This is part one of some analysis of the occupation of the Federal building in Oregon.
Part one will be an intellectual discussion of the occupation. I’ll attempt to do this by ignoring personalities and discussing the concept.
Part two will discuss some pragmatic aspects to include an analysis of the players, with some specific questions as to who wins and who could win.
Part three will focus on what options exist for both we in the III movement and for the various government agencies.
There is a lot of conversation going on in the III world right now regarding the occupation of the Federal building in Oregon. Ostensibly, the stated argument for the occupation is to support the Hammond family (if you aren’t aware of the issues that surround the Hammonds, this blog probably isn’t for you.)
The Hammonds have been very adamant in their claims that they do not want any of these actions in support of them. They have stated again and again that they do not want or desire a scenario like the one in Nevada in support of the Bundy ranch. They welcomed support, but do not desire to have an armed standoff.
Most people supported the Hammond’s requests and conducted peaceful, non-threatening shows of support. The group that have seized the Federal building chose to ignore the Hammonds.
The question that needs to be answered is whether or not we in the III movement are justified in ignoring the requests of the aggrieved and take independent actions in their defense.
For the sake of this argument, we need to ignore the personalities of the various players. Let’s assume that the folks that started this are all well intentioned, have solid III/Liberty goals in mind and are not being manipulated by the Federal Government.
If those three criteria are in place, can an action like theirs be justified within the III movement?
I don’t think you have to have the consent of the aggrieved in order to come to their defense. Right is right and wrong is wrong, no matter who agrees with you. So, an action like theirs can be justified.
The better question is whether or not their specific action is justified.
To answer that question, you have to determine if this action furthers or detracts from the goals of the III movement.
What is the objective? Any action by the III has to have a strategic objective.
The events at the Bundy ranch were a strategic victory. We were able to demonstrate to the average American that the Federal Government was very totalitarian in their response to average Americans. Older women manhandled. Bureau of Land Management folks armed with heavy weapons; weapons that they pointed towards men, women, children and families. You didn’t even need to support the Bundy cause to see that there was something very wrong with the actions of the Federal Government.
I’ve long agreed with those who argue that we will win or lose this battle by convincing the middle 40% of America that we shouldn’t be feared or hated. We don’t have to make them love us. We must create the situation where they don’t hate us.
So, the question that remains to be answered is whether or not the Oregon occupation serves any strategic victory.
The Hammonds don’t want a standoff on their behalf. The people who live in the locality are not sympathetic to a standoff. The III movement is not unified behind the occupation.
I don’t see where this effort has any conditions for which any strategic victory can be accomplished. This event does not serve our interests.
In part two we’ll discuss some of the players.