The Myth of the Militia

First of all, I want to state that I think the men and women in the military offer a sacrifice to the rest of us way out of proportion to what we, as a society, have a right to expect. That said, however, their role in the US and the world has become confused with that of an organization that has not existed since the Revolution. That institution was the Colonial Militia. The militias, indeed, were sworn to defend the homeland, to preserve the liberty and tranquility of the citizenry, and to, unilaterally, decide when that was necessary. After the adoption of the Constitution, the militias were disbanded (although, interestingly, not disarmed), and the United States Armed Forces were established under the control of the civil government. There's nothing particularly profound in that but we (as a society) seem to have forgotten what it means. Our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, in uniform do not defend liberty; they implement policy. If it is the policy of the government du jour, then they do defend liberty. It's been a while since I have believed that, indeed, that was the policy of the US government. If, instead, it is the policy of the US government to control some strategic global asset, then that's what they do. They don't get to choose, and it is a fundamental tenet of constitutional democracy that they should not get to choose.

So, not to disparage anyone, it's wrong to say things like "they put their lives on the line so we can enjoy liberty at home" or some such tripe. They do put their lives on the line and for that they deserve our respect and support. But it isn't so that we at home can practice the freedoms guaranteed in our founding documents. It is to implement policy. In that, the Armed Forces are really no different from other instruments of policy, other than that they are frequently in immediate danger, and that they project immediate danger. To mythologize our armed service personnel is dangerous and anti-democratic. We are frequently told that to question the war in Iraq, for instance, is to dishonor our troops. Hogwash! The job of our troops is to implement policy. The job of the civilian government is to devise policy. If I disagree with a policy, my argument is not with the instrument but with the wielder.

So it isn't surprising that events occur that are at odds with the (erroneous) notion that the role of the US military is to defend, protect, and generally support democracy. Events like MyLai. Events like Abu Graib. Events like Haditha. The public, the same people who equate questioning policy to disloyalty, recoils in horror. The picture is blurred. Our heroes are not who they seemed. But the fact is that they are just what they seem: instruments of American policy, acting in our name, carrying out the policies of our government. Don't make them heroes when they're not. Don't make them villains when they're not. It is the policy that stinks.