Insurrection is basically when lots and lots of different groups, entirely independently, identify the same enemy to harass and attack with guerrilla tactics.
It can be successful BECAUSE it’s not coordinated; this also means there’s no way to take down some central command structure, which is a massive massive weak point of anything centralised.
Insurrection is so beautiful because it’s spontaneous, like a series of wildfires erupting across a continent on a record hot day. Authorities genuinely face massive difficulty putting down insurrections for the reason that they’re spontaneous.
The Gaulish tribes apparently had are historically known to have had a very effective decentralised force for their time though its hard to say whether they or the centralised Romans would have won if both sides used modern military technology.
Bouddicca nearly won too.
There are dead bodies in an unattempted insurrection too, they're just hidden and sanitised by the state.
Militant action shouldn't ever be taken lightly, but don't kid yourself by thinking that avoiding it is actually avoiding violence. The status quo imposes death and suffering every day.
They are still structured on a low level, there are squads and units with their own chain of command.
At a high level yes there are different factions that work somewhat independently but within those factions it's structured.
This is an important point to clarify actually— anarchists are against hierarchy, not structure. Some of the units there are more hierarchical, and some less, in the case of Myanmar, but all are structured
A decentralised army can conduct a gorilla war so long as they are well supplied.
Usually those supplys require a structure to provide them through. At least from what we see in the real world.
I think the Gaulish tribes are known to have had a very effective decentralised army earlier on but idk what was the reason they lost.
Its interesting to think about what would happen though if that scenario was in modern day, the decentralised army might seem more mobile and quick.
> I think the Gaulish tribes are known to have had a very effective decentralised army earlier on but idk what was the reason they lost.
They lost because the Romans basically just go completely scorched earth on their farmland, which pretty much kills them. The idiom "salt the earth" came from how the Romans destroying the Gaulish farmland.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/chris-beaumont-defending-an-anarchist-society#toc10
This long-ish reading goes into it in some theoretical depth.
Why do you think the US Revolutionary Army under the Articles of Confederation is in any way "decentralized" in the way anarchists mean by the term? Anarchist organization would completely lack any and all hierarchy. Did the US Revolutionary Army under the Articles of Confederation have no hierarchy?
I feel like some things are just getting lost in translation.
The American Revolutionary army wasn't a decentralized force for example. Or, at the very least given you are talking about post-US-revolution it certainly was no longer one by that point. And even when the Continental Army *was* disbanded what took it's place wasn't literally no army whatsoever but the Legion which would become the army as people know it a mere handful of years later.
>there were portions of territory that the British just refused to cede, even though they lost the war, and the Americans struggled to do anything about it
Politely... W-why do I care? Relate this to anarchism and anarchy? I don't care that one group of white settlers had a hard time displacing the other merely because group 2's big papa got his balls kicked in. The Americans in this story aren't decentralized (poorly organized arguably, but that isn't what decentralized means) at all, nor were their aims ones anarchists should care about.
>They’d(Pirates) attack one state, pop over to another, and the decentralization made it hard to do anything about that.
Yeah, that's a benefit **to** decentralization. The pirates were, typically, a decentralized force. And that makes sense because pirates were from a multitude of nations and backgrounds with a multitude of differing interests that made trying to box all of them in under one, forgive the pun, flag impossible.
Again, the US here is **not** decentralized. It is the opposite, it is now a centralized (bunch, maybe) state(s) that now has to deal with both issues of statecraft("deal" with certain pirates in the state over and risk pissing off XYZ European country after you just came out of a war) and poorly laid out and executed offices.
The Holy Roman Empire being a mess of states didn't mean it was meaningfully "decentralized" as anarchists are talking about.
>So, how would anarchists learn from this?
Little, since these seem to be mostly issues of statecraft which is absolutely not a goal of anarchism or anarchy. The possible things to learn are with the flipping pirates! Being on the move, without any particular "leader" whom can be decapitated and thus end the movement as a whole is actually a benefit!
Maybe one could even note down interesting tactical notes **from** the revolution, but towards far more genuinely revolutionary aims.
You should look into the ROJAVA in Northern Syria, who has a decentralized militia that is so effective that it successfully drove out ISIL, and has been mostly successfully defending itself against invading forces for the entire time it's existed. Double bonus, most of the military are women.
Decentralization does not mean disorganized, it simply means that there is no singular entity from which instructions come from. It means, instead, that everyone is on the same plane. Everyone shares intelligence, everyone coordinates together still. But if any single group does not wish to participate, or wishes to do something different, they can, and that's usually to the advantage of the overall goal. Because it's less easy to predict how a decentralized militia might do things, since again there is no singular entity from which orders are coming.
You can easily predict what Russia's gonna do with Ukraine, and vice versa, because these groups are centralized, their goals are extremely transparent, and their means are as well.
So essentially, decentralized armies have two distinct advantages due to being structured horizontally instead of vertically:
* Opaqueness in tactics
* Difficulty to infiltrate
As you said with the pirates, there was no central means of stopping them, because they were decentralized. They could not be infiltrated and stopped, and they could not be predicted. They had the upperhand nearly always in battle due to this.
Another advantage that they have is just more strategy in general, it's not just a small group of people thinktanking it out, it's the entire army thinking for itself, working as a unit. It's not just footies getting orders from a general, it's the footies making the orders. I don't know about you, but i'd trust a footie to make a more tactful decision in war than a general who's miles away from the action. It's always the stories of the guys who "made their own decision" in the heat of battle that we hear about, it's never the stories of a man "just following orders" (unless those orders were heinous, of course).
The only distinct advantage that centralized forces have had, so far, over decentralized ones, is access to people. Since inherently any state is going to "own" a large amount of land, they will have a large amount of citizens, and they will have a large army. Pretty much every anarchist organization that's failed thusfar has *simply* been outgunned. And in war, that's pretty much always the main deciding factor. The more people, the more power, and decentralized forces simply haven't had many people. But the ROJAVA does, at around 2 million people living there, and most are willing to fight for their freedom. Again, they've been very successful in their "campaigns" (i feel like "campaigns" are more of a state thing, but idk what else to call it) thusfar, and I don't really see that changing.
You may don’t even need and army. I’ve read somewhere about the resistance of the civil population in Argentina against British invading forces in the XIX century, crazy things like ladies throwing flower pots from buildings to harm the soldiers. The Brits apparently concluded that Latin American countries could never be occupied long term by Anglosaxon forces due to the will of the locals to resist.
I don't see why an anarchist has to "deal" with a conventional army, at all. I have no desire to use violence to take other people's stuff, so I don't want to invade them.
If they invade where I live, we take a page from history and use roadside bombs and Kalashnikovs to kill them.
Exactly molotov cocktails and bread baskets, porkupines, punch bowls, flying pigs, I can make up mor funny names for horrible things.
A conventional army should fear civilians with shovels and rope.
Any peaceful defector can join us those how consider themselves enemies should cower in fear after a while.
>If they invade where I live, we take a page from history and use roadside bombs and Kalashnikovs to kill them.
I think that's what op means by "deal with"
*(Disclaimer, I'm not endorsing any of the mentioned, nor I support most of them, nor I agree wiht ideology)*
In this young millenium only: afganistan, iraq, lybia, iraq again, gaza 1 2 3, iraq+syria, kurdistan, somalie pirates, (still afganistan,) houties, myanmar ...
Some of them as proxies, some of them not. Some are more centralized, some are less, but all are without a complete state aparatus behind them in some degree. But a determined population can prevail against an on paper bigger force, more if they are seen as the victim.
>They also struggled with pirated attacking their territory, with no central means of stopping it. They’d attack one state, pop over to another, and the decentralization made it hard to do anything about that
Even if pirates here had "carte du marque", corsairs, "pirates" are the most decentralized society in the sea, and even the top power of the seas (Spain 16s-17s) could not do much against them, golden age of piracy and all that.
I think that the only way to defeat a centralized army of the scale that nations have today is from within. Militaries fall apart when soldiers refuse to follow unjust orders.
Short answer, no.
Armies require logistics. They require supplies and coordinated objectives.
Without fresh ammo and respurces anarchist style armies have ended up raiding the populace. Decentralized groups like IS and the Taliban do have some advantages by not presenting leadership or logistics targets.
The US dropped millions of tonnes of Ordiance from aircraft. Aircraft need airbases, mechanical crews, fuel, spare parts, hangars and runways of appropriate size and caliber for the job.
Complex supply chains and incredible sigle use cost from war means someone somewhere is doing a lot of book keeping and organizing to keep everyone fed and all the rifles loaded. All the unsexy and boring stuff is what win wars.
Example: Rome figgts a ear with greece and loses its entire army. The Greeks in their city state organization then take off their armor and go back to planting fields. Before they have even recovered from their injuries and certainly have not had time to have kids (to replenish the dead) the Romans returned with a brand new army.
The best warrior peoples in the world from all societies were eventually crushed and ground down by a bigger. And better organized state. Paper, ultimately can grind down even the fiercest swords.
Wars are what states do best.
Decentralised army's can only really work in defense and cannot get too large.
As soon as you have to move a bunch of people who don't normally live there to another place because that's the front of the war it requires hierarchy and structure otherwise the army will begin raiding the locals for supplys and generally be disorganised.
Unless funded by another state they will run out of equipment and food.
Take the Gaulic conquest by Julius Caezar. The Gauls eventually caught on and banded together and the nobility elected a King Getorix to lead them.
So Caezar played cay and mouse for the season and never engaged. The Gallic army got worn out and began to starve and eventually had to go home to plant crops and resupply. Each warband/chiefdom/petty kinddom could supply its own but had no way to resupply an army at distance. So they disbanded into smaller armies and were then attacked and wiped out.
Rome was never the best warriors, they were not the best tacticians and were absolutely terrible at scouting. They beat out every tribe, clan and city state that stood against them because they had order and logistics, paperwork and roads. They would often lose battles then return again and again until they ground down the enemy often on the enemy's home turf.
Che may be a folk hero to some but he was a raider and pillager of his own people to others. Food and supply must come from somewhere and people off making combat don't have the time.
Bin Laden would give out air relief and help his supporters to get the cash flow. Decentralized they were but stateless they were not.
Are you saying that having a state leads to order and better logistics? Because if so, then I'm not sure I agree with your conclusions about anarchist armies.
That seems to be the case historically, only states have ever interstate roadways and only states can move entiire agricultural regions of crops to meet their campaigning needs.
Im not sure how one could organize so many pieces without a higher level organization. The roads, the food the manufacturies. A legion needs something like 20 oxen carts of grain daily just for their bread needs, they required meat, sugar, salt and enough water to supply thousands of troops daily and we are not talking about arrow and pila replacements, and all the steel goods necessary, could be in England or in Africa thousands of miles and months away from the farms/manufacturies supplying them. The contrast is each city producing its need for its people and the examples I gave show that it doesn't work.
States evolved due to war. City states just cannot compete with nations. Self run municipalities simply don't have the resources alone and lack the organization to combine all the local municipalities together for a common cause as that moves from tribal or anarchy small municipality to the confederacy. Sort of like how the Iroquois formed their confederacy in face of colonial powers. United under one rule with one direction and one purpose is more effective.
We see it with the celts, the scots, the picts, the greeks and more from western history. Decentrilized and Clan level organization always loses out even if their technology is similar enough to be irrelevant. Che was always going to lose for mathmatical reasons.
War is the power of the state. Many like anarchy because it prevents us from being drafted and used as fodder. Somehow we have to move past the fear of others and borders before we can be free from it.
Are you an anarchist? City states aren't anarchist and there's nothing about anarchy that precludes higher level organizing. Anarchists usually even push for international organization.
I dunno, I think states are best at consulting war against other states. The Romans, when confronting groups that did not necessarily confirm to the idea of a state, often struggled unless they could coopt local rulers to form a client *state* as a buffer. Russia and the US struggled against the afghans, the US struggles against "turrism" during the GWOT. If Russia wins in Ukraine, I believe they will struggle with a violent insurrection for many years.
States are good at fighting other states.
Insurrection is basically when lots and lots of different groups, entirely independently, identify the same enemy to harass and attack with guerrilla tactics. It can be successful BECAUSE it’s not coordinated; this also means there’s no way to take down some central command structure, which is a massive massive weak point of anything centralised. Insurrection is so beautiful because it’s spontaneous, like a series of wildfires erupting across a continent on a record hot day. Authorities genuinely face massive difficulty putting down insurrections for the reason that they’re spontaneous.
The Gaulish tribes apparently had are historically known to have had a very effective decentralised force for their time though its hard to say whether they or the centralised Romans would have won if both sides used modern military technology. Bouddicca nearly won too.
The Gauls were as strong as the Roman army, it was just that there were divisions within the tribes at the time.
Uncoordinated guerrilla groups are also effective because they're unpredictable and harder to spy on.
There's nothing beautiful about a failed insurrection, just dead bodies.
There are dead bodies in an unattempted insurrection too, they're just hidden and sanitised by the state. Militant action shouldn't ever be taken lightly, but don't kid yourself by thinking that avoiding it is actually avoiding violence. The status quo imposes death and suffering every day.
Probably copy what Myanmar rebels are doing right now
They are still structured on a low level, there are squads and units with their own chain of command. At a high level yes there are different factions that work somewhat independently but within those factions it's structured.
This is an important point to clarify actually— anarchists are against hierarchy, not structure. Some of the units there are more hierarchical, and some less, in the case of Myanmar, but all are structured
Thank you. In simple terms for others, anarchist philosophies typically support horizontal structures in place of hierarchical ones.
Sorry i mean to imply hierarchys. Each faction has its own hierarchy.
That’s broadly true at the macro scale, unfortunately. Some of the micro scale fighting units are less hierarchical though.
A decentralised army can conduct a gorilla war so long as they are well supplied. Usually those supplys require a structure to provide them through. At least from what we see in the real world.
I'm partial to chimpanzee war myself
Ask an Australian about the Emu War 😂
\*thousand yard stare\*
I think the Gaulish tribes are known to have had a very effective decentralised army earlier on but idk what was the reason they lost. Its interesting to think about what would happen though if that scenario was in modern day, the decentralised army might seem more mobile and quick.
> I think the Gaulish tribes are known to have had a very effective decentralised army earlier on but idk what was the reason they lost. They lost because the Romans basically just go completely scorched earth on their farmland, which pretty much kills them. The idiom "salt the earth" came from how the Romans destroying the Gaulish farmland.
Hmm the gauls had a very effective decentralized army, but they lost to a centralized one which is odd. Probably doesn't mean anything.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/chris-beaumont-defending-an-anarchist-society#toc10 This long-ish reading goes into it in some theoretical depth.
Why do you think the US Revolutionary Army under the Articles of Confederation is in any way "decentralized" in the way anarchists mean by the term? Anarchist organization would completely lack any and all hierarchy. Did the US Revolutionary Army under the Articles of Confederation have no hierarchy?
So 50k guys with guns running at the enemy
???
They're implying that > Anarchist organization would completely lack any and all hierarchy. Equals > 50k guys with guns running at the enemy
That's just not true.
I feel like some things are just getting lost in translation. The American Revolutionary army wasn't a decentralized force for example. Or, at the very least given you are talking about post-US-revolution it certainly was no longer one by that point. And even when the Continental Army *was* disbanded what took it's place wasn't literally no army whatsoever but the Legion which would become the army as people know it a mere handful of years later. >there were portions of territory that the British just refused to cede, even though they lost the war, and the Americans struggled to do anything about it Politely... W-why do I care? Relate this to anarchism and anarchy? I don't care that one group of white settlers had a hard time displacing the other merely because group 2's big papa got his balls kicked in. The Americans in this story aren't decentralized (poorly organized arguably, but that isn't what decentralized means) at all, nor were their aims ones anarchists should care about. >They’d(Pirates) attack one state, pop over to another, and the decentralization made it hard to do anything about that. Yeah, that's a benefit **to** decentralization. The pirates were, typically, a decentralized force. And that makes sense because pirates were from a multitude of nations and backgrounds with a multitude of differing interests that made trying to box all of them in under one, forgive the pun, flag impossible. Again, the US here is **not** decentralized. It is the opposite, it is now a centralized (bunch, maybe) state(s) that now has to deal with both issues of statecraft("deal" with certain pirates in the state over and risk pissing off XYZ European country after you just came out of a war) and poorly laid out and executed offices. The Holy Roman Empire being a mess of states didn't mean it was meaningfully "decentralized" as anarchists are talking about. >So, how would anarchists learn from this? Little, since these seem to be mostly issues of statecraft which is absolutely not a goal of anarchism or anarchy. The possible things to learn are with the flipping pirates! Being on the move, without any particular "leader" whom can be decapitated and thus end the movement as a whole is actually a benefit! Maybe one could even note down interesting tactical notes **from** the revolution, but towards far more genuinely revolutionary aims.
a combination of limb and core strength
You should look into the ROJAVA in Northern Syria, who has a decentralized militia that is so effective that it successfully drove out ISIL, and has been mostly successfully defending itself against invading forces for the entire time it's existed. Double bonus, most of the military are women. Decentralization does not mean disorganized, it simply means that there is no singular entity from which instructions come from. It means, instead, that everyone is on the same plane. Everyone shares intelligence, everyone coordinates together still. But if any single group does not wish to participate, or wishes to do something different, they can, and that's usually to the advantage of the overall goal. Because it's less easy to predict how a decentralized militia might do things, since again there is no singular entity from which orders are coming. You can easily predict what Russia's gonna do with Ukraine, and vice versa, because these groups are centralized, their goals are extremely transparent, and their means are as well. So essentially, decentralized armies have two distinct advantages due to being structured horizontally instead of vertically: * Opaqueness in tactics * Difficulty to infiltrate As you said with the pirates, there was no central means of stopping them, because they were decentralized. They could not be infiltrated and stopped, and they could not be predicted. They had the upperhand nearly always in battle due to this. Another advantage that they have is just more strategy in general, it's not just a small group of people thinktanking it out, it's the entire army thinking for itself, working as a unit. It's not just footies getting orders from a general, it's the footies making the orders. I don't know about you, but i'd trust a footie to make a more tactful decision in war than a general who's miles away from the action. It's always the stories of the guys who "made their own decision" in the heat of battle that we hear about, it's never the stories of a man "just following orders" (unless those orders were heinous, of course). The only distinct advantage that centralized forces have had, so far, over decentralized ones, is access to people. Since inherently any state is going to "own" a large amount of land, they will have a large amount of citizens, and they will have a large army. Pretty much every anarchist organization that's failed thusfar has *simply* been outgunned. And in war, that's pretty much always the main deciding factor. The more people, the more power, and decentralized forces simply haven't had many people. But the ROJAVA does, at around 2 million people living there, and most are willing to fight for their freedom. Again, they've been very successful in their "campaigns" (i feel like "campaigns" are more of a state thing, but idk what else to call it) thusfar, and I don't really see that changing.
You may don’t even need and army. I’ve read somewhere about the resistance of the civil population in Argentina against British invading forces in the XIX century, crazy things like ladies throwing flower pots from buildings to harm the soldiers. The Brits apparently concluded that Latin American countries could never be occupied long term by Anglosaxon forces due to the will of the locals to resist.
I don't see why an anarchist has to "deal" with a conventional army, at all. I have no desire to use violence to take other people's stuff, so I don't want to invade them. If they invade where I live, we take a page from history and use roadside bombs and Kalashnikovs to kill them.
this lmao. also taking pages out of vietnam and ezln.
Exactly molotov cocktails and bread baskets, porkupines, punch bowls, flying pigs, I can make up mor funny names for horrible things. A conventional army should fear civilians with shovels and rope. Any peaceful defector can join us those how consider themselves enemies should cower in fear after a while.
>If they invade where I live, we take a page from history and use roadside bombs and Kalashnikovs to kill them. I think that's what op means by "deal with"
It's fairly effective.
Look up Nestor Makhno and the revolutionary insurgent army of Ukraine
People don’t talk about Makhno enough
*(Disclaimer, I'm not endorsing any of the mentioned, nor I support most of them, nor I agree wiht ideology)* In this young millenium only: afganistan, iraq, lybia, iraq again, gaza 1 2 3, iraq+syria, kurdistan, somalie pirates, (still afganistan,) houties, myanmar ... Some of them as proxies, some of them not. Some are more centralized, some are less, but all are without a complete state aparatus behind them in some degree. But a determined population can prevail against an on paper bigger force, more if they are seen as the victim. >They also struggled with pirated attacking their territory, with no central means of stopping it. They’d attack one state, pop over to another, and the decentralization made it hard to do anything about that Even if pirates here had "carte du marque", corsairs, "pirates" are the most decentralized society in the sea, and even the top power of the seas (Spain 16s-17s) could not do much against them, golden age of piracy and all that.
I think that the only way to defeat a centralized army of the scale that nations have today is from within. Militaries fall apart when soldiers refuse to follow unjust orders.
Short answer, no. Armies require logistics. They require supplies and coordinated objectives. Without fresh ammo and respurces anarchist style armies have ended up raiding the populace. Decentralized groups like IS and the Taliban do have some advantages by not presenting leadership or logistics targets. The US dropped millions of tonnes of Ordiance from aircraft. Aircraft need airbases, mechanical crews, fuel, spare parts, hangars and runways of appropriate size and caliber for the job. Complex supply chains and incredible sigle use cost from war means someone somewhere is doing a lot of book keeping and organizing to keep everyone fed and all the rifles loaded. All the unsexy and boring stuff is what win wars. Example: Rome figgts a ear with greece and loses its entire army. The Greeks in their city state organization then take off their armor and go back to planting fields. Before they have even recovered from their injuries and certainly have not had time to have kids (to replenish the dead) the Romans returned with a brand new army. The best warrior peoples in the world from all societies were eventually crushed and ground down by a bigger. And better organized state. Paper, ultimately can grind down even the fiercest swords. Wars are what states do best.
Decentralised army's can only really work in defense and cannot get too large. As soon as you have to move a bunch of people who don't normally live there to another place because that's the front of the war it requires hierarchy and structure otherwise the army will begin raiding the locals for supplys and generally be disorganised.
Are you implying that an anarchist army/militia cannot defeat a statist army?
Unless funded by another state they will run out of equipment and food. Take the Gaulic conquest by Julius Caezar. The Gauls eventually caught on and banded together and the nobility elected a King Getorix to lead them. So Caezar played cay and mouse for the season and never engaged. The Gallic army got worn out and began to starve and eventually had to go home to plant crops and resupply. Each warband/chiefdom/petty kinddom could supply its own but had no way to resupply an army at distance. So they disbanded into smaller armies and were then attacked and wiped out. Rome was never the best warriors, they were not the best tacticians and were absolutely terrible at scouting. They beat out every tribe, clan and city state that stood against them because they had order and logistics, paperwork and roads. They would often lose battles then return again and again until they ground down the enemy often on the enemy's home turf. Che may be a folk hero to some but he was a raider and pillager of his own people to others. Food and supply must come from somewhere and people off making combat don't have the time. Bin Laden would give out air relief and help his supporters to get the cash flow. Decentralized they were but stateless they were not.
Are you saying that having a state leads to order and better logistics? Because if so, then I'm not sure I agree with your conclusions about anarchist armies.
That seems to be the case historically, only states have ever interstate roadways and only states can move entiire agricultural regions of crops to meet their campaigning needs. Im not sure how one could organize so many pieces without a higher level organization. The roads, the food the manufacturies. A legion needs something like 20 oxen carts of grain daily just for their bread needs, they required meat, sugar, salt and enough water to supply thousands of troops daily and we are not talking about arrow and pila replacements, and all the steel goods necessary, could be in England or in Africa thousands of miles and months away from the farms/manufacturies supplying them. The contrast is each city producing its need for its people and the examples I gave show that it doesn't work. States evolved due to war. City states just cannot compete with nations. Self run municipalities simply don't have the resources alone and lack the organization to combine all the local municipalities together for a common cause as that moves from tribal or anarchy small municipality to the confederacy. Sort of like how the Iroquois formed their confederacy in face of colonial powers. United under one rule with one direction and one purpose is more effective. We see it with the celts, the scots, the picts, the greeks and more from western history. Decentrilized and Clan level organization always loses out even if their technology is similar enough to be irrelevant. Che was always going to lose for mathmatical reasons. War is the power of the state. Many like anarchy because it prevents us from being drafted and used as fodder. Somehow we have to move past the fear of others and borders before we can be free from it.
Are you an anarchist? City states aren't anarchist and there's nothing about anarchy that precludes higher level organizing. Anarchists usually even push for international organization.
I dunno, I think states are best at consulting war against other states. The Romans, when confronting groups that did not necessarily confirm to the idea of a state, often struggled unless they could coopt local rulers to form a client *state* as a buffer. Russia and the US struggled against the afghans, the US struggles against "turrism" during the GWOT. If Russia wins in Ukraine, I believe they will struggle with a violent insurrection for many years. States are good at fighting other states.
The only correct answer in this thread.
you can definitely apply some training the other militaries of the world use
The various militant factions in Myanmar seem to be doing pretty well against the Junta that took control of the government right now.
Look at Afghanistan or Vietnam
[the War of the Flea](https://ia802208.us.archive.org/1/items/war-of-the-flea_202203/War%20of%20the%20Flea.pdf)
Anarchism has survived for a hundred or so years because it’s decentralised, if it were centralised someone could’ve stomped it out.
Take it down form the inside