Posted on 07/31/2002 6:41:48 AM PDT by sheltonmac
President Bush, in his proposal to create a new Department of Homeland Security, said, "The threat of catastrophic terrorism requires a thorough review of the laws permitting the military to act within the United States in order to determine whether domestic preparedness and response efforts would benefit from greater involvement of military personnel and, if so, how."
During this war on terror, the issue of deploying U.S. troops at home has been raised on more than one occasion, and, like it or not, we may be one step closer to that reality. In this age of standing armies, it was only a matter of time.
Advocates of a strong, standing army will point to Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power "to raise and support armies." Most stop right there, but if they were to read on they would see that the Constitution limits congressional authority to raise an army by stipulating that "no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years."
There is no doubt that our founding fathers were very cautious regarding the issue of providing for a standing army. In fact, one of the driving forces behind the Declaration of Independence was that King George made a habit of keeping standing armies among the colonies, even during times of peace.
Of course, there were those even then who wanted at least a limited standing army. George Washington, for example, saw the need for "a regular and standing force, for garrisoning West Point and such other posts upon our northern, western, and southern frontiers, as shall be deemed necessary to awe the Indians, protect our trade, prevent the encroachment of our neighbors...and guard us at least from surprises." That, however, is a far cry from what we have in the 21st century.
Today, we seem to operate under the assumption that one must join the military in order to serve his or her country. We believe that a permanent, standing military force—no matter where in the world it may be stationed—is extremely vital to our security here at home. I would argue that this mindset is precisely why our nation has become less secure over the years.
As government grows, so does its need to justify its own existence. To provide that justification, it must demonstrate its usefulness, and what better way to do that than to get involved in a war?
The fact that most governments thrive on war is undeniable. Anyone who has even the most elementary grasp of history understands that. Whenever government leaders mobilize their armed forces—whether their country is the invader or the invaded—they do so with the justification that they are only acting in the best interests of the nation.
Because the world in which we live is a highly volatile one, most people have simply accepted the idea that maintaining a large, standing army is an absolute necessity. They have become convinced that without one, our nation would be conquered and our liberty stripped away forever.
But we have forgotten the responsibility that comes with liberty. Irish statesman John Philpot Curran once said, "The condition upon which God hath granted liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt." It is this "eternal vigilance" that is in short supply. We have shown ourselves to be more than willing to entrust our immediate protection to those in government.
Rather than put our faith in the might of a standing army, perhaps we should revisit the concerns some of our forefathers had on the subject. One of the strongest opponents of a standing army was Richard Henry Lee, signer of the Declaration of Independence and grandfather of Robert E. Lee. In a letter to James Monroe, he wrote:
As to the protection of our own frontiers, it would seem best to leave it to the people themselves, as hath ever been the case...This will always secure to us a hardy set of men on the frontiers, used to arms, and ready to assist against invasions on other parts. Whereas, if they are protected by regulars, security will necessarily produce inattention to arms, and the whole of our people becoming disused to war, render the curse of a standing army necessary.U.S. citizens have indeed become disused to war. Owning firearms for personal protection is an antiquated notion, and war—9/11 attacks notwithstanding—is viewed as an abstract event that remains confined to far distant shores.
I do not think it is a stretch to say that maintaining a large, standing army has contributed somewhat to our increasingly lax view of domestic security. We have willingly relinquished our Second Amendment rights, and are now forced to rely on politicians and a select group of soldiers for our protection. Some may find an element of comfort in that, but if ideals like personal responsibility and the right to keep and bear arms were held in high esteem by our government, the tragic events of Sept. 11 may very well have been prevented, and we wouldn't be discussing the possibility of deploying U.S. troops to enforce domestic laws.
Not in my back yard!!
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
Henry Louis Mencken
"Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear-kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor-with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it ..."
General Douglas MacArthur, 1957
Boonie Rat
MACV SOCOM, PhuBai/Hue '65-'66
Demobilizating and returning to a rational foreign policy would not I think dissuade those who might seek revenge.
The safe way to go about it is to first change the foreign policy, then demobilize. But can it really be done in that order?
We might just be screwed.
Message to towel heads: "Bring it."
I suggest we issue all head of households a decent firearm and require they show up for a semi-monthly weekend day's duty of drill with the weapon and training in self-defense and basic first-aid.
I think he left out a very important point...
Madison: "He says that one ground of complaint, at the beginning of the revolution, was, that a standing army was quartered upon us. This was not the whole complaint. We complained because it was done without the local authority of this country — without the consent of the people of America."
"The consent of the people of America" is the main bulwark against tyrannies.
Clinton and now Bush are wary of asking Congress to declare war first before we bomb some country. Bush is advocating a national policy of nuclear Pearl Harbors. We are becomming like the international take-over-the-world totalatarians that we hated.
Since the war cabinet and the pundits have trashed Powell, time to bring back Bush the Elder as a special Emissary to the world to recapture the friends we had when he left office. Maybe he can figure out how Clinton and his son dissipated the coalition and lost the respect of just about every other nation.
The Navy IMO can patrol our domestic sea ways that is their charge and only the Navy has some of the equipment necessary to detect hostiles beneath the sea or river in some cases. Our military is deliberately and foolishly beeing undermanned and under funded. FDR's lax military readiness nearly put us under Imperial and German rule. How much more so had we needed to call to arms and train even a simple response?
For nearly 50 years we enjoyed not having our very shores attacked simply because we had sufficent means to quickly launch a direct and damaging counrter offensive. I would rather have to military over funded over manned and enjoy peace than to have is undermanned partially destroyed due to unpreparedness and loose thousands of our sons in an extended war while we call up an army and train it while we build a military capable of fighting the enemy.
For that purpose and the fact governments function is for common defense I support a maintained standing military. I do not however support a joint military/civilian policing force.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.