3 ms·

(Not a supporter of the administration but...) It's an order to form a standing army, not an order to deploy troops anywhere in particular. The article describ

(Not a supporter of the administration but...) It's an order to form a standing army, not an order to deploy troops anywhere in particular. The article describes a recruitment and training drive that sounds like it should take 3-12 months to complete. If you do believe (as your post suggests) that an armed response to crowd control might be appropriate in the event of another Vietnam or another BLM, surely the right time to start preparing for that is now? I do think you're right to be concerned about militarisation, but "there isn't enough civil unrest to justify this right now" is hardly the right objection.

Refreeze5224 1y ago
The point I was making about "enough civil unrest" is that the administration is trying to use it as an excuse to deploy the military in ways they want. It's cover for their true purposes. I don't believe they should be deployed hardly ever, if at all, and there is a good reason they are prohibited from being used as domestic law enforcement.
clanky 1y ago
> another Vietnam What if, and hear me out here, we just didn't do that?
- krapp 1y ago
  Do you understand the concept and purpose of the military industrial complex? It is, in no small part, a capitalist enterprise. War is a means of projecting imperialist power, but also justifying military contracts and expenditure. It is a self-perpetuating, self-justifying machine that demands constant growth, so we must do that. We can't not do that. And since the current regime (and half the country) considers the domestic population to be as much an adversary as any foreign one, we're going to reap the home soil. This is just American imperialism turning on itself, as imperialism inevitably must.
  - clanky 1y ago
    We're on the same page here, but just because those are the system's imperatives doesn't mean they must be embraced by the poster I replied to.
themadturk 1y ago
But...but...but...we already have a standing army.

Refreeze5224 1y ago

The point I was making about "enough civil unrest" is that the administration is trying to use it as an excuse to deploy the military in ways they want. It's cover for their true purposes. I don't believe they should be deployed hardly ever, if at all, and there is a good reason they are prohibited from being used as domestic law enforcement.

clanky 1y ago

> another Vietnam What if, and hear me out here, we just didn't do that?

krapp 1y ago
Do you understand the concept and purpose of the military industrial complex? It is, in no small part, a capitalist enterprise. War is a means of projecting imperialist power, but also justifying military contracts and expenditure. It is a self-perpetuating, self-justifying machine that demands constant growth, so we must do that. We can't not do that. And since the current regime (and half the country) considers the domestic population to be as much an adversary as any foreign one, we're going to reap the home soil. This is just American imperialism turning on itself, as imperialism inevitably must.
- clanky 1y ago
  We're on the same page here, but just because those are the system's imperatives doesn't mean they must be embraced by the poster I replied to.

themadturk 1y ago

But...but...but...we already have a standing army.