely owned for decades, with little concern for criminals who misuse firearms (already strictly illegal and widely unenforced). Never forget -- "assault" is a type of behavior, not a type of hardware.
I've said it before and it bears repeating. If the Bradys get Obama to go after CRIMINAL MISUSE of firearms, they'll have widespread support from NRA types and the marksmanship community as a whole. If they instead go after private property the community already peaceably owns, they'll meet outraged resistance.
"Can Anyone Bring America Together in an Era of Division?"
In a time when the Talking Heads have all taken up the chant of "unity," Stuart Rothenberg pens a column of realistic caution. You will find it here
It includes this observation:
Beyond the media's contribution to divisiveness is the reality that November's exit poll continues to show deep divisions in the country -- divisions that will not be healed easily, no matter the president-elect's intentions.
The country's deepest and most-explosive division revolves around culture.
Four in 10 voters attend religious services at least weekly, and they went for John McCain, 55 percent to 43 percent. Almost an equal number of voters, 42 percent, said they attend religious services only occasionally, and they went for Obama, 57 percent to 42 percent. And among those voters who never attend religious services, Obama won by 37 points, 67 percent to 30 percent.
On guns, another longtime indicator of cultural values, divisions remain deep. A substantial 42 percent of Americans own guns, and they voted for McCain, 62 percent to 37 percent. Those voters who don't own a gun, 58 percent of all respondents in the exit poll, went for Obama by 32 points, 65 percent to 33 percent.
And concludes with this one:
In other words, America did not "come together" to elect Obama. The country was divided, and while most Americans now hope that he can solve the nation's problems, the new president's choices will invariably require him to make trade-offs -- trade-offs that are likely to anger some, maybe many, Americans.
While many Americans say they would like the country to come together, what they often really mean is that they would like others to change their views.
Obama has the oratorical skills to capture the public's attention, and the nation's pessimism about the future actually gives the president-elect a unique opportunity to rally support.
But unless our new president is smart enough and lucky enough to preside over the transformation of the American economy, and unless he places a higher priority on uniting the country, rather than pursing an ideological agenda, we are likely headed for more nastiness and division sooner or later.
It includes this observation:
Beyond the media's contribution to divisiveness is the reality that November's exit poll continues to show deep divisions in the country -- divisions that will not be healed easily, no matter the president-elect's intentions.
The country's deepest and most-explosive division revolves around culture.
Four in 10 voters attend religious services at least weekly, and they went for John McCain, 55 percent to 43 percent. Almost an equal number of voters, 42 percent, said they attend religious services only occasionally, and they went for Obama, 57 percent to 42 percent. And among those voters who never attend religious services, Obama won by 37 points, 67 percent to 30 percent.
On guns, another longtime indicator of cultural values, divisions remain deep. A substantial 42 percent of Americans own guns, and they voted for McCain, 62 percent to 37 percent. Those voters who don't own a gun, 58 percent of all respondents in the exit poll, went for Obama by 32 points, 65 percent to 33 percent.
And concludes with this one:
In other words, America did not "come together" to elect Obama. The country was divided, and while most Americans now hope that he can solve the nation's problems, the new president's choices will invariably require him to make trade-offs -- trade-offs that are likely to anger some, maybe many, Americans.
While many Americans say they would like the country to come together, what they often really mean is that they would like others to change their views.
Obama has the oratorical skills to capture the public's attention, and the nation's pessimism about the future actually gives the president-elect a unique opportunity to rally support.
But unless our new president is smart enough and lucky enough to preside over the transformation of the American economy, and unless he places a higher priority on uniting the country, rather than pursing an ideological agenda, we are likely headed for more nastiness and division sooner or later.
The Lessons of Mumbai
The Lessons of Mumbai:
Death Cults, the "Socialism of Imbeciles" and Refusing to Submit.
Mike Vanderboegh
1 December 2008
My family had just about the best Thanksgiving that could have been imagined. My son was home safely from his second tour of Iraq, my oldest daughter returned from a successful first semester at college and my youngest daughter even cleaned the first floor of the house. Of course the fact that she "cleaned it" all off and dumped the non-trash in the master bedroom did not detract from the joy of homecoming and the laughter that my wife and I had been missing these many months. It was truly a blessing.
Yet running through it all, in the back of our consciousness, reinforced every time we turned on the television or fired up a computer to answer our email was the tragedy of Mumbai. What can you say about such a monstrous act? That the jihadists are a medieval death cult? Certainly. They put the worshippers of Cali, the thugees, in the deep shade.
(For proof, if you need it, see "I was told to kill to my last breath': Captured terrorist's account of Mumbai massacre reveals plan was to kill 5,000" here)
Mark Stein observed that "Mumbai could happen just about anywhere." (See here.)
He observed:
What's relevant about the Mumbai model is that it would work in just about any second-tier city in any democratic state: Seize multiple soft targets, and overwhelm the municipal infrastructure to the point where any emergency plan will simply be swamped by the sheer scale of events. Try it in, say, Mayor Nagin's New Orleans. All you need is the manpower.
Indeed. This reminds us, if any of us needed reminding, of a few salient facts. The first is that the police, the Indian equivalent of David Codrea's "Only Ones" (see the War on Guns blog) refused to endanger themselves by firing on terrorists in the open who were even then gunning down innocents. Innocents, it must be added, who had been previously disarmed by local gun control laws. When seconds count, the police are minutes away, as the bumper sticker says. And if not, they're just as likely to be running in the opposite direction, or worse, setting up a "perimeter" to "secure" the crime scene while the dying inside proceeds apace. There is no more powerful argument for the armed citizenry's right to carry -- open or concealed.
(See here and here)
The second fact is that we are in a world war for western civilization that we are rapidly losing. It is once again 1940, only this time the United States does not stand to one side, gathering its wits and its strength to show up late and save the day. The United States is already a battleground in that war, which is more cultural than military, and we are losing here too.
Tim Rutten, writing in the LA Times here) reminds us:
Mumbai was selected not simply because it was a so-called soft target but because it is a symbol of modernity in the world's most populous democracy. The city the West first knew as Bombay is today the symbol of India's place in the modern world, as the center not only of banking, commerce and a burgeoning high-tech sector but one of the world's great film industries. (It's worth recalling that when the Taliban swept to power in Afghanistan, one of the first things it did was to close the cinemas and ban DVDs from Mumbai's Bollywood.) The places the killers struck -- luxury hotels, a railway station, a hospital for women and children, the Chabad Jewish center -- are all powerfully linked in the popular mind with the modern world. As the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy has argued, the jihadis have linked anti-Americanism, anti-British sentiment (the assumption is that London is Washington's lap dog) and anti-Semitic antagonism toward Zionism into a potent new ideology. To the extent it seems to find an increasingly sympathetic hearing in some fashionable sectors of the intellectual West, including the U.S., Levy correctly labels it "the socialism of imbeciles."
We shall see just exactly how much imbecility and how much socialism the Obamanoids will bring us. More than a little, I think. Indeed, if you're looking for a death cult with a proven track record, look no further than Obama and his liberal Democrat Party supporters. It is they who have countenanced the murder of fifty plus million unborn since Roe v. Wade. This body count makes Hitler look like an amateur, and Stalin and Mao look like pikers.
Which begs the question: Are we not already two different countries, the liberals and we traditional believers in free men and free markets? If we cannot agree on something so philosophically findamental as the sanctity of life, what else can we agree on? Have we not just been agreeing to disagree on when the next American civil war will break out?
We must admit that the reason we are losing the world war for western civilization both at home and abroad is because we have elected not to fight it. And we will continue losing it until we do.
Those of us who long for the restoration of the Founders' Republic are out of time. We cannot allow ourselves to pushed back from our God-given, inalienable liberties any longer. WE MUST REFUSE TO BE SUBJUGATED A THIN SALAMI SLICE AT A TIME. We must refuse to concede to our own enslavement. In the end, and it may come sooner rather than later, we must fight.
This is no small thing, to restore a republic after it has fallen into corruption. I have studied history for years and I cannot recall it ever happening. It may be that our task is impossible. Yet, if we do not try then how will we know it can't be done? And if we do not try, it most certainly won't be done. The Founders' Republic, and the larger war for western civilization, will be lost.
But I tell you this: We will not go gently into that bloody collectivist good night. Indeed, we will make with our defiance such a sound as ALL history from that day forward will be forced to note, even if they despise us in the writing of it.
And when we are gone, the scattered, free survivors hiding in the ruins of our once-great republic will sing of our deeds in forbidden songs, tending the flickering flame of individual liberty until it bursts forth again, as it must, generations later. We will live forever, like the Spartans at Thermopylae, in sacred memory.
And it could well be that no matter how long the odds, if we but have the will, we can and shall win.
Forgive me these somber thoughts during what should be a time of unsullied joy at our many blessings. I am compelled to say what I believe and not what you want to hear.
Death Cults, the "Socialism of Imbeciles" and Refusing to Submit.
Mike Vanderboegh
1 December 2008
My family had just about the best Thanksgiving that could have been imagined. My son was home safely from his second tour of Iraq, my oldest daughter returned from a successful first semester at college and my youngest daughter even cleaned the first floor of the house. Of course the fact that she "cleaned it" all off and dumped the non-trash in the master bedroom did not detract from the joy of homecoming and the laughter that my wife and I had been missing these many months. It was truly a blessing.
Yet running through it all, in the back of our consciousness, reinforced every time we turned on the television or fired up a computer to answer our email was the tragedy of Mumbai. What can you say about such a monstrous act? That the jihadists are a medieval death cult? Certainly. They put the worshippers of Cali, the thugees, in the deep shade.
(For proof, if you need it, see "I was told to kill to my last breath': Captured terrorist's account of Mumbai massacre reveals plan was to kill 5,000" here)
Mark Stein observed that "Mumbai could happen just about anywhere." (See here.)
He observed:
What's relevant about the Mumbai model is that it would work in just about any second-tier city in any democratic state: Seize multiple soft targets, and overwhelm the municipal infrastructure to the point where any emergency plan will simply be swamped by the sheer scale of events. Try it in, say, Mayor Nagin's New Orleans. All you need is the manpower.
Indeed. This reminds us, if any of us needed reminding, of a few salient facts. The first is that the police, the Indian equivalent of David Codrea's "Only Ones" (see the War on Guns blog) refused to endanger themselves by firing on terrorists in the open who were even then gunning down innocents. Innocents, it must be added, who had been previously disarmed by local gun control laws. When seconds count, the police are minutes away, as the bumper sticker says. And if not, they're just as likely to be running in the opposite direction, or worse, setting up a "perimeter" to "secure" the crime scene while the dying inside proceeds apace. There is no more powerful argument for the armed citizenry's right to carry -- open or concealed.
(See here and here)
The second fact is that we are in a world war for western civilization that we are rapidly losing. It is once again 1940, only this time the United States does not stand to one side, gathering its wits and its strength to show up late and save the day. The United States is already a battleground in that war, which is more cultural than military, and we are losing here too.
Tim Rutten, writing in the LA Times here) reminds us:
Mumbai was selected not simply because it was a so-called soft target but because it is a symbol of modernity in the world's most populous democracy. The city the West first knew as Bombay is today the symbol of India's place in the modern world, as the center not only of banking, commerce and a burgeoning high-tech sector but one of the world's great film industries. (It's worth recalling that when the Taliban swept to power in Afghanistan, one of the first things it did was to close the cinemas and ban DVDs from Mumbai's Bollywood.) The places the killers struck -- luxury hotels, a railway station, a hospital for women and children, the Chabad Jewish center -- are all powerfully linked in the popular mind with the modern world. As the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy has argued, the jihadis have linked anti-Americanism, anti-British sentiment (the assumption is that London is Washington's lap dog) and anti-Semitic antagonism toward Zionism into a potent new ideology. To the extent it seems to find an increasingly sympathetic hearing in some fashionable sectors of the intellectual West, including the U.S., Levy correctly labels it "the socialism of imbeciles."
We shall see just exactly how much imbecility and how much socialism the Obamanoids will bring us. More than a little, I think. Indeed, if you're looking for a death cult with a proven track record, look no further than Obama and his liberal Democrat Party supporters. It is they who have countenanced the murder of fifty plus million unborn since Roe v. Wade. This body count makes Hitler look like an amateur, and Stalin and Mao look like pikers.
Which begs the question: Are we not already two different countries, the liberals and we traditional believers in free men and free markets? If we cannot agree on something so philosophically findamental as the sanctity of life, what else can we agree on? Have we not just been agreeing to disagree on when the next American civil war will break out?
We must admit that the reason we are losing the world war for western civilization both at home and abroad is because we have elected not to fight it. And we will continue losing it until we do.
Those of us who long for the restoration of the Founders' Republic are out of time. We cannot allow ourselves to pushed back from our God-given, inalienable liberties any longer. WE MUST REFUSE TO BE SUBJUGATED A THIN SALAMI SLICE AT A TIME. We must refuse to concede to our own enslavement. In the end, and it may come sooner rather than later, we must fight.
This is no small thing, to restore a republic after it has fallen into corruption. I have studied history for years and I cannot recall it ever happening. It may be that our task is impossible. Yet, if we do not try then how will we know it can't be done? And if we do not try, it most certainly won't be done. The Founders' Republic, and the larger war for western civilization, will be lost.
But I tell you this: We will not go gently into that bloody collectivist good night. Indeed, we will make with our defiance such a sound as ALL history from that day forward will be forced to note, even if they despise us in the writing of it.
And when we are gone, the scattered, free survivors hiding in the ruins of our once-great republic will sing of our deeds in forbidden songs, tending the flickering flame of individual liberty until it bursts forth again, as it must, generations later. We will live forever, like the Spartans at Thermopylae, in sacred memory.
And it could well be that no matter how long the odds, if we but have the will, we can and shall win.
Forgive me these somber thoughts during what should be a time of unsullied joy at our many blessings. I am compelled to say what I believe and not what you want to hear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)