The Militia Movement And Civilian-Based Defense
Opposite Approaches to Security?

An apparently growing number of U.S. citizens fears that its leaders in
Washington are trampling the Declaration of Independence, the U.S.
Constitution and the Bill of Rights by legislating away individual freedoms,
by transferring sovereignty to the United Nations and especially by
conspiring to restrict the right of citizens to bear arms. They feel a need
to acquire weapons, ammunition and field supplies to prepare - with trusted
fellow citizens - for the day when they will have to fight. They say they
have the right and moreover the patriotic duty, to form themselves into
militias which are prepared to challenge a government that is becoming the
enemy - to challenge it with armed force.

While defense by means of an armed citizens' militia might seem at first
glance to be the complete opposite of the idea of nonviolent, civilian-based
defense, there may, in fact, be some common ground to explore. I will try to
begin that exploration in this article, and also point out some matters of
concern about the militia movement.

The militia movement
At the time of this writing there appears to be no definitive report on the
size of the militia movement in the United States. It is possible that many
U.S. citizens are not even aware of its existence, although articles on it
have appeared in at least two popular news magazines; U.S. News and World
Report (August 15, 1994) and Time (December 19, 1994). Christopher John
Farley, writing in Time, gives the following assessment, "...Most experts
agree that the groups are multiplying and their membership is expanding,
though estimates vary.  Chip Berlet, who studies militias for Political
Research Associates, a Massachusetts think tank, says militia units exist in
thirty states, including large organizations in Michigan, Montana, and Ohio,
and he suspects there may be units in ten other states. Although there may be
hundreds of thousands of people who identify with the patriot movement,
Berlet estimates that only about 16,000 people have actually joined the armed
militias."

Other writers imply a much larger membership for the militias. Soldier of
Fortune correspondent, Mike Williams, writes, "Though no exact figure of
nationwide membership exists, Larry Pratt, president of Gun Owners of
America, wrote over a year ago that he knew of more than 100 organized
citizen militias. These ranged from the superbly structured Michigan Militia,
which alone has 12,000 members, to small networks made up of a dozen
like-minded friends. (Soldier of Fortune, April, 1995, 'Citizen Militias...
Necessary to the security of a Free state...')."

Why do U.S. citizens feel a need to arm themselves? Apparently, the April
1993 siege of the Waco, Texas compound of the Branch Davidians has been one
major reason. Eighty-five Davidians, including many children, died in the
siege by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and the FBI.
Militia proponents see that action as an example of government turning on its
own people. The passage of the Brady Bill, outlawing certain kinds of guns in
the United States, is said to be another major impetus for the formation of
citizen militias. Legislators who supported the bill are considered traitors.
Militia proponents see the anti-gun legislation as a threat to the right of
citizens to keep arms.

Videos explain threat
One can gain some sense of the recruitment effort being made for the militias
by viewing the home videos made available by proponents of the militia
movement. These videos explain threats which they allege exist and urge
viewers to arm themselves. One such video circulated in the last couple of
years is entitled America in Peril.  The Christian Underground Hotline (P.O.
Box 339 Adrian, MI 49221) lists the video in its catalogue of over 200
"suppressed and hard-to-find, politically incorrect videos."

The catalogue claims that a million copies of America in Peril  are in
circulation. A second film, America in Peril II is also offered. In both
videos the speaker identifies himself as "Mark from Michigan" - a former Army
intelligence analyst. He states that his purpose is "to explain the
threatened hostile takeover of the United States by the United Nations
military forces, to discuss the direction in which this nation is moving, and
to cover the operations of the new world order in the United States." In the
catalogue Mark is identified as Mark Koernke. Mark's message to his viewers
is that we are in great danger. U.N. combat forces are already training
inside the United States. U.S. forces are being sent abroad under U.N.
auspices as a diversion. The primary purpose of ''Desert Storm" (during which
showing of U.S. flags and uniform insignia was discouraged) was to determine
whether the American people would accept the new world order. The Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is alleged to have far too much power. Of
3,600 employees, only about sixty are actively concerned with disasters; the
others are said to concern themselves with how to administer the country
after the future take-over.

Mark condemns the governtment's suppression of the Branch Davidians in Texas.
Attorney General Janet Reno is also condemned. Mark speaks of a government
conspiracy to disarm the people in preparation for the new world order and
the dominance of the United Nations. He urges his viewers to buy arms,
ammunition and supplies before it is too late. He suggests organizing
militias from below by finding a few others one can trust and forming small
units which can be incorporated into something larger.

Throughout America in Peril parts I and II Mark appeals to the duty of real
patriots to be armed and ready. His final words in Part I are, "God bless the
U.S. Death to the new world order. The republic shall prevail. Goodbye." At
the beginning of Part Il, Mark leads his audience in the pledge of allegiance
to the flag. To the concluding words of the pledge, "with liberty and justice
for all", he adds emphatically, "and we will fight for it."

The people's teeth
A common theme in the literature on militias is that citizens' access to guns
must be preserved at all costs, and government must have a healthy fear of
the people. Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America,
expressed this theme in his article in the March 1995 issue of Guns & Ammo,
entitled "Firearms: The People's Liberty Teeth." He concludes his article
with these paragraphs, "When a government no longer fears the people,
atrocities become possible such as the murder of members of Randy Weaver's
family by U.S. marshals and FBI agents. Emboldened by the lack of resistance
when murdering women and children in Idaho, the Feds moved to Waco, Texas,
and slaughtered nearly 100 people.

One can only speculate had there been an effective militia in Naples, Idaho,
that could have mobilised after the U.S. Marshal murdered Sammy Weaver by
shooting him in the back. Had the Feds feared a militia as active as the one
in Lexington on April 9, 1775, it is entirely possible that the massacre of
Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, on April 19, 1993, would never have
occurred."

Common ground with CBD?
Proponents of nonviolent, civilian-based defense have given serious thought
to the same problem that is of such concern to those who advocate citizen
militias. We too are very aware that governmental power in a nation can
sometimes be seized illegally by individuals or factions not having the
consent of the people. Such a future possibility should not be completely
ruled out for the United States, despite its long history of stability and
rule by law. Militia proponents deserve credit for pointing out a possible
deficiency in U.S. security: its lack of a defense (short of civil war)
against usurpation of power from within.

Nonviolent civilian-based defense has been suggested as a policy that might
serve to deter not only aggression from abroad but also attempts to usurp
power within a nation. The defense, in both cases, would require that the
citizens of the nation, along with their organizations and institutions, be
prepared in advance to withhold cooperation from an aggressor in a variety of
nonviolent but effective ways. That very preparedness would be designed to,
first of all, deter the enemy's aggressive behavior. Should that fail,
planned massive withholding of cooperation would be expected to lead to the
defeat of the enemy.

The establishment and continuation of any government depends ultimately on
the consent and cooperation of the governed. If a comprehensive strategy
could be devised to withhold that consent and cooperation nonviolently, then
bloodshed and destruction of property might be avoided. An armed defense
would not be needed.

Unfortunately, a nonviolent civilian-based defense plan to deter illegal
seizure of the U.S. Government is little more than a concept at the present
time - probably because few believe the level of threat merits the effort. On
the other hand, nothing I have read in the literature on citizen militias
leads me to think that a comprehensive, feasible plan exists for a citizens'
armed defense against such a takeover either, even though militia proponents
think such a defense is urgently needed. We share common ground in the lack
of an overall plan for what we advocate.

Proponents of nonviolent civilian-based defense and armed citizen militias
also have in common a feeling of insecurity when all of a country's capacity
for the use of coercive force is invested in the government. Gun-owners and
those who join militias see their weapons as equalisers - their insurance
policy against the government with its reservoir of coercive force.
Proponents of civilian-based defense, on the other hand, do not want to
depend on guns because they think citizens can more safely exercise coercive
force by uniting in planned, nonviolent resistance to illegitimate
government. (Some feel that using this kind of coercive force is also more
compatible with their religious beliefs about the wrongness of killing or
hurting even enemies.)

While we advocate different kinds of coercive force, we agree that citizens
do need to retain the capacity to use coercive force. If dialogue and
political action fail to provide relief, citizens must be able to resist
injustice forcefully.

Self-confidence
There is one additional area of common ground between advocates of
nonviolent, civilian-based defense and armed citizen militias. Faced with the
awesome power invested in government, both the militia patriot and the
civilian-based defense patriot have self-confidence. They have the ability to
be stubborn - to be unyielding. They know that no power can rule for long if
the people don't accept it. If they decide to resist, they know that they -
along with their fellow citizens - can think of countless creative ways to do
it. The power of the people is even more awesome than the power of
government.

Some matters of concern
While feeling some kinship with the militia movement, I also am concerned
about some aspects of it. My first impression is that it shows little respect
for honest cooperation between nations. Anything done across international
boundaries, especially through the United Nations, is too glibly passed off
as some kind of conspiracy to create a world government. In the more
populated world of tomorrow, much more global cooperation and planning will
be needed, not less. Is extreme patriotism blinding some to the truth that
the human race is one, and that the common good of all people must be
considered? Many assertions and charges made by militia proponents seem to be
made without realisation of how serious they are and that they require
substantiation at the time they are made. Presentation of the evidence is
weak. Some presentations seem designed to excite and inflame. None of this is
conducive to clear thinking about the threats that are alleged. When the
presentation isn't clearly objective and calm one is forced to wonder whether
paranoia is involved or whether someone is profiting financially from it. I
also have the impression that proponents of the citizen militia are too quick
to call people to arms. I hope they give more support to the normal political
process than their literature suggests. To issue an urgent call for people to
arm themselves, to store arms and ammunition and to go into training
immediately is a very serious step and can hardly be justified at the present
time. Alex McColl, writing in Soldier of Fortune about the defeat of
congressional "gun grabbers" in the last election, seems to agree, "The
election results show that orderly electoral democracy works, and that there
is no need and no justification for armed resistance to legally elected
authority. The blessings of liberty, civility, legality and order far
outweigh the inconveniences and hardships of putting up with whatever Clinton
has in store for us is what remains of his tenure in the White House. Only
when the tyranny gets to the point of suppressing the right to criticise the
holders of power, or seriously interferes with the electoral process, is
there any justification for an appeal to arms. A civil war is a dreadfully
destructive tragedy. Ask the people of Bosnia, Sudan, Cambodia or Lebanon."
(Command Guidance, Feb '95).

Militias empower participants...
In a way, the rise of the militia movement in the United States is
understandable. The United States is physically big and heavily armed. The
country is connected in many complex ways with every part of the world.
Government is big and the bureaucracy is big. The individual citizen is small
and is likely to feel rather powerless and unable to have much impact on what
happens in the country. Powerlessness breeds frustration and anger. The
frustrated and angry citizen sees that the government has all the coercive
force at its disposal - all, that is, except for the guns that citizens have
a right to keep. That right then begins to seem very precious. The idea of an
armed citizen militia to "watchdog" the "big brother" government also becomes
appealing. Add to all of the above the enjoyment of guns that so many people
have - a fascination similar to their love of cars - and it isn't too hard to
understand the appeal of the militia movement.

...but create new problems
Nevertheless, when citizens arm themselves to "watchdog" the authorities,
they create a new problem. The regular armed security personnel of the
nation, who have been deputised by the people, have their job to do and it is
a somewhat dangerous job. When they see others arming themselves outside the
established system, they are bound to be ill-at-ease. They cannot be sure how
these newly armed groups will act nor how much bloodshed would result if an
order were give to disarm and disband them. When two groups face off with
arms, the level of tension and distrust sky-rockets.

As I understand it, the militias hope that their capacity for using armed
force will serve as a kind of low-key threat, a balance to the armed forces
and other law enforcement agencies of the country. Those who control the
armed forces and law enforcement agencies will be on notice that abuses will
not be tolerated. Little or no bloodshed should be necessary, and certainly
not civil war. But is this, perhaps, an overly optimistic view? Who can
predict what will actually happen? Is it not just as likely that fear and
suspicion will increase, misunderstandings will occur and hostilities will
break out?

CBD: The benefits without the problems
Nonviolent civilian-based defense would be unlikely to create the dilemma
described above. If a policy of civilian-based defense were adopted, no arms
would be involved on the part of the people, but they would still have at
their disposal a powerful coercive force, should it be needed: their
preplanned, organized non-cooperation. However, the authorities and their
agents - the armed forces and law-enforcement agencies - would know they are
not in physical danger. The level of fear and distrust would thus be much
lower. The likelihood of bloodshed and destruction would be remote.

When citizens feel that their own government and law-enforcement agencies are
abusing the people or taking unconstitutional actions, there are several very
practical nonviolent steps which can be taken, each at its appropriate time.
Recourse to armed coercive force should not be needed.

The first step is to determine the truth of an alleged abuse or illegitimate
action. A simple public meeting to discuss an issue can usually clarify
matters, as long as all points of view are represented and the accused person
or agency is given a chance to explain what is being done. In complicated
cases, filing suit in court is another way to get at the truth/ legality of
what is happening and it may also provide relief if one's allegation is
sustained.

A second step is to take political action of one kind or another to have
appropriate corrective legislation passed. One can also organize voter
support for politicians who will do what is right.

A third - more drastic - step is to organize a popular nonviolent struggle
(fight) with the authorities, if it is felt that the political process or
court system has failed to preserve justice. A whole range of nonviolent
tactics (demonstrations, strikes, sit-ins, etc.) can be planned as part of an
overall strategy to coerce the authorities to act as they should on behalf of
the people. The strategy may or may not require nonviolent civil disobedience
to achieve its purpose.

Finally, a campaign of civilian-based defense can be planned as a course of
action if the legitimate government has actually been overthrown or if that
is judged to be a future possibility. The objective would be to prepare a
major part of society to withhold the cooperation the usurper needs to be
able to govern.

New idea for militia proponents
The idea of nonviolent, civilian-based defense will probably be new to most
militia proponents. Hopefully, it will be considered carefully. If we are
really at the stage in the United States where defensive measures are needed
to ensure the preservation of legitimate government and the Bill of Rights,
then it is important that we devise the best possible defense strategy, the
one which will be the most effective and least destructive for the people. We
should then consider, side-by-side, the potential strengths and weaknesses of
nonviolent civilian-based defense, defense by armed militias and any and all
other strategies which might be proposed.
Mel Beckman



Civilian-Based Defense
is the twelve-page (approx) quarterly newsletter of the Civilian-based
Defense Association (CBDA): an organisation dedicated to providing
information about civilian-based defence (CBD) 'as an alternative policy for
national defense' as well as news, opinion and research about it. Each issue
contains a variety of material. This includes reports on the Association's
activities, theoretical articles, analyses of the efforts being made to
introduce nonviolent forms of defence in different countries around the world
and a list of recently received publications on nonviolent struggle and
nonviolent forms of defence. Civilian-based Defense is edited by Mel Beckman
and published by the Civilian-Based Defense Association, P.O. Box 92, Omaha,
Nebraska 68101-0092, USA. An annual subscription (about three issues) costs
$US15 ($US25 for two years).