Paratus

Preparing for Clandestine Operations

So far, we've decided that armed conflicts during the collapse of the Constitution and it's culture are inevitable. We've decided that we are going to fight to maintain/restore the Constitution. No choice there for me, I've sworn to do that several times. We've also surmised that we may be opposed by various usurpers of un-Constitutional authority, WHO WE ARE NOT GOING TO IDENTIFY IN ADVANCE, for the obvious reasons that to do so comprises a substantial step towards preparing an armed rebellion (if, indeed, those who we would fight are in authority. There is every chance that they wouldn't be, but would be adopting a mantle of authority that they improperly assumed). There is also the significant possibility that the conflict would be started by armed criminal gangs which pre-existed the emergency that set off the conflict. We are familiar with those gangs: they are the race-based gangs like the Crips, Bloods, MS13 and subsets of drug-distribution cartels and "posses". They are all evil to the core and armed to the teeth, and have never been properly suppressed by governmental authority. I see them as opportunistic.

As we saw in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, these gangs made use of the civil emergency to try to establish more "gang turf", mostly at each other's expense, but they were extreme in their use of firepower, even engaging the National Guard in firefights. The government did an ineffectual job of combatting the gangs, with the predictable result that after the city was dried out, they ran rampant in orgies of murder and looting.

Take the social upheaval of Katrina in New Orleans, and apply it nationally in any of several scenarios  for a national emergency. The battles with the street thugs will have to be fought, and neither the local policing agencies nor the National Guard or even Federal troops will have any success against the gangs, simply because their rules of engagement prevent them from taking effective and decisive action.

Citizen militias, on the other hand, if appropriately trained and briefed, are quite capable of dealing decisively with the street gangs. Decisively as in terminating their operations, with great prejudice.

It occurred to me that considering the tactics to be used against such gangs is not improper, since such operations would be in the Constitutional interest, and the only Government interests to be injured are the egos of the police and National Guard commands which will be shown up to be ineffective and not adaptable to those circumstances of conflict.

Success against the gangs, and seizing the opportunity to eliminate them as a social and criminal menace will go a long way towards re-establishing the concept of citizen-militias, and re-establishing the idea that it is the citizens' job to keep their neighborhoods safe, not the government's.

Let's set a scenario.

Tactics for the coming Conflict

“There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time.”

“Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

-Lt. General George S. Patton.

Now we look at what we will have to do in the field to win the armed conflict. Rather, we will look at how the LEADER of a fighting team will deploy his people to accomplish his goals.

What are the goals going to be? I refer again to Gen. Patton's advice above: kill people. When you KILL the enemy, you remove them from the field of battle, forever. If you "create casualties", you only do that temporarily.

Your first assignment is rent the fine movie "Patriot", which came out about 6 or 8 years ago. That movie shows the use of tactical surprise and ambush to good advantage, but it also shows a huge advantage in the Colonials' STRATEGIC thinking. That was to decimate the British officer corps, early on in the conflict. British troops were never trained to operate in small groups, and the direct leadership of their officers was required for them to operate at all. The Colonials quickly learned to kill the officers first.

Our FreeFor groups are going to operate the same way that the Colonials did. We are going to decapitate the leadership of the enemy. That will be Tactical Principle One.

Tactical Principle Two will be to never attack offensively without planning, gathering intelligence and briefing the tactics to be used. FreeFor fighters don't shoot from the hip OR the lip. When we take the field, we will be as sure of tactical victory as we can be.

Tactical Principle Three will be Avenue of Escape. In the coming conflict, the FreeFor will, initially, be few in number. If we take the field and immediately get defeated in detail, it's all over, and we might as well not have taken the field in the first place. We want to make a difference. We will be trying to force a return to the Constitution, and to do that, we will have to apply persistent force successfully over time. That means that we can't be suicide squads. Suicide squads have their place in asymmetrical warfare (unequal sides fighting), but we don't have the luxury of them, and probably couldn't put enough people together to generate much victory by their use, anyway. No Jihad for the FreeFor. ALL our missions will have a planned result of getting the fighting forces properly disengaged, either at the successful outcome of battle, but also if unsuccessful. We plan to live to fight again.

Tactical Principle Four will be Standard of Preparation. When we plan for a team operation, the members of the team will be prepared to carry it out successfully. We won't be planning any half-assed attacks "just to bloody their noses". We aren't going to risk fighters to make a statement. We will risk fighters to kill enemy, preferable enemy who count bigger than most.

Let's recap:

• Tactical Principle One: Decapitate the leadership of the Enemy.
• Tactical Principle Two: Do not attack without planning, gathering intelligence and briefing all.
• Tactical Principle Three: Avenue of Escape.
• Tactical Principle Four: Standard of Preparation

Your second assignment is to commit these four principles to memory and be prepared to explain them IN YOUR WORDS.

Who is the enemy? I am not going to tell you that at this point, because to do so would be a "substantial step" towards a criminal law violation. Make no mistake about it, when the FreeFor teams take the field, we will be considered outlaws. The government we are trying to change will try to change us by putting Prison Blues on our backs at the least. When the time comes, it will be morally right to assume that risk. IT IS NOT MORALLY RIGHT TO DO SO NOW. All we can do at this point is assume that the forces we will be fighting with will represent our government which will have gone horribly off it's Constitutional track. We may also be fighting elements that the government actually fights (or should be fighting) now, such as street or terror gangs.

So, for our goal of getting ready for this conflict, we will have to look at how those forces would be deployed against us TODAY, as well as make some educated guesses as to how they might have changed by the same process that took them horribly off their Constitutional track.

How does government project power now?

They do it two ways, by edict and by direct force. The edicts are the laws given to us by lawmakers and Executive orders and by judicial order. We currently obey those laws, because it is our duty as citizens to do so, and we still follow all the rules of citizenship. The government can project authority by direct force, that is, by having agents go out and force the will of the government on us. This method is only supposed to be employed when the first method, acceptance of rules and orders, fails.

We have all seen examples of government force that was applied too soon. Waco and Ruby Ridge are examples that come to mind. My evaluation is that this sort of force will become increasingly common, and it will actually provide a tipping point for opening of hostilities against the government. There is degree to consider, though. The question for us is to fix a reasonable point in our minds as to when the use of government force against citizens has become excessive enough that rejecting that force and countering it with our own becomes a moral imperative.

Currently, we have the luxury of freedom of expression, although the mere fact that I express these ideas puts me on some watch list, I'm sure. While we have that freedom, it behooves us to discuss and debate where the tipping point will be for us. It also behooves us to assume that such a tipping point WILL COME, and prepare for the conflict that comes after.

This series will continue.