> The army on foreign land during an invasion has to treat everyone like a potential enemy that can take their lives. That is not true at all. The U.S. Army oc

> The army on foreign land during an invasion has to treat everyone like a potential enemy that can take their lives. That is not true at all. The U.S. Army occupying Germany in 1946 didn't treat the locals as murderous criminals either. The COIN mention by parent comment was not gratuitous: If you bother to go through the relevant Army and Marine Corps doctrinal guidance on counter-insurgency you'll see that gaining the support of the local population is the mantra. > As an army man, have you ever thought about why the army is not allowed to act on US soil? They are allowed to act on US soil. What they're not allowed to do is to act as police on US soil. And even that prohibition (Posse Comitatus) came from Congress in the 1860s, and only applies to Federal (Title 10) forces, not Army National Guard forces under the control of a state governor. And even with that, the Army is allowed to conduct certain missions on U.S. soil under "Defense Support to Civil Authorities". > Because the army is a much more aggressive brute force sort of authority, and that's not acceptable in a democracy The army has the capability and training to kill more people and break more things, sure, but that is not their only mission. Remember, in an actual war one of the core responsibilities of military forces under international law is not just combat, but military occupation, which is inherently a policing role. That can be in conjunction with local police forces, but the responsibility still belongs to the occupying army. Soldiers typically don't like that role, sure, but to say that an army is designed only to put bayonets through torsos is paranoiac at best.