I don't think it matters if HE is real or a fake. He's right about what's going on.Here's an interview w/ Radley Balko about his new book, "Rise of the Warrior Cop."http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/07/12/chris_hayes_rise_of_the_warrior_cop.html
I'm more interested in his authenticity, because the observation is both right and wrong. On the one hand he's right that we have enabled police nationwide, and at all levels, a kind of logistical coherence that is the mark of a real army. And of course he is right that it's coming at a time of military cutbacks.On the other hand, it's not clear that there's an intentional policy at work. The military sales to police departments started in the Bush era as a defense against the charge that Iraq was a waste of money. If we transferred a lot of that technology to local governments, we could recoup some of the costs while ensuring that the gear continued to be put to use in 'securing the Homeland.'Of course, the massive Federal ammunition purchases -- which happen to be of the right type for these weapons -- are new. So it's possible that someone saw the old program as an opportunity.It would have to be someone smarter about military matters than the President, though. The importance of standardizing equipment is something that even the military often loses sight of (or intentionally avoids, which sometimes happens with interservice rivalries). So: is there someone like that in the government, or lurking behind the scenes? I can't think who it would be. It could be we're doing this in a fit of absentmindedness, as was said about the conquest of the Philippines.
This is the first time I've heard this put in terms of standardization. I'm not sure what to think about that specifically, but there are plenty of military planners who work for the president who could have influenced this.Usually, as Balko's book does, this is put in terms of a result of the War on Drugs. Post 9/11, we've added a domestic War on Terrorism to that.So, what about the man's authenticity is important? Would it change your idea about what's happening?
When you are taking on a modern military, standardization is necessary. When you seek to suppress a rabble in arms, not so much. What we should fear is a domestic army, recruited from the ranks of those who already hate us, trained and equipped by the government, with absolutely no stabilizing moral influence at their core- they will do anything they are told to do.
What we currently have in existence to fear is a police force that sees itself as separate from (as in above or superior to) the "rabble" of the citizenry which is being more and more militarized (SWAT Teams, no knock warrants, etc...), standardized, and equipped better than most militaries in the world. This is happening at the local, state, and federal levels. National level C4I infrastructure is already in place. And we now have proof that the NSA is unabashedly off the reservation. What more do we need to be... fearful isn't the right word... Suspicious?... Angry?... Cautious? William sends. -YMMV-
As for this man's authenticity; I won't say I'm not interested. I am. But I will say that it won't change the validity of his speech. William sends.
Motive is important in evaluating a speaker. If he's who he says he is, he's a concerned Marine making an interesting (but incomplete) observation about the state of play. If he's not, he's a rabble-rouser of some kind -- and it would be good to know just whose.
Umnnhhh....Rabble-rouser or not, the first question is 'whether or not he is telling the truth.'You agree that 'militarization' of the civil authority is taking place.You have not conceded that there is some sort of plan.Let me remind you that Obozo wanted to put into place a 'civilian army'. We had no idea what that meant at the time he said it.But the statement is intriguing.It makes no difference that GWB initiated the program, just as it made no difference to Stalin that the Mensheviks were his fore-runners.
It's not just that I don't concede the plan. I don't concede that this bunch has the capacity to plan. I'm wondering if this isn't a worrisome but accidental effect of unaligned policies.That still leave us wanting to dismantle the security state -- and most Federal police agencies, and many state and local police agencies, as positive dangers to freedom. But it is a better place to be, if true, than facing a security state that is being intentionally emplaced for the business of destroying resistance among the people.
Post a Comment