Well, howdy there, Internet people, it spell again.

So today, we're going to talk about organizing, structure, and a survival myth.

We got this question, and it's an interesting one, and it's really relevant to those who are community networking,

and it deals with something that

often has to be trained out of the veteran community. Okay, here's the question. Bell, after everything

that's gone on with the disasters here in Washington State, the group I've been pushing for years

to form a community network is finally

ready and having serious meetings and discussions about it so we can be ready for the next disaster,

and the vets want to be ready in case of an actual collapse of society. We've already run into our

first big issue when it comes to how to structure

it. I'm advocating for the kind of structure you have promoted here for years, where it's very fluid,

and leadership is based on the particular situation, and who is most experienced in that situation. But the people who were in the

army want a more rigid hierarchy, and they say it's more efficient. I have a list of reasons

why I think the more fluid reason is better, but I thought I'd go to the source and ask the

people who have been running a functioning network for 10 years, and, as I've recently discovered, are mostly vets.

So, why did you not use the structure most of you are more comfortable with?

Military structure is perfect for following orders to achieve well-defined short-term objectives.

The order is Sergeant Take That Hill, not Sergeant, take that hill, build a rapport with the locals,

establish a working relationship with the village on the next hill, and take care of anything

else that comes up.

Some of the vets watching this are going to say, well, that kind of happened in conflicts

X and Y.

...