A while back I stated that the purpose of the military was to impose the government's decisions by force. Somebody, I don't remember who, vociferously denied this, claiming that the purpose of the military, and the only purpose of the military, was to defend the country. Now, I thought this was an absurd position, considering all the uses we have made of the military that had bugger-all to do with defending the country. But it seems that there is sufficient support for this notion that it needs to be dispelled. So I will present an argument to support the statement "The purpose of the military is to impose the government's decisions by force." Ready?

Let us begin with what the Constitution says -

1. The Congress shall have the Power... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.... U.S. Constitution, Art. I, sec. 8.

2. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or is such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. U.S. Constitution, Art. I, sec. 9.

3. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.... U.S. Constitution, Art. II, sec. 2.

That's it. That's everything the Constitution has to say about the military. Please note that it says not one word about the purpose of the military (it does speak briefly about the purpose of the Militia when called into service of the United States or in times of imminent danger of invasion). So the question arises - where do we look for the purpose of the military if not the Constitution?

I would submit that we look to the British in any case where the Constitution does not specify a variation from British meanings and understandings. I offer support for this statement as follows -

1. The Constitution says "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended...." U.S. Constitution, Art. I, sec. 9. The Constitution does not, however, say what the Writ of Habeas Corpus is. That is because it was well understood that it meant in the Constitution the same as it meant in British law.

2. The Constitution says "The Congress shall have Power... to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal," U.S. Constitution, Art. I, sec. 8, but does not define letters of marque and reprisal. It was understood that the Constitution meant what British law meant by these terms.

3. The Constitution says "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made...." U.S. Constitution, Art. III, sec. 2. It does not define what law and equity mean. That's because law and equity were to mean what they meant in Britain.

4. Example of the opposite: when the Constitution intended terms to mean something other than they meant in Britain, it so specified, as in the definition of treason. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies...." U.S. Contitution, Art. III, sec 3. Here we see a specific definition of treason, because it was the intent of the Framers that treason should mean something different in the United States than it meant in Britain.

So far, we have two principles. First, the Constitution does not specify what the purpose of the military is. Second, where the Constitution does not specify something, that thing should be what the British understood it to be in 1787.

Next, does anybody seriously believe that the British considered the British Army and the Royal Navy to be for the purpose of defense only in 1787? I would suggest that the British considered the military to be a tool of the government, for defense, conquest, exploration, and whatever other task the government set it. I think millions of dead American Indians, Africans, Europeans, Indians, Chinese, Pacific Islanders, and Australian aborigines would agree.

Therefore - the purpose of the U.S. military is to do whatever the government tells it to do, as limited by the laws of war.

I invite anyone who disagrees to challenge this argument, or to cite authority to the contrary.

Have a nice day.

No disagreement here.

That was me Jubal.

And I don't disagree that what you assert isn't what the US military has over and over been used for.
But it's intention, the stated reason to have a military, not the reality, but the stated reason to have a military is for defense.




Other wise, I agree with you. Yes, the fact is that 95%, (if not 100%, I allow a small percentage for unknowns variables) of the time throughout US history, the purpose of the US military has been to project US policy, and not for defense. THis projection of US policy is in it's make up what actively encourages and maintains the entire military industrial complex.

Stated by whom?

Aside from that, I try to examine such statements and evaluate them for quality. And the statement that the military is for defense only is obviously false. Therefore, I see no need to assert it as truth.

If what you meant was that the military should be used only for defense, I agree completely. I think the day of using the military for political or national gains is long past. Unfortunately, there's a fair bit of daylight between what I think should be and what is.

I copy pasted the party that you posted, there may have been more, I don't know, I'm not a constitutional lawyer, that refered to my point.

I make it this because the military is ALWAYS refered to as a defense force. Then this makes it the stated purpose of the force. Clearly though, this is not how it;s being or has been used.

Please re-read the part you copied and pasted. It says no State may engage in war unless invaded. It's a limit on the ability of the states to wage war, reserving that power to the Federal government.

I'll just leave the rest of your response be. I believe I've made my point.

don't forget parades

I did read it. No state shall incage in war unless invaded, doesn't that mean that war much be defensive?
But I see your point/ When refering to the state I misunderstood and thought "state" refered to Government, any government that is part of the US and subject to the constitution.


None the less, they TELL us the military is to defend the American way of life.
They don't tell us that the US military is for extending US policy into other countries.
The second is in fact what happens, but it's not "the stated" purpose.

LOL

Especially on the 4th of July.

Some things you neglected:

1.) Posse comitatus. Yes, it's not in the constitution, but it's the law. Kind of.
2.) The Anti-Federalists didn't want a standing army in the first place.

So there are big gaps between, say:
--The role of the military as envisioned by the founding fathers
--The role of the military as the Constitution and the laws are actually written
--The role of the military as it has been in actuality
--The role of the military as intended by Congressional authorization
--The role of the military in the public's perception
--The role of the military as Happymisanthropy thinks it should be
Take your pick.

"Therefore - the purpose of the U.S. military is to do whatever the government tells it to do, as limited by the laws of war."

That seems kind of an empty conclusion. "the purpose of my dog is to do whatever I and the government tell it to, as limited by the laws of war." It means about as much.

Or, as the War in Iraq seems to be so completely illustrating to us all,
to do what ever a select group at the top can get away with, depending on how good they are using smoke and mirrors.

By "a select group at the top" I take it you mean the government?

If that's what fills the sentance to make it accurate for today, sure.

We may be in a position to find out whether or not suppressing protests, peaceful or otherwise, by use of the military following a fraudulent election here at home is considered a legitimate application of military force, now that bush has discarded posse comitatus.

My personal opinion on Bush and his wrangling of Habeas Corpus and Posse Comitatus.



I don't think he intends to use these new powers handed to him for the reasons we worry about.
Unfortunately, there are others around him who wouldn't hesitate. Could you imagine the result if some how Cheney suddenly became President?

And there in lies the real threat these new presidential powers that whittle away the Constitution.
It's the rare individual that does not intend to be a good citizen. Or becomes someone other than the angel they are portrayed to be. Because we can't predict the future very well, and the further out it gets, the foggier our lense becomes. Someday these new laws could be used in ways most Americans refuse to believe an American leader could or would ever use on them! After all, THIS is AMERICA! We are the good guys! We are the shining example! We are the lightness and goodness! MY president would never ever do anything like that, so lets give him the powers he says he needs! This is America. We simply don't do stuff like that!

It's that group naive thinking that is by far the scariest thing in our reality today!
It's taken 6 years to get the eyes open that we have so far, and we have a long ways yet to go.
November 7th is by no means the end of the fight. It's not even close to the end. November 7th is nothing more than an important milestone on a very long path.