The title of this post is militia. The purpose of the post is to explore the modern role of not only groups of people armed for a cause, but those that would call them security forces, and those that would call themselves party activists. The role of militia extends to both: armed citizenry, either with information, or guns.
Iraq currently has a significant security base force. Training. Weapons. Technique. Provided by the US Government, and the former regimes. After literally hundreds of IEDs and scores of suicide bombing for their recruiting lines, you will find former Baathist, and Shi'ite in their makeup. By day they patrol, by night, they either go out and shoot sunni muslims (yes, the death toll in Iraq for non-military casualties is staggering, and the human rights abuses are worse than saddam) - or, they will wage war against the Americans or American reporters.
Iraq is occupied, by an unjust, puppet government of a country that invaded without cause. Many americans feel the same way about the Presidential administration. Like Iraq, there is an organized movement in this country against our own president, who has so far failed to wage an effective war on terror - and is completely unable to provide for any effective leadership whatsoever in nearly any category you can think of. This has created opportunity for the democratic party, who will invest in various members of these groups to train and bring up the party itself.
That provides for an interesting landscape. The over-riding concern of how a party gets anything done, when the legislative process itself is corrupt - set aside for the moment. One must begin to ask - how does a grassroots movement have any coherence at all, in action? Militias inside the group , using not weapons but information albeit tainted information - are waging war not only against the Bush administration but the party itself.
The parallel is strong: the movement, for example, to promote gay marriage in this country is not a mainstream or even supported movement. The citizens of the United States of America do not endorse Gay marriage - and the consistent rejection of the topic - despite the low polling numbers for approval being, still omnipresent- guages the reality that they don't care about the topic, and also that they don't think the government should step in where the church has ruled and should rule. If the church endorses the marriage of two men and adopts a ceremony where the role of the woman can take the place of the actual wife, in vows - or if the church formulates a basis for two women to be able to interlock for the purpose of building a family - the large, massive numbers of people who actually follow the church on issues such as this will follow suit and the legislation will be done.
But not until.
But then, why would an organized group of people in the party still be organizing around this issue? It is not a plank or a platform issue in the Democratic party for 2006.
The interests of militia groups are to use their newfound force in innovative ways. They will operate at times for profit (in the case of American party militias, its all about advertising revenues) - and at times will take the hit knowing that as long as they have some normalized daylight role they will be back to fight another day. This creates chaos.
The Bush administration will soon claim that the security forces in Iraq, are close to ready status - and they will loudly say that they will listen to their field commanders. This, of course, despite, their ignorance of the same commanders who requested north of the force going in, and didn't get it. Armor that they didn't get. And even to this day, real solutions to problems like IEDs that have a unique effect - as one commander put it - "you'll never look at a person coming up to you with flowers again, after an IED rips through your platoon and kills off your men".
These claims are as false, as the claim that the national party is ready for the 2006 elections or that the momentum is moving towards the democrats. The democratic party is still trying to tell the American people, that simply being there to catch the fallout represents a stand. Certainly, the party is unified on one topic: that we should pursue cost=effective diplomatic means to resolve international conflict or threat. The GOP position is that American military might should be brought in to further our own interests. Certainly the claim of threat to America, from Iraq - was false - but more than that, or the Joe Liebermans of the party standing up for Israeli party milita - the rallying cry is less than withdrawal and more - "we will not be the party of corruption".
Q: How do they say "fuck you" in Los Angeles?
A: Trust me.