"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams
New role for the military
"The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials. The long-planned shift in the Defense Department's role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said" (WashingtonPost.com, Nov. 30, 2008).
Rather than reassuring me, this move really makes me nervous. This is a radical change in the purpose and focus of our military. And once they're in place, they could be used for literally anything (like confiscating guns a la New Orleans...or worse).
6 comments:
I don't like the idea of our military taking on a domestic role; it's a bad idea and in my view a solution in search of a problem.
I read with much enjoyment over the past few years the sweeping series of historical novels about politics in ancient Rome by Colleen McCollough. (The first book in the series is "First Man in Rome") What astonishes is the almost precise parallels between what happened in Rome between 100 BC and the ascension of Augustus to the role of emperor and our own circumstnces today. The wearying of the citizenry to fulfill their duties; the dissolution of centuries-old traditions that had held the society together; the inability to stop men of raw ambition from assuming increasingly dioctatorial power over the society.
It's a cliche to note that all civilizations follow a similar arc; it's another thing to see the very same (at least semantically the same) sorts of issues play themselves out in two different civilizations searated by 2,000 years.
The context here is that Rome had extremely strict proscriptions against any Roman army entering the city. Julius Caesar, of course, violated that long-held tradition, part of his endgame in wresting control of Rome from his enemies.
McCullough's books on Rome are wonderful reading, but long. They're full of insights that are applicable to our very specific circumstances.
Interesting, Bill. What's the author's background?
I, too, am uncomfortable about this development, especially with Obama as the president. What is the true purpose of this "deployment"? We already have military bases around the country, and have for many years. Why didn't anybody see a need for this for seven years after September 11, 2001? What are the police, fire department, EMT's and the national guard for? I thought we couldn't afford anything. If we have two wars going on, how can we put an entire division's worth of soldiers on a "deployment" here? Who are you going to use to fight the Afghan war, or did Obama just lie about wanting to increase forces there? If we have an entire division "deployed" here, then why do we need Obama's civilian goon squad? It makes me think of things people dare not speak about. I don't think the Savior trusts his constituents. It's tin-horn dictators who need huge armies at home when there are few external threats.
As an irate and tireless member of the minority, I have just composed this letter to my congressman and it will go in the mail tomorrow.
December 4, 2008
Congressman Bill Shuster
204 Cannon HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Shuster,
I am writing as a constituent to express a serious concern. On November 30 the Washington Post reported the following: “The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials. The long-planned shift in the Defense Department’s role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.”
This has never been the role of our military, and to place an entire division at the disposal of the federal authorities for purely domestic matters is contrary to the founding principles of our nation. According to Colleen McCollough in her book First Man in Rome, ancient Rome had extremely strict proscriptions against any Roman army entering the city. But Julius Caesar was able to wrest control from his adversaries by violating that long-held tradition. To have a standing army solely for the purpose of dealing with domestic problems is dangerous to our freedom. Keep in mind that the one of the central reasons for the Second Amendment was to guarantee that the citizens could defend themselves against an out-of-control tyrannical federal government. We saw in New Orleans how the military can go door to door confiscating weapons from law-abiding citizens. This ought not to be.
I know this shift in the Defense Department’s role is being pushed for supposedly noble and necessary purposes. But we have police, the fire department, EMTs, and the National Guard. Why do we now need the United States Army? It all sounds so reasonable today, but what about in twenty years? I shutter to think what this could lead to!
On February 20, 1788, the Pennsylvania Gazette wrote: “The powers of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sward are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress have no right to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American.... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
Congressman Shuster, I beseech you as my representative in Congress to take a firm and vociferous stand against this threat to the true security of our nation. If the objectives of this shift are truly noble and necessary, then there are other ways they can be attained. I would be happy to discuss this matter with you at any time.
Great letter, Dave. You ought to repurpose it as a free-standing post in the blog.
Great letter, Dave. I'm sorry the author in the Pa. Gazette limits it to age 60. Oh, and just think about the looks you'll get from the great Obama's supporters should you quote the founding fathers in respect to the Second Amendment. If anyone mentions the word "militia," he's branded a nut.
The reason I used this quote is because of the line, "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?" Yes, we are the militia. If there are security issues with vandalism and violence following some internal disaster, the well-armed citizenry should be called out to preserve order. If there are a few shoot-outs, so be it. I have no doubt that order would shortly be restored.
Post a Comment