For them, the military is reserved for events around the globe, even though most of these far-flung campaigns have only a tangential relationship to actual American security.
As part of their aversion to domestic deployment, the military has remained largely indifferent to protecting the border, as if national defense can only be conducted in the nether reaches of the world, many thousands of miles from our country's borders and our people.
We do not have a military geared towards territorial defense.
Why invade a country conventionally, when the invaders can achieve their goal of lebensraum without the challenge of amassing military forces and planning a military invasion? The scale and long-term consequences of the border crisis far outweighs the official concerns of our defense establishment, like Russo-Ukrainian relations or the Straits of Malacca.
At least part of the military's aversion to taking responsibility for the migrant invasion comes from the leadership's understandable desire not to employ the blunt instrument of the U.S. military in the delicate matter of domestic law enforcement.
Using the military on the border is as American as the Constitution, which provides: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive against domestic violence."
The reluctance to use the military on the border comes from the obsolete paradigm of a world where nation-states have a "Monopoly on force." In the pre-Westphalian past, as well as the present, many historically transformative invasions were not undertaken by uniformed militaries and may not have even been particularly violent.
https://amgreatness.com/2023/11/13/why-doesnt-the-department-of-defense-defend-us/
No comments:
Post a Comment