Radical Idea: Break up the military

I have an idea that will increase peace across the globe: Break up the U.S. military. Break it up! Break it up! Break it up ...

... into 50 something fractions.

That is, give each state a military (militia?) of it's own,  under the leadership of the Governor of each state.

Think about it: Every state already has a base of it's own.

Some states naturally will be better suited for some kinds of services (coastal states are bound to have Naval bases and Marines). The states like Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada, may have superior air power.

One thing is for certain: it would be extremely tough to go to war.

(Which is a good thing.)

States would actually have to think long about whether such and such foreign leader in power is a "threat" to "security" -- long before a troop is deployed for a tour ... before a fire is shot.

State senates, state congresses, and state houses would have to determine whether it makes sense to deploy X battalion and Y Squadron overseas.

I almost said "national security" -- but there would be no national security. Rather, they'd have to figure out if so-and-so leader (an Assad, a Putin, a Saddam) was a threat to "state security." 

State governments would have to debate military budgets.

The Pentagon would be no more...

... but all of the Pentagon's secrets and joint secrets with other agencies (such as the CIA) should be released to the public before it shutters its door, and made publicly available on a website (Wikileaks can't do everything).

The police and the military would be separate. The military, by law, should be prohibited from giving military equipment to the police before, during, or after the decentralization of the national military force.  This prevents the militarization of the police.

In the meantime, the military equipment that the police departments currently own should be taken away, in a separate process.

As for overseas bases, close them down permanently.

What about Guantanamo Naval Base? Shut it down, too. We don't even own Cuba but we have a military base there.

I actually thought of this a while ago -- but this week I saw a headline that reminded me of my own idea. So ... I'm posting this now to at least be one of the earliest voices (this is, of course, without doing any research to see if the idea has been put out there before).

I could be very late myself.

UPDATE: I found the piece I referred to above, which was published six days ago. I haven't read it yet it but it is called "Decentralize the Military: Why We Need Independent Militias" by Ryan McMaken. Perhaps McMaken will come to some similar conclusions and share the same line of arguments. 

"Decentralize the Military: Why We Need Independent Militias"

Angelo Codevilla on America's Ruling Class

This one is a throwback...

But I kept forgetting the name of the author and so I finally decided to publish this on my site (if I haven't done so already), so I wouldn't forget again.

I actually saw the author in person, when he was speaking on a foreign policy panel, at the 2013 CPAC conference at the Gaylord National Convention Center in National Harbor, Md.

Anyway...

This is an important essay.  It's always good to revisit from time to time.

Here's an excerpt:

Although after the election of 2008 most Republican office holders argued against the Troubled Asset Relief Program, against the subsequent bailouts of the auto industry, against the several "stimulus" bills and further summary expansions of government power to benefit clients of government at the expense of ordinary citizens, the American people had every reason to believe that many Republican politicians were doing so simply by the logic of partisan opposition. After all, Republicans had been happy enough to approve of similar things under Republican administrations. Differences between Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas are of degree, not kind.

Read the rest.

America’s Ruling Class — And The Perils Of Revolution

By Angelo Codevilla

Video: Fiorina Claims She's Not Part of the "Professional Political Class"

Editor's Note: I am no longer a libertarian anarchist. 

When I was, I used the Center For Stateless Society's material for my intellectual edification all of the time. This C4SS video on Carly Fiorina is very eye-opening, but it is not an endorsement of libertarian anarchism -- left or right.

The critique in the video can be maintained by any libertarian minarchist -- Christian or secular.

For one, the video shows that Hewlett-Packard was long-time beneficiary of government privileges.

HP is a part of the military-industrial complex.

Intellectual property "rights" gave HP its marketplace advantage.

If Fiorina can't point this out, how can she truly be called a "free-marketeer"?

When it comes to approving or disapproving legislation dealing with intellectual property rights, which create artificial scarcity, how will she vote? Will she veto? Will she uphold intellectual property "rights"?

Picture Courtesy of the Getty Images

So even if she wasn't a lifelong politician, she still has benefited from the legislation of lifelong politicians.

If she doesn't understand that then there is at least one area of the economy which we can't expert her to advocate freedom.

Of course, I keep all of this in context with all of her competitors and what she proposes.

But based on her foreign policy views alone, as she voiced them on the September 16, 2015 CNN debate, I couldn't support her.

She is a war hawk. Pure and simple.

Don't believe me? 

Read her words from the debate here....

...and then read an analysis of them.

David Stockman,  Director of Office and Budget Management under Ronald Reagan, cites Fiorina's own words from the debate and then breaks down her talking points, and then gives the real history of foreign policy that Fiorina, in all likelihood, is clueless about. 

Ron Paul on Obama's 'Surprise' Visit to Afghanistan

We should ask ourselves why Obama's trip was a "surprise" visit rather than a normal state visit. The reason is that after ten years it is still far too dangerous to travel in or out of that country. Does that not speak much more loudly than the president's optimistic words about the amazing progress we have made in Afghanistan?

Enduring Commitments Abroad || Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk

Penn State Professor Evaluates Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Talking Points--And Doesn't Find Them Wanting

Professor Flynt Leverett of Penn State University and the New America foundation:

Dr. Paul does not miss a beat, pointing out that “the Senator is wrong on his history.  We’ve been at war in Iran for a lot longer than ’79.  We started it in 1953 when we sent in a coup, installed the Shah, and the reaction—the blowback—came in 1979.  It’s been going on and on because we just don’t mind our own business. That’s our problem”.

CAN REP. RON PAUL INFLUENCE AMERICA’S IRAN DEBATE? || Race for Iran

Is Ron Paul wrong on Jerusalem?

Yes, says this guy.

Kony: What Jason did not tell the Invisible Children - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

The LRA is a raggedy bunch of a few hundred at most: poorly equipped, poorly armed, and poorly trained. Their ranks mainly comprise those kidnapped as children and then turned into tormentors. It is a story not very different from that of abused children, who in time turn into abusive adults. In short, the LRA is no military power. 

Addressing the problem dubbed "the LRA" does not call for a military operation. And yet, the LRA is given as the reason why there must be a constant military mobilisation, at first in northern Uganda, and now in the entire region, why the military budget must have priority and, now, why the US must send soldiers and weaponry, including drones, to the region. But rather than being the reason for accelerated military mobilisation in the region, the LRA is merely the excuse for it.

The reason why the LRA continues is that its victims - the civilian population of the area - trust neither the LRA nor government forces. Sandwiched between the two, civilians need to be rescued from an ongoing military mobilisation and offered the hope of a political process.

Kony: What Jason did not tell the Invisible Children - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Video: Intelligence Officer: Ron Paul Is Right on Iran

Video: Council on Foreign Relations Calls for Bombing Iran

This is my first time watching a John Birch Society video. I was told, after I saw this video, to be careful of this group by a conservative/libertarian friend.

Iran: The Case Against the Next War « Antiwar.com Blog

The Case Against the Next War is “a concise package on foreign policy with Iran and Israel because [young activists] desired a resource to show parents and family something with integrity,” says Nick Hankoff. The 26 year old media consultant created the presentation for his local GOP group which as he noted in a brief interview with Antiwar.com, made up of new activists under 30. Click here for a media presentation which cuts through the now daily onslaught of anti-Iranian propaganda.

Iran: The Case Against the Next War « Antiwar.com Blog

Our Fear of Iran-Iraq Shiite Government Partnership Makes Perfect Sense

So let me get this straight:

(1) We invaded Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Muslim, who suppressed the Shiite minority over the years.
(2) We are now scared that the Shiite-led government will collaborate with the Shiite Government of Iran.

That makes perfect sense.

According to the Daily Telegraph:

Lt Gen Firouzabadi added that Iran was now "ready to expand its military and security ties with Iraq."

It continues:

US analysts have expressed concern that Iran could exploit the vacuum left by the US withdrawal to bolster links with Iraq's Shiite-led government.

New readers, please note the irony.

Michael Barone implies Dems switched shoes with GOP on military interventionism

From 1917 to 1968, the Democrats were the more militarily interventionist of our two parties. Since 1968, they have been the party more likely to oppose military intervention. That transformation, whatever you think of it, was the work of the peace movement.

Michael Barone, Tea Partiers, Like Peaceniks, Upset Political Order

Tea party audience boos Ron Paul for explaining motive of al Qaeda | Raw Replay

“Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have been explicit, and they wrote and said that we attacked because you had bases on our holy lands in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians a fair treatment,” Paul said before being interrupted by more boos. “I didn’t say that, I’m just trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombings.”

Tea party audience boos Ron Paul for explaining motive of al Qaeda | Raw Replay