An all-American army
"The military is a proven contributor to foreign policy. Why canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t it make the same contributions to domestic policy?" Yeah.
Yeah! Why not? One intrepid Derek Reveron at the National Review Online wrote a Posse Comitatus, schmomitatus piece that left me wondering where you find these people who want to be ruled by the boys in camo. Are they servile creatures who can only relax in the presence of combined firepower displays on the populace? Do they want a piece of the action? What are they in it for?
Here were Reveron's highlights:
-"The Defense Department is the only department in government that has the personnel, equipment, and command and control capabilities to rapidly respond to disasters within the United States." -- He casually ignores why this is so: Because it's sucked all the funding from just about every other federal agency!! If we hadn't funded the Pentagon to the tune of a few score trillion since the Cold War, we might have funded an appropriate agency like FEMA to have the "personnel, equipment, and command and control capabilities to rapidly respond to disasters within the United States."
-These captions: "Viceroys Abroad, Why Not at Home?", "Nature Can Be a Devastating Enemy"
-"There is no reason to think that that military would abuse an expanded role helping Americans or that an expanded role would run counter to American political culture. Public-opinion polls consistently show that Americans trust the military to do what is right."
-"With the shortcomings of the D.C.-based bureaucracies and limitations of local governments to respond to major events, military leaders have a distinct advantage over their civilian counterparts."
-Best of all: "In a time of crisis, the United States doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t need a coordinator; it needs a leader. Civilian-controlled military officers offer this leadership." Right. General, we need some scorched-earth leadership on this immigration problem. Remember though, you report to me.