TOWARDS A MEEK MILITIA
by Peter J. Mancus, Attorney at Law
June 27, 2001
I will address some topics in chronological order. These topics, and my remarks, will
probably
seem disjointed and unrelated. If so, do not be alarmed; please be patient and keep
reading. I
think you will agree that they are tied up later. Due to time constraints and your
attention
span, I will be brief--broad strokes only.
1. The historical Jesus, per the Bible, frequently referred to himself as being
"meek."
2. For years I had serious problems with the adage, "The meek shall inherit the
earth." How
could that be? 'Meek' people [wimps, pushovers, whiners] inheriting the earth?" I
always
rejected that concept.
3. For many years my dad was assigned to the U.S. Air Force's Strategic Air Command [SAC].
If I recall correctly, SAC's motto was this [or something similar to this]: "PEACE
THROUGH
DETERRENCE IS OUR MISSION."
4. It was common at SAC bases to see this motto prominently displayed in large letters on
big
buildings, major entryways, and base newspapers, etc.
5. The basic idea behind deterrence is to manifest credible evidence that the potential
enemy
can see and understand, namely, that you are strong and capable of inflicting a
retaliatory
blow, or blows, that will inflict unacceptable losses on the enemy if that enemy should
ever
miscalculate and strike you first. The purpose of disclosing this retaliatory capability
to the
enemy is to intimidate the enemy, to psyche out the enemy and convince the enemy that it
is
not in the enemy's best interest to attack you because you are so strong you can, and
will,
inflict a retaliatory blow that will not be in the enemy's best interest; hence,
deterrence works
and it secures the peace by deterring an anticipated aggressor. But to accomplish this
goal,
you cannot keep your war-making capability a secret. You have to disclose a great deal of
it
to your potential adversary. You also have to convince this potential adversary that you
are
serious, that you will strike if attacked or if your vital interests are threatened.
Deterrence
exists only in the mind of the potential adversary. It is difficult, if not impossible, to
deter a
potential adversary if you keep your war-making capability a secret or if you act like a
wimp
or talk like a wimp. It is also difficult to deter a potential adversary if you telegraph
signs that
you are merely running a bluff--that you are hot air without a big stick or no will to
swing the
big stick.
6. When my dad was in SAC, I dated a girl who was very religious. Her dad was in SAC, too.
We frequently went to church services on Sunday conducted by an Air Force chaplain. I
discussed with this chaplain my difficulty with the concept of "The meek shall
inherit the
earth." This chaplain explained to me that the common understanding of
"meek" in the Bible is
a gross misnomer. He told me the following: Jesus, the son of God, referred to himself as
being
"meek" because God is all powerful; "meek" really means "great
strength held in check, under
control, available to be used for a good, worthy purpose"; he explained that SAC is a
classic
example of what "meek" really means. This chaplain stressed that his definition
of "meek" is
100% consistent with the original Greek meaning as used in the Bible.
7. I am not a Biblical nor a Greek scholar. The chaplain's explanation, however, does make
the
adage "The meek shall inherit the earth." easier to understand and to accept. If
this chaplain
was correct, then SAC was a classic example of that definition of "meek."
8. I have checked with Biblical scholars about what this chaplain said. They all agreed. I
asked for reference to an authoritative book about the ancient Greek language, bought it,
looked up "meek" and the chaplain was, and is, correct!
9. In the 1980s I did a story for publication on an advanced USMC "think tank/new
tactics
development" unit. That was an amazing experience. Some extremely smart people were
in
that outfit. One instructor, an officer, asked me this question: What chance does an
airborne
helicopter have against a $35 million dollar supersonic fighter armed with air to air
missiles
flown by a top notch pilot? If you were a helicopter pilot under attack by this fighter
pilot,
what would you do? Think fast! Make a wrong decision and you will be dead within 30
seconds. I had no experience with this subject matter. I was an attorney-journalist, not a
pilot and not a military tactician. This officer slapped the table hard, making a lot of
noise, to
create a stressful environment [he was really a great guy]. "Think!", he
demanded. "You are
under attack. You are now almost dead! Act! Do something! Do it now!" I told him,
with
extreme reservations, sensing that my answer was wrong, but not knowing anything better,
I'd either fly away from the fighter plane or land and abandon the helicopter,
anticipating the
fighter would attack and destroy the grounded, stationary, helicopter. This officer
instructor
smiled and told me I gave typical answers that their student helicopter pilots give. He
also
told me my answers warranted an "F" grade. I asked him, "What is the
smartest thing to do in
that situation?" Before you read further think about your answer to that question. I
will make
a blank gap of about 2-4 inches in this text to hide his answer as you think about the
right
answer to the question. When you think you have the right answer or you give up, scroll
down 2-4 inches to read what this officer said is the only correct answer.
Per this officer, the only correct answer to maximize your chance of survival in that
scenario
is this: Turn the helicopter to face the attacking fighter plane and to fly straight at
him as
fast as you can, and if the fighter turns, you turn with him to keep yourself 180 degrees
pointed straight at him at all times, keep closing the distance as fast as you can as you
charge toward this fighter plane and stay as low to the ground as possible!
Does what this officer told me surprise you? Does it make sense to you: to fly straight at
the
attacking fighter plane when you are only in a helicopter? And does this make sense when
the
fighter plane has a cannon and missiles and you are without any weapons, except maybe a
pistol? Think about this carefully.
Why is what this officer said the best answer?
Here is why: if you fly away from the fighter, your exhaust presents a great target for a
heat
seeking missile; you give the fighter time to solve his weapon systems switchology
sequence
to get you within his parameters for a high PK [probability of kill]; your nose guns, if
any, will
point in the wrong direction so the fighter can use guns to bring you down [to save the
cost
of a more expensive missile] or a heat seeker missile that will guide on your exhaust,
that you
so kindly gave him the hottest point to guide on; if you land, he can strafe/rocket/bomb
you;
but if you fly straight at him, you minimize his use of a heat seeker, you give him the
smallest
target to shoot at; you give him least amount of time to aim and fire at you and to solve
his
switchology problems; and he will soon overfly you. As this fighter jock turns, you can
change
direction and try to find terrain to get lost in or, absent such terrain, you would be
best off to
turn and charge the fighter plane again--to fly as fast as you can straight at him!
This instructor said the helo pilot should keep pointing right at the fighter and fly
straight
toward him at high speed: always. Never deviate from that coping technique. In that
scenario, it is the tried and proven way to stay alive if you are a helo pilot attacked by
a
fighter plane.
This instructor said that after a while, the fighter pilot will give up. This instructor
also
stressed that a helo pilot who stays close to the ground make it very difficult for a
fighter to
get below to attack from below, and it also makes it difficult for the fighter to use a
radar
guided missile against the helo when that kind of a missile is fired from above because it
is
difficult for a radar missile to sort out the false radar returns from the ground--the
helo is just
too close to the ground for the radar missile to work well.
This officer went on to say that this special tactics development squadron put the Corps'
best
fighter jocks in their best fighters and pitted them in the air against run of the mill,
snail
paced, helos manned by average helo pilots on instrumented ranges to test this tactic.
What
do you think the real life results were? This is what that officer told me: the fighter
pilots did
not score any kills against these snail paced helos! They pulled a lot of G's, worked up a
lot of
sweat, burned a lot of fuel and never scored a single kill. He also said they retested
this
tactic with different pilots and the results were the same: no fighter pilot scored a kill
against
a helicopter!
This officer said they then outfitted these helos with short range air to air missiles on
instrumented ranges and reflew the exercise against the best fighter planes flown by the
best
fighter pilots. This was not done in a simulator. They tested this tactic for real--in the
air
over an instrumented range where real weapons did not have to be fired. Everything was
scored electronically.
What do you think the results of this test were? I was told that the helo pilots scored
kills
against the best fighter pilots flying the best fighters. Why? Because nothing out-turns a
helo
in the air. The helos flew, and maneuvered, like W.W.I fighter planes.
Maneuverability and tactics were better than speed! When the fighters overflew the helos,
the helos would turn, point toward the fighter and "fire" a heat seeker at the
fighter,
"destroying" it!
The presumptively arrogant, cocky fighter pilots, in this scenario, made some classic
mental
errors: they tangled with air-to-air missile equipped helos operated by pilots who knew
the
best tactic and implemented the best tactic; they got within range of the helos' weapons;
they got into a turning battle with the helos that can out turn them; and they presented
the
helos with their hot exhaust tail--a perfect target for a heat seeker!
I share this to stimulate deep thinking and original thinking.
10. I also personally watched these Marines launch and recover approximately 100 aircraft
without radio communications of any kind. They restricted themselves to hand and light
signals. They anticipated they will probably have to fight when their radio communications
are
down or interfered with so they tested themselves using only hand and light signals. They
launched and recovered everything without a hitch.
11. If America's citizens ever resort to physical force to fight civil authority or to
defend
against a foreign invader, we will fight like we trained. If we never trained, we will
fight like we
never trained. If we never communicate ideas, like these Marines did, we will fight like
we
never communicate ideas. If we never communicate ideas, we will not develop--and
share--better ideas. Instead, many will fight with stupid ideas -- ineffective tactics. If
we
fight with stupid ideas and ineffective tactics, many will be wasted, the war will be
longer, the
outcome less certain--at least the chances of victory for our side will be less certain.
While
83 million armed American citizens are a staggering number, we need to be realistic. Only
a
small fraction of this number are likely to fight. A smaller faction will fight using
smart tactics.
We do not have enough actual potential fighters to waste them due to inadequate or
nonexistent preplanning or implementation of unsound tactics.
12. What is the point of all this? People who will not communicate with like-minded,
concerned
citizens, those who will not use the First Amendment because they are afraid government
monitors their communications and they will be tagged as being a troublesome maverick, to
me, do not act prudently.
13. If you ever bought a hunting license, bought reloading equipment or any firearm
related
product mail order or on a credit card; if you ever wrote a check to a place that sells
such
equipment; if you received a gun magazine at home; if you ever wrote a politician about a
gun
or right issue; if you ever wrote a letter to an editor on a related issue; if you ever
wrote
anything on the Internet; if you ever sent anything via email; or if you ever wore a
T-shirt
that carried a pro-right message, you have already broken "radio silence". In
that sense, you
are no longer "incommunicado". Your idea of being discreet so that government
cannot detect
you, therefore, is to me, at best, non-persuasive.
14. Instead, I submit it is best to adopt SAC's approach: develop the capability to
inflict an
unacceptable retaliatory blow, flaunt it, show it off, demonstrate it without actually
firing
anything off. I also think it is best to adopt the Corps' approach: think deeply about
developing new tactics and test them. To do that, however, people who fancy themselves to
be freedom fighters--leaders or followers or both--have to communicate with one another.
Without communication, if you believe in a poor tactic, until you know better, you will
try to
implement that poor tactic. If you have a great tactic, but will not share it, if and when
you
die of old age, disease, in a car wreck or are killed by a criminal or a SWAT team, your
good
idea dies with you.
15. Uncle Sam's military has made a lot of mistakes over the years but it has also scored
many impressive successes. SAC was one of its biggest success stories. AND IT WAS NOT IN
THE NATIONAL INTEREST TO KEEP SAC'S EXISTENCE AND CAPABILITIES SECRET! ESPECIALLY
NOT FROM THE SOVIET UNION!
The U.S. Marine Corps has also developed an enormous expertise in small arms,
conventional,
lower threshold, non-nuclear, maneuver, shoot and scoot, type warfare. I submit that
would-be freedom fighters can learn a lot of important information from Uncle Sam's
professional military. Their data base was accumulated over 200 years. Billions upon
billions
have been invested to acquire that data base. Many of this nation's best minds have
invested
their best years to build up that data base. Those experts know something about war
fighting.
Sometimes it is best to keep certain things secret and limit it to a "need to
know" basis. But,
at other times, it is best to flaunt your capability. Hence, I submit that those who
advocate
secrecy and no communication are not necessarily wise. In many ways, they are too
self-limiting and dangerous. To underscore this point and to explain it better, please
consider
the following true stories.
16. A few years ago I was at an air show at Beale AFB, CA. An Air Force public affairs
officer
was telling a group some amazing capabilities of the newer U-2 spy-reconnaissance
airplanes.
I was dumbfounded by his candor and the specific information he was disclosing. I
suspected
he was an idiot who was releasing near top secret, if not top secret information, or he
was
deliberately releasing misinformation. I kept asking him if what he was saying about the
U-2
was true, if it was not secret, if he was positive he was correct. He kept telling me that
everything he told me was true and none of it was secret. When I asked him why this was
being revealed he said the Air Force wanted Sadam Hussein and others like him to know what
the modern USAF's capabilities are in the hope that if our enemies know our capabilities
they
would be deterred from further aggression. Think about that! Instead of keeping your
capabilities secret, disclose it! This PAO said that a U-2 above 70,000 feet can detect
targets
on the ground as small as a jeep, including moving targets, can send signals and
information
to attack planes in the area, can show those planes exactly what the U-2 is seeing on its
sensors and via its cameras, can pinpoint the exact location of these targets, etc. As a
result
of this information, the attack planes can move in and destroy the most threatening or
biggest value target(s). This PAO also said the U-2 can send signals and photo images to
ships over 1,000 miles away that can send a cruise missile to destroy the target(s). I was
also told that the U-2 can send signals and photo images anywhere in the world that can
receive such information. I was specifically told that a U-2 above 70,000 over Iraq can
send
very high quality digital pictures of what its cameras are seeing to thousands of US
receptors
in the world, including back at Beale AFB, in near real time, with all receivers enjoying
extreme
high resolution! Wow! Now, how would that make you feel if you were an Iraqi tank driver?
If
you are Sadam, knowing this, do you want to put your toe into Kuwait again? Probably not.
17. I later asked a U-2 squadron commander/pilot and another U-2 pilot about what this PAO
said the U-2 could do. Both of these U-2 pilots told me that it was all true and none of
this
information was secret. They told me the Air Force, and the senior civilian leadership,
elected
to release this information because they are proud of it and Sadam and no one else has the
capability to defeat this capability. They stressed that their reasoning was, and is,
this: their
hope is if our national adversaries know are capabilities, we will not have to fight.
Instead, we
can enjoy peace. They stressed the only vulnerable part is their communication
frequencies,
and they were confident that they were secure and would be for as long as they will still
use
U-2's.
18. Does this information intimidate me as a potential militia fighter? No. It sobers me
but does
not intimidate me. Those U-2's can be taken out on the ground or when they attempt to
recover or their support facilities can be destroyed. Do I have any plans to do that?
Certainly
not. I love those planes. But if those planes are ever used to support oppression in this
nation, I do not care that the US national insignia is painted on those planes.
19. The idea of being worried about government monitoring email and the Internet, etc. has
merit. But it can also be used to our advantage. When government monitors detect that
Freedom Movement Activists are in disarray, there is no consensus, there is no plan, no
effective plan, they will not even exercise the First Amendment to communicate, to develop
a
plan, to improve a plan, what do you think those monitors and their bosses think of
freedom
activists? Do you think they hear the modern equivalent of the Apache's tom toms beating
in
the evening before the early AM attack on the cavalry? Of course not. But what if those
monitors detected a radical shift in email and the Internet: Freedom activists have
conceived
of a plan, it is a good plan, they have found their "stones", a dramatic
attitudinal shift has
occurred, they have found their courage, they realize their awesome power, they have
become the world's largest latent guerrilla force in waiting; and they are ready. Is it
not
probable that they would react along these lines: Oh, my God! Look what in the hell we
have
sowed! Hey, boss! We have a major problem on our hands!
20. So, I say those who act like lambs in their email and on the Internet are wrong. SAC
was
no lamb. SAC bought us peace because SAC was a lion. SAC was "meek". We need a
militia
that is meek. One early step toward a meek militia is one that communicates much more than
it does now. And one that concentrates on ideas--not sniping at personalities, biting
itself.
21. From this point of view, a meek militia is an intellectual militia that still tries to
resolve this
dispute with civil authority legally and peacefully. It is also one that simultaneously
goes down
a dual track--the SAC track, to develop retaliatory capability to restore the
Constitutional rule
of law and our rights should the intellectual wing of the new militia that I propose fail
in its
mission--peaceful reform and a peaceful restoration of rights.
22. If we do it right, we can psyche out anti-rights folks by manifesting a peaceful,
latent
guerrilla force in waiting that cannot be defeated so we can enjoy a restoration of rights
via
peace backed up with a meek militia held in check. But if we continue to act like lambs
and
communicate like lambs we will be processed as lamb chops.
23. I dearly hope that civil authority's monitors pick this up and/or that recipients send
this
email far and wide to stimulate deep thinking.
Sincerely,
Peter Mancus
More militia writings at Keep and
Bear Arms
How about a Biblical view on gun control?
