"We have to develop in another thread ways to restrict military power above the militia level without simply abandoning an effective national army." Joel Skousen
It appears that totalitarian governments have an advantage over the lightly ruling government desired by a free people. The former can confiscate enormous wealth and manpower and use it to produce an overwhelming military force, all the while crying, "Defense, defense". The latter will not wish to divert their wealth or endanger their freedom to oppose this threat with an equal or greater standing army. It is only necessary for the totalitarian to conceal his intent until he has a sufficient edge to permit victory or extortion.
So what principle or policy can we use to prevent the bully from overpowering the more productive and peace-loving nations without becoming bullies ourselves, or the slaves of bullies?
In its youth, America was guarded by a wall of water and could afford to largely ignore tyrants from the Old World. But in the age of ICBMs this is no longer possible.
The U.S. Constitution allows a Full-Time Navy,
but allows a Standing Army for only 2 years at a
time (section 8;the reason for the limitation appears in the Declaration of Independence paragraph 13)
The U.S. Navy currently has an Airwing on the
aircraft carriers.The Airforce could be made part of the Navy,which would allow the Deployment of Land-based ICBM's,Sub-based ICBM's and Bommber-based ICBM's.
This would protect us against Foreign Dictators ,
as opposed to the Executive-Order writting Dictator that now sits as President.
The reasons the Foreign dictators dont physically invade the U.S. now is, the Oceans ,and our guns and rifles in the hands of the people;
250 million firearms in the hands of 100 million
people.
Alonzo,
The best deterrent to actual invasion is an armed and fiesty populace--there are reasons Switzerland hasn't been to war in over 500 years. It's not feasible to invade the US, simply because it's so huge, and the country would have to be conquered one little piece at a time, with HEAVY casualties, (not to mention the lousy morale engendered by the invasion force constantly wondering when a sniping citizen's bullet will go through him). So long as we have the ability to defend ourselves from weaponry attack (missiles or other military weaponry), take retaliative action on the dictators who ordered the attack (as in, they forfeit their lives), and plain stay out of other nations' business, we should be just fine.
There was some kind of agreement between rulers (including our president) a few decades ago where they all said "I won't kill you if you don't kill me." So, the lives of tyrants are officially protected--and it's time that changed.
My father always said, "An armed society is a polite society." The same principle can be applied to nations. If there is a severe, personal penalty affixed to any given action, that action's occurance decreases drastically.
One of the primary proposals I have made in this system is to restrict all military forces in the nation to the direct defense of our own nation and its system of protection of fundamental rights. All enemies who cannot be shown to be a hostile threat to our nation cannot be attacked by our tax funded Army. An attack on Israel by an enemy that had no stated intentions to attack us could not be repelled by our national military under my proposal. If Israel's cause was just, our leaders could call for volunteers, and volunteer funding. I could even envision patriotic leaders establishing lists and funds and equipment stockpiled in advance for volunteer military assistance to others fighting regional tyranny.
On the other hand, this language would allow us to fight a Vietnam type war (without the "rules of engagement" restrictions) with a Communist enemy who has stated that it's ultimate intention is to encircle and attack the US. This is the domino theory which has some validity. So this is the Constitutional restriction that would prohibit "peacekeeping ops" and meddling in other's nation's affairs--at least with tax payer's money.
Within the proper limits of Government's powers to fund a national army, Navy and AF, there is no way to write in restrictions on growth of such a force that would not become obsolete in time. Thus these things must be left to the national legislature. One of the positive things about having a national defense head and property tax is that this direct linkage would provide painful tax resistance to excessive military buildups in times of peace, which is appropriate in real peace, but a risk when people are blinded to subtle but growing threats.
There will always be this tension between those that see and those that don't. Hopefully, with strong restrictions on the proper use of military force, most citizens will have a pro-military point of view, and understand the proper balance between isolationism and a vigorous offense (as the best defense).
Earl,
The Air Force should not become part of the Navy, as the Air Force has a much broader mission than the Navy does. Besides the fact that the Air Force moves all of the Soldiers and equipment to the war, they also have refueling aircraft which hover over Iraq and keep fighters (planes) fueled and armed to support ground forces. That isn't taking into account the Air Traffic Controllers who control the entire airspace of Iraq, or the AWACS radar plane that detects threats. Stateside NORAD and SEADS prevent foreign aircraft/missiles from entering the United States. There is no way to put the Navy in charge of the Air Force's mission. The Navy and Marines have some planes to assist them in certain functions, but they are not an Air Force.
Also, Dictators do not care about our citizens being armed. If you guys were not aware of this, every Iraqi citizen is allowed to own an AK47 (per individual). Many nations allow their citizens to have weapons and many of the citizens in the world are armed far better than Americans. American citizens owning guns has not lessoned the amount of crime we have. I am for gun ownership, but I do not think the fact we are armed does anything to hinder invading armies or criminals.
Joel,
When you are speaking of Israel I am not sure which of their enemies you are referring to, but Hezbollah attacked the US Marine Barracks in Beirut long before they attacked Israel. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (which is why we were in Lebanon) has also conducted terrorist attacks against the United States. The United States formed alliances such as NATO and the UN for good reasons. If we allow an overseas threat to grow too large, then we will not be able to defeat it (especially by ourselves). If we allow the innocent people in Israel, Kosovo, Darfur, or anywhere else to be genocided, it will only be a matter of time before that evil spreads across the world like a plague and comes to our shores.
America can no longer afford to keep out of international affairs. If a biological weapon is released anywhere in the world, it can be spread to the United States in a couple of hours (due to tourism and the availability of travel now).
The US Military does not have unlimited funds, and each branch of the service is only allowed so many members. We actually need more military spending to keep America safe, as we are losing our competitive edge. In the past America as been a viable force because of our technology. With the wide spread availability of GPS and satellite photos, America are losing it technological advantage. We need more and more to rely on our countries courage and endurance; unfortunately many Americans are getting bored with the war. They are impatient and are quick to forget the feeling of vulnerability they felt on 9/11.
If we pull out of Iraq now, we will allow our enemy to become much stronger and they will become even more confident in their belief that they can beat us. They will attack us again as soon as we let our guard down, and then America will be renewed in their commitment of self-defense. Our best bet is to overcome the threat now. That is what Patrick Henry would say (waiting will not make us stronger), and Thomas Paine would advise us to face our threats now, and not leave our children to be cutting throats.
American freedom is what is being attacked. Our allies are attacked for attempting to mimic our freedoms. The plan of our enemies in simple, they wish to divide and concur. They wish to take out any weaker nations that might come to our aid, so that when they rally against us, we will be on our own. We cannot act like cowards and abandon our allies, to do so will make us look weak; it will cause other countries to lose faith in us, and will increase our enemy’s wiliness to attack us.
Patriotsmother,
I like your idea of Targeted Killings, unfortunately the problem with assassination is that Americans are not very good at it. Even before everyone got mad at the CIA for alleged assassination attempts on Castro, the CIA had proven to be lacking in skill at assassinating foreign leaders. Dictators are careful and don't leave themselves vulnerable to being assassinated (many of their own people would like to try), and a successful military strike depends on accurate intelligence.
America has many domestic threats as well. White Supremacist groups have laid claim to the Northwestern states, and the Republic of New Africa has demanded the Southeastern States. Many Mexican guerrillas also claim the Southwest of the United States is rightfully theirs, and claim America is an occupying force. Those are just the threats from ethnic supremacists. We also have Islamic fundamentalists and Communists waiting to take over America. Not to mention crazy people that just want to go into schools and murder people for the •••• of it.
Americans need to take steps to protect themselves from the dangers from within, and should support the US Military in order for them to protect us from the dangers from without. US citizens need to take part in protecting our country and need to report suspicious behavior to law enforcement, and support those who risk their lives for us everyday.