ND: Building Small Teams – Developing Combat-Effective Resistance Elements

More excellence from Mountain Guerrilla.

Two freedom fighters can be an impressive team – if they train, work, plan, and execute both as a team and within their realistic capabilities.

Audacity and realism.

You need both.

Work hard.

Stay alive.

Keep fighting.

Let’s win.

12 responses to “ND: Building Small Teams – Developing Combat-Effective Resistance Elements

  1. Cohesion is the bonding of small-unit members as a close-knit group, in order to enhance the individual members’ commitment to the group. Fundamental to the concept of unit cohesion is the ability and willingness of every individual member to subordinate his individuality to adhere to group norms. The individual MUST feel a sense of responsibility to the group and be willing to submit his pesonal concerns to the imperative of the group’s welfare (this is not “communism,” as one anarcho-capitalist argued to me several months ago. Nor is it “slavery.” It is logic and common sense, tempered with a healthy dose of experience. There is a reason I do not possess a great deal of respect for the combat survivability of most anarcho-capitalist “survivalists.” –J.M.)

    When the individual voluntarily sacrifices himself for the group, it is “family” and “community”. When the individual is directed to sacrifice himself for the group by another at gunpoint, it is “communism” and “slavery”. This author tells you he’s doing family when he’s really doing slavery, and dares you to object to the gun he points at you later. The Confederacy was just as much about political slavery as the Union, the choice they offered was between planters or industrialists as your slaveowner.

    If in some small-unit retreat exercise you are told that yesterday the tax collectors brought their truck to your basement to “contribute” your preps to the collective, you know you’ve been ruined by politics again. Especially if the retreat has a cut off from outside, church lock-in, brainwashy sort of feel.

    The willingness to maintain one’s individual mental boundaries against slavery in the face of social pressure is the key to freedom. Submit once and you’re probably toast. Expect to take a continual series of small losses, and keep your eye on avoiding the big loss.

  2. Let us not forget how effective (terror wise) that John Allen Muhammad, and his teenage accomplice Lee Boyd Malvo were. Imagine the ensuing havoc if there were a dozen 2 man teams like that targeting legitimate OpFor targets.

  3. You will have to pick or vett your group(s) with care. This will be especially true in small towns/communities where you have an established power structure which is usually made up of “conservatives” and other local civic/religious groups. These folks, in my experience, are clueless, talk too much, and are easy for the Leviathan to turn with promises of freebies. Re-rent RED DAWN, for some pointers. Keep prepping, ladies and gentlemen.

  4. The enemy’s dedicated tactical units constantly train and push themselves, viewing themselves as some imagined warrior elite. Just as well since the rest of the enemy would collapse in an hour of honest hard work.

    We have been brought up to be soft on purpose-to allow these tactical types to frighten us into submission and by extension every softie bureaucrat drone that buzzes about to extort from you. Yes the ideal is to become hard but if you go hard too steeply too soon you risk discouraging yourself and injury-I know someone who had been unemployed for years, got a gig doing construction, ripped up the muscles in his left arm and hasn’t been able to even work out until recently and even THEN is having to go slow lest he aggravate the injury.

    Answer: we do what we can.

  5. Interesting…

    Two-man teams? That has possibilities.

    You know, ND correctly critiques the organizational tendencies of recent and current militia groups. There is an almost irresistible tendency to grow the group large and, invariably, there’ll be a FED informant within the bunch. (And remember, folks: the guy offering to obtain machine guns, explosives, or agitating for elimination of officials is the traitor in your midst.) Anywa, the motivation of to grow the militia is predictable. Part of this is the vanity of the “leadership” of such groups — grown boys who want to play soldier, create a militia out of thin air, and then declare themselves “Lieut. Col. Jones” or “Col. Smith” of the 1st Road-To-Hell Northern Militia, or some such. Part of it is the natural desire to feel as if there are plenty of others who share your convictions and are willing to arm themselves to that purpose. There is not only strength in numbers, there is also comfort.

    But ND has made me re-think the whole thing. Militia creation has generally been a top-down affair; ND’s two-man team concept would reverse course and offers a path forward for a ground-up militia structure. It would certainly improve the odds against being narc’ed out to the Feebs. I wonder what it might portend for urban areas?

    This requires additional thought.

  6. Anon,
    I get the distinct impression that you would consider yourself an anarcho-capitlaist/free-market voluntarist/etc. Am I off the mark? I agree with you, philosophically, that freedom is a state-of-mind and the only loyalty we ultimately owe is to ourselves, families, and communities. However, this:

    “When the individual voluntarily sacrifices himself for the group, it is “family” and “community”. When the individual is directed to sacrifice himself for the group by another at gunpoint, it is “communism” and “slavery”.” Is ignorant of reality. I’ve discussed this subject in-depth with a large number of very committed anarcho-capitalists. All agree that a “resistance/guerrilla” element should not need leaders. That’s fucking stupid, ESPECIALLY amongst anarcho-capitalists who need to consider the individual cost-benefit ratio of any particular action. Someone has to stand up and say, “I’ll take responsibility for the actions of this group.” In order for a small-unit (or any group size for that matter) to be effective in stressful scenarios, there has to be some degree of willing subordination to the group ethic, including the willingness to sacrifice self if demanded by the needs of the group. The key point that anarcho-capitalists overlook is 1) by voluntarily joining the group and enjoying the supposed/proposed benefits of that association, you owe the group an obligation to fulfill its needs. 2) if no one is willing to stand up and do what needs to be done, unless it’s got an immediately obvious beneficial result for them individually, there’s not only no reason for the group to exist, but no way that the group can succeed.

    People need to wake up, decide what their goals are, and what they are willing to do and/or sacrifice in order to achieve those goals. If self-sacrifice is not something they are willing to suffer for the success if heir goal, they should probably go back to sitting on the couch, bitching about their loss of liberty under the existance of any sort of governance, and whining to all of their anarcho-capitalist buddies on the internet, about how there’s nothing that can be done to resist the Leviathan.


  7. alan w. mullenax

    Still haven’t found the one guy for a two man team let alone fire team, squad, or platoon.

  8. MG I agree with your comment but fail to see why that’s self-sacrifice. Virtually any team of any kind needs management, but I don’t think that means the managed are “sacrificing.” In the context of the group, everyone’s working for the success of the group, right? A chain of command doesn’t imply that the grunts are sacrificing for the leaders, does it? Seems to me that everyone’s just working together to get the job done, the job that they each want to get done. Some will lead; some will follow. There’s no sacrifice there; that’s just common sense. Granted that in a tactical situation, there’s more on the line, but personally I’d prefer to be with those who /aren’t/ sacrificing and prefer to win for their own sake. Basically I’m just saying that if it’s for their goal, then it’s not a sacrifice. Am I wrong?

    As to “anarcho-capitalism,” I see no reason to suspect that the purchase of evil would be any better than the vote for evil, though I suppose it would be more efficient. But that doesn’t tell us much. I’m pretty sure Newt would be more efficient than Barack, but I don’t know if that makes him better or worse either.

  9. Jim.,
    I think it’ a matter of semantics. I’ve had a lot of self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalists/free-market voluntarists try to educate me that a following a leader, at any level, is slavery. When I discuss self-sacrifice in this context, it’s a matter of, “Who’s going to be willing to charge the machine-gun nest?” It’s not possibly in their personal best interest, since, with very few exceptions, it’s going to be a suicide task. But…it may very well be necessary to the achievement of the group goals…a true anarcho-capitalist isn’t going to see the cost-benefit equation being in his favor. Someone who belongs to a small-group with the necessary unit cohesion however, will overcome his personal interests, even unto death, to ensure that the group succeeds, and his comrades survive. That level of devotion can only occur when the team has developed a level of cohesion far beyond what is typically seen in the civilian world, except in family units. In the military however, for all it’s flaws as a cultural model, it’s a relatively common level of cohesion in certain units/MOSs….My thesis would be, in order for a resistance element small-unit to be effective, they MUST develop that level of cohesion.
    As the man said, “We’re all dead in the long run.” How do you want to be remembered?


  10. Here is an illustration of the difference:

    In freedom:
    Leader: follower, charge that pillbox and take that hill.

    Follower: I volunteer to do it because this objective is important to the mission which I’ve accepted, the safety of my buddies here and ultimately my family back home. I believe that you, the leader I have chosen to follow, usually has good ideas even if I don’t see the point immediately
    / OR / you gotta be kidding, you charge it or come up with a better plan. Free people are always free to quit their jobs, and in quitting in the heat of this battle I don’t owe you squat except our prenegotiated period of quiet about military secrets.

    In slavery:
    Officer: soldier, charge that pillbox and take that hill. If you don’t do it, I’ll shoot you with the .45 on my hip that is a reminder of my slave ownership of you. If I miss you with my .45 and you go AWOL someone will eventually catch up to you and punish you, which we’ve convinced you that you deserve because we said you were “drafted”, or we convinced you that you sold yourself into slavery to the Army when you were age 18 and didn’t know slavery was wrong.

    Someone has to stand up and say, “I’ll take responsibility for the actions of this group.”

    One human being cannot take responsibility for another sane, competent adult human being as strongly as you mean it; to do so would mean the managed adult was legally a child. Voting does not absolve liability. Hitler cannot take more than one human’s share of the blame for the death camps. The fault is equally shared with the 90% of German adults who voted to make him dictator.

    • “Hitler cannot take more than one human’s share of the blame for the death camps. The fault is equally shared with the 90% of German adults who voted to make him dictator.”

      Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?
      That may be the stupidest thing I’ve ever read on a FreeFor blog.

  11. Thanks for the answers. Maybe it’s just semantics, but I doubt it. The “cohesion” point seems obvious to me…a battle situation requires battle strategy, a battle philosophy if you will. I just don’t think it’s a sacrifice; it’s the manifestation of a non-sacrificial choice. OTOH I can see how some guys couldn’t get there unless they believed it was for some higher cause than themselves. Me, I never had that problem…I wouldn’t want my life unless it were mine to live. In my life, goals are chosen to be achieved.

    “…a true anarcho-capitalist isn’t going to see the cost-benefit equation being in his favor.”

    Ha. I’d say that’s one of the problems of the purely economic foundations of A-C; it tends to ignore wider philosophical issues and create its own “out-of-context absolute.” In truth, life itself is not our highest value, but the life we wish to live.