To place any dependence upon militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff.

George Washington made this remark during the Revolutionary War while grappling with the chronic unreliability of short-term militia service compared with trained, long‑enlisted regular troops. As commander in chief, he repeatedly complained to Congress and state authorities that militia units arrived late, left when enlistments expired, lacked discipline and training, and were prone to panic or desertion under pressure. The “broken staff” metaphor reflects his frustration that strategic plans could not safely be built on forces that might dissolve at the moment of crisis, and it aligns with his broader push for a more professional, consistently supplied Continental Army.

The sentence warns against basing national defense or military strategy on a force that is structurally unstable. A “staff” is something you lean on for support; if it is broken, reliance becomes dangerous rather than helpful. Washington is not merely insulting citizen-soldiers, but pointing to systemic limits of militia: uneven training, temporary enlistments, and weak command cohesion. The quote thus argues for institutional capacity—standing forces, reliable logistics, and discipline—over improvisation. In later American debates, it is often invoked to justify professional armed forces and to caution that patriotic enthusiasm alone cannot substitute for preparedness.