The people of the American Colonies were deathly opposed to having a standing army

[bean fidhleir]

and it took the support of Washington to get one. He didn't like the way the wealthy elites in Boston had to foot the bill for a mercenary force to put down what's misnamed today as "Shays's Rebellion". He felt it would be nicer to have the people themselves pay for the privilege of being put down (which is what happened to the poor farmers in Pennsylvania who didn't like paying tax per jug for the whisky they cooked up when the big distillers were taxed a flat fee).

Now we have a massive standing army and, of course, a lot of imperialist adventurism to keep it tuned up.

So I wonder: how many here - no distinction as to sex or sexuality - would be willing to do regular militia duty if thereby the standing army could be disbanded? For talking purposes let's say it would consume a weekend every month and two weeks in summer, just like the NG duty today, and the age range would be as in colonial times: 16 to 65.

Hmmmm?

[Demeter]

1. Only If America's Power-Mad Elite Gave Up the Dreams of Empire

and "wars of choice" and "illegal occupations". If the armed forces were solely for defense, and not for dominion at home or abroad, there would be no issue.

And that's what is so sad about today's volunteer army. Those young impressionable, honorable kids sign up for their nation, and spend their life's blood filling some KBR and Halliburton and Blackwater pockets with loot from other people's treasuries. And yet the kids still buy the fairy tale, as do their families and their officers.

[bean fidhleir]

2. Yes, sorry, I thought that was implied by my using the term "militia"

The idea would be defense only - any invader trying to take over would get their plows cleaned because there'd be on the order of 150M people ready to drop everything and do it to them.

[Bucky]

3. It would be good for community building. Neighbors get to know neighbors.

Of course you need a standing professional army for overseas military commitments like Korea, Germany, Iceland, Japan, or Afghanistan. You need at least a Marine Corps for your embassies & consulates. A standing, professional army certainly gets any wars fought quicker and with far greater success. Militias can't really be deployed beyond the local area except in times of total warfare.

One military advantage of a professional army is that, if the troops lose a horrible battle, the cost in lives is shared in a more or less uniform fashion around the country. If a local militia gets wiped out (as frequently happened in the US Civil War) then some communities end up losing a significant portion of their ablest men. The trauma of such an even is hard to fathom.

In some respects the function of the militias of old have been replaced by today's police forces--people who have the rights to bear firearms in situations where most citizens don't. Of course our cops are there to protect us from burglars & street gangs instead of highwaymen and Cherokees. But their main function is for the regulation of traffic--technology makes more social regulation necessary.

I'm not sure many 65 year olds were in the local militias back in the 18th century. The country had a young population and most 65 year olds were in the kind of health that 75 year olds are today. It'd be a nice tradition, but a hard one to sustain, seeing as there's no real need to defend our communities from military threats. There might also be a tendency of a militarized community to see martial answers to community problems.

It's probably worth noting that one reason our communities around the country do not need militias for protection is that our full time professional citizens' army provides such encompassing protection as is.

[Demeter]

4. In Other Words, the National Guard

which Bush perverted into the army and sent to die in foreign lands.

[Bucky]

5. Well, the National Guard has always been more of a state army than a local militia

The original militias answered to the local town councils, not the governor. Militias were literally all the guys with guns.

[hack89]

8. The National Guard is part of the United States Army

and have been fighting America's wars for a long time. Bush has nothing to do with it:

In 1903, part of the militia was federalized and renamed the National Guard and organized as a Reserve force for the Army. In World War I, the National Guard made up 40 percent of the U.S. combat divisions in France. In World War II the National Guard made up 19 divisions. One hundred forty thousand Guardsmen were mobilized during the Korean War and over 63,000 for Operation Desert Storm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard

[Thothmes]

35. The National Guard has

been sent overseas to die in foreigh lands before.

[JDPriestly]

6. I would volunteer for regular militia duty under the auspices of

official authority. I would see it as a form of volunteer work in my community. I'm almost 65 but fit. My vision is poor so I probably would not be stationed as a sharpshooter, but I think most people would volunteer if called upon to do so. I would probably make a good nurse or be able to help out in a meaningful way. It's the least we could do for our country. I could not do it full time. But that would surely not be necessary with a citizen's militia.

When I was in high school, I used to visit the civil defense group in our community with a friend who I believe later joined the military. It was very interesting. I liked it.

[The Straight Story]

7. We don't need a militia - we got nukes

Attack us and you go bye bye ;) (yeah, there is some sarcasm in all that).

[flashl]

9. State Militia exists today.

The State Guard Association of the United States (SGAUS) wants to remind people of the long tradition of state militias and how they differ from the newest crop of citizen militias. SGAUS is the national organization of state militias, also known as state guards or state defense forces. Paul McHenry Jr., executive director, says that educating the public will help contravene the ‘semantic infiltration’ that has caused confusion between these very different groups.

Twenty five states have official militias. They are usually convened by the adjutants general, who head the state military services, with the governor as commander in chief. Their members train as volunteers and also perform emergency and community support services. Unlike the National Guard, no federal clearance is necessary for their formation, and they are obligated to serve on state active duty if so ordered by the governor. State militias serve as backup to National Guard units in the event they are called to active duty.

Better known but harder to track, there are an estimated 200 "citizen militias" operating in about 40 states. A recent Anti Defamation League publication, Beyond the Bombing: The Militia Menace Grows, reports that, despite public outrage at the Oklahoma City bombing and the alleged militia connections, the movement has continued to grow. A majority of states have laws against private militias or paramilitary training, but, since people have the right of assembly, it can be difficult to determine at what point the law has actually been broken.

[bean fidhleir]

11. My point is really to see how many people would consider it

an attractive tradeoff. The elites wouldn't, of course, because then there wouldn't be people whom they can force to play their "Die For Dollars" game.

[flashl]

13. I haven't seen many, if any, citizen initative that the elites wants to co-opt remain untouched. nt

[DrCory]

10. I would, in a heartbeat!

I would dearly love to have an investment in the DEFENSE of my homeland and community.

[bean fidhleir]

12. No more than I'd expect of someone who appreciates Dürer :-)

[bean fidhleir]

14. bump

[bushmeister0]

15. Be careful what you wish for . . .

The eiltes wanted to use the Bonus Army, several tens of thousands of unemployeed WWI vets, to overthrow FDR's government in 1934.

"USMC General Smedley Butler, the most decorated Marine of his time, made allegations in 1934 that he had been approached by Wall Street financier Gerald MacGuire, representing some of the wealthiest businessmen in America, who wanted him to lead a 500,000 man force in a march on the White House to unseat then President Roosevelt. . . General Smedley Butler, who today might be dismissed as a 'liberal,' was a Quaker, a quasi-pacifist and ardent opponent of the emerging military-industrial complex. Were it not for his impeccable reputation, Butler's implication of such business giants as DuPont, JP Morgan, Goodyear, General Motors, Standard Oil and U.S. Steel in a fascist coup plot may never have inspired an investigation by Congress. Incredibly, while the Congressional Dickstein-McCormack committee agreed that the alleged fascist coup was quite real, it only ever called Maguire to testify and proceeded to delete large tracts of testimony from it's final report to Congress."

http://atticusmullikin.newsvine.com/_news/2008/01/16/1231774-article-1934-plot-by-american-industrialists-to-seize-the-white-house-foiled-by-marine-general

We might find ourseleves dealing with a simular situation in a few years when the 2 million or so Irq vets (mainly in their early twenties) who served in Iraq decide they've been royally fucked. One demagogue is all it would take. This tie we might not be so luck as to have a Smedley Butler.

[bean fidhleir]

17. I'm just asking about whether people would be willing to make the tradeoff

Should we interpret your response as a preference for a standing army?

As far as the prospect of a military coup goes, it seems to me that we're in much greater danger with a standing army since they're used to following orders and are already armed to the teeth, grouped, and in too many cases have been stuffed to the eyebrows with rightwing propaganda.

[hack89]

16. Modern warfare is a full time job

High tech, modern warfare is very complex - it takes years to master. A militia would actually make us more vulnerable.

[bean fidhleir]

18. I think Iraq and Afghanistan are causing a reassessment of that view

Aggressive war is complex, but self-defense doesn't seem to be.

[Echo In Light]

19. There's no big $ in self defense though - which is why they create a crisis and paint it as such

[bean fidhleir]

22. yes, that would be another advantage of a militia, wouldn't it.

There's not much money needed to fund and equip a militia. All the hardware for aggressive war could be scrapped. Peace dividend!

[hack89]

21. Counter insurgency is actually the most complex form of war

because it has a cultural aspect that conventional war does not. Iraq (after the initial invasion)is the type of war that America was simply not prepared or trained to fight.

Our problems in Iraq are political, not military. The Iraqi government is simply not willing or able to make those decisions necessary to unite the population and end the violence. There is no military solution - especially one the US can impose. That does not mean that the insurgents are winning militarily - our casualties are historically low and they can't challenge us directly. But they don't have to win militarily to "win" - they can still lose militarily and win politically. It doesn't take much violence to create a level of fear that undermine civil society - it makes no difference if you stop 99 attacks if the 100th one kills a bunch of people.

The problem with "defending America" is that our vulnerabilities are not here but rather thousands of mile away. You don't need to invade America to defeat us - you just need to severe our access to resources (oil) and markets to watch our economy and society implode. Hence our need for a powerful, global military. To take away that ability just because Bush misused it is short sighted - to answer to reform our political process to pick better leaders.

[bean fidhleir]

23. Why do you think this is the only way to live?

There are countries that seem to be getting by very nicely without imperialist military-industrial complexes.

What would prevent us doing the same?

[Echo In Light]

24. Greedy, evil bastards using huge doses of propaganda to dupe the populace into buying their schemes

[hack89]

25. Never said I did

But there are also countries besides us that do have imperialist military-industrial complexes that would challenge us. Unless you really believe that there will never be another Nazi Germany or Soviet Union, how does weakening our selves make sense? Why not be strong and simply find a way to select wiser leaders?

[bean fidhleir]

26. Well, Smedley Butler was the one that pointed out how the wealthy elites

send their money overseas to make big profits, and then send the Marines to protect the profits. What would prevent that pattern from continuing? (that's apropos your "choose better leaders")

As far as the thesis of other aggressive countries goes, historians seem to be fairly much agreed that we virtually created Nazi Germany at Versailles. And the Soviet Union was no more a threat to us than we to them. Even Stalin didn't do any invasions. Khrushchev tried to put missiles into Cuba, but that was no more aggressive than our forces in Europe.

[hack89]

27. Don't know

but what prevents them from using Chinese (or any other country's) marines or navy against a weak America if it would protect their profits? Look at the list of Asian and Russian billionaires - we do not have a monopoly on wealthy elites.

[bean fidhleir]

29. I think that's where the militia comes into it.

You've claimed that the US would be "weak", but you haven't supported your claim. It's well understood that aggressive war is an expensive proposition because of having to maintain lines of supply. And of course aggressive intercontinental war is the most expensive. Defense, on the other hand, is very cheap. So why would we be "weak" with 150-200M people doing defense?

[hack89]

31. Because a militia can't protect sea lanes thousands of miles away

our vulnerabilities are not here at home. Our society depends on access to resources and markets. Foreign wealthy elites could threaten us without invasion.

[bean fidhleir]

33. Our society as it exists now is coming to an end.

Unless we want to end with it, we'd better start envisioning its replacement, no?

[hack89]

36. We need to change the world as a whole

unilateral change could be national suicide. Don't you think that there are other countries that would like to be top dog for a change?

[bean fidhleir]

38. Yes, the world as a whole must change. And we seem to be among the last to realize that.

The same forces ending our current way of life are also ending theirs. The US, China, and India seem to be the only ones trying to pretend that what's happening isn't happening.

Which returns us to the original question.

[The2ndWheel]

30. But where are those countries?

They're already in the same economic system. The European countries that used to be imperial don't have to be imperial, and can spend that tax money on all those social programs, because the US center of power defeated or outlasted them in various wars. That's why the US, and the US tax payer, pays so much for the military.

We're always going to have that military-industrial compex. It's fundamentally built into the way our society works. What the global socio-economic system needs is a truly global military, where all the members of that system send X number of their people to defend it, especially if the EU actually gets its act together.

It's not the only way to live. However, it is the only way to live in the current way that we live.

[bean fidhleir]

32. "it is the only way to live in the current way that we live"

Sure. But the reason I posed the question about militia service is that "the current way that we live" is unsustainable. It's a race between running out of gas and running out of livable climate. Either way, our current way of life will soon end. Unless we want to end with it, I'd think that now's the time to start talking about a different way to live.

If you've ever done product development or marketing, then you're perhaps familiar with the functionality/benefit dichotomy. Benefits are what the customer wants, functionality is how the engineers deliver them. Many engineers struggle with that. To them, the functionality IS the benefit, which is why we get goofy things like sound effects in business software that has to be turned off because it's annoying in an office environement. Functionality without benefit.

Security from foreign attack is the benefit. A standing army is one kind of functionality. A universal militia would be another kind. Are there still others?

[zanne]

20. Sure, if they'd take me. nt

[annabanana]

28. To defend my home and family, and that of my neighbors?

sure...

To steal the resources of others?... not so much.

[bean fidhleir]

34. Isn't it saddening that we can hardly even think about pure defense?

Aggression and stealing seems to be so dug into our consciousness that peaceful people have to overtly disclaim any desire to aggress against others.

How the hell did we get to such a terrible place?

[Paladin]

37. What You're Proposing Here......

....is the overt arming and militarizing of the American public. That may be Ted Nugent's and G.Gordon Liddy's wet dream of this country's future; it sure as hell isn't mine.

[bean fidhleir]

39. You prefer a standing army of disaffected mercenaries? Okay.

[Paladin]

44. I'll Tell You What I'd Prefer:

I'd prefer that you understand that the "imperialist adventurism" you're so concerned about doesn't have fuck-all to do with the presence of a standing military in this country. It has to do with the brain-dead jerks we've sent to Washington D.C., and who now need to be thrown out on their ears, immediately if not sooner. And characterizing that entire standing force as a bunch of "disaffected mercenaries" is just snotty name-calling on your part, revealing a lot more about yourself than you probably intended.

Let me repeat: your call for some sort of citizens' militia to replace existing military organizations is just a bunch of gun nut melodrama---heroic INSERT FAVORITE MODERN-DAY TERM FOR "MINUTEMEN" meet and oppose INSERT FAVORITE INVADING ARMY OF EVIL FOREIGNERS and emerge victorious. Do yourself and the rest of us a favor: throw that well-worn disk of "Red Dawn" in the trash.....

[bean fidhleir]

45. Sure, whatever you say. I think you need to get your history checked, though

Smedley Butler was hardly a rightwinger.

[Zynx]

40. You could not have the professionalism and training necessary for a modern army in

the environment you suggest. Those were different times. The amount of training and expertise required in the 18th century was far less than it is now. Furthermore, I ask you to look up the generally history of those citizens' militias vs. the Continental Regulars who fought under Washington. The militias were poorly disciplined and trained and often broke on contact. Long Island, Camden, and Guilford Courthouse were perfect examples of that phenomenon.

Think about the changes in equipment that have driven the need for change. There is no way a part time militia could handle that sort of technology with proficiency.

[Irreverend IX]

41. Switzerland seems to manage it all right.

Everyone in their country does I think 2 years of military service, then functions as an armed reservist for several years. They have people who are trained to manage the high-level weapons systems, the artillery and missiles and so forth, but most of them just learn the basic weapons. The result is a purely defensive force that would cause any invader major grief.

If the US were to move toward this model, the Navy and Air Force would probably be retained, possibly in a somewhat more limited form, to protect shipping routes and such, but the foreign military bases would be a thing of the past.

[bean fidhleir]

43. Good call. I completely forgot the Switzers

Apropos the Navy, I can imagine not even having one. Just the Coastguard for local waters...and armed merchant ships (which, of course, would be crewed by citizens and therefore by militia members). The merchant vessels would be strong enough to fight off pirates, and any country that let their navy behave piratically would, I suppose, find themselves cut off from trade.

I suspect having an air force is going to soon become an international crime on a par with Crimes Against Peace. They're just too environmentally destructive.

[bean fidhleir]

42. A militia isn't meant to be an army, it's meant to be a resistance

that repels invaders or makes it too costly psychologially and physically for them to stay in control.

As to their effectiveness in a modern context, the Iraqi and Afghani resistances seem to be doing okay, as did the VNese not that long ago, and the Frogs, Norwegians, Polaks, Ukraintsi, Srbski, and HukBaLaHap in WW2.

But if you'd be unwilling to make that tradeoff, that's okay.