The Privatized Private

The Privatized Private
by Michael R. Allen

Tuesday, December 7, 1999

The Constitution is clear: Congress is granted the powers to "raise and support armies" and to "provide and maintain a navy." Certainly, after the revolutionary times preceding the establishment of the United States of America, the nation was still at risk of being disturbed by any number of European powers. A defensive army was needed then as well as now to repel invaders. Thus, Article One, Section Eight's charging Congress with the duty of raising an army.

Yet, the Constitution does not blindly grant powers to maintain a perpetual army when there is not a need for one. Therefore, " . . . no appropriation of money to [defense] shall be for a longer term than two years." Implicit in this clause is that Congress is to have judgment as to whether to renew an army's charter after a two-year period (presumably, the army was raised for a war). While the clause allows Congress to continue an army's tenure, it also allows for the end of an army in peaceful times, i.e. times when the US was not being attacked. Such would be the situation in this decade.

Clauses Fifteen and Sixteen concern with the Federal government's use of militias to "execute the laws of the Union," and convey the message that, in times of peace or in case of intrastate turmoil, a militia of laymen can certainly fill the role of policemen. As the Second Amendment so clearly states, that militia is to be made up of the people of the States who are permitted to be armed.

Though the Articles of Confederation, seen by this writer as the preferable constitution for a free United States, may be even more strict in limiting the Federal government's police and military powers, the Constitution does not exactly cotton to the creation of a military-industrial complex. The Constitution is strict in establishing a military only when necessary, and having a dormant militia ready to become the army when needed.

This is radically different than what currently exists. Before the end of May, a Defense appropriations bill sailed through the House of Representatives, authorizing $270 billion in all. Thankfully, the Congress actually did some good last year, giving the Pentagon $400 million less than requested. This situation is a bit better than previous years, when Congress gave the Defense Department money it did not request. Still, some of the insane provisions demonstrate how firmly entrenched the military is in the Congressional appropriations process. Consider two items included in the final bill that are supposed to be targets of many Members of Congress: funds to continue the hopeless mission in Bosnia, and a $11.9 billion slate of Energy Department programs somehow classified as defense-related.

The current Defense Department needs major reforms, but the primary problem with its operation comes from another cabinet department, the State Department. Once primarily charged with interior operations and diplomacy, the State Department has grown into the foreign policy apparatus of our government. There is no lack of evidence that shows the level of activism in the State Department. The petiole of that Department is a foreign policy that is consistent in its dispatching of soldiers and money all over the globe - the differences between Secretaries of State largely being where they choose to send the goodies.

Thus, the major corruption of the military is its use as a part of the foreign policy sector. The legitimate aim of having a military consists of protecting liberties by defending borders. Overseas activism detracts from this purpose and is not true to the words of the Constitution. How then to save the military from its frequent abuse by Congress and the State Department?

The initial step is to first end the foreign policy of interventionism and limit the scope of foreign affairs to making treaties. With this broad change in policy, the need for a large, inefficient military rapidly disappears. Once the foreign policy can be restored to one that is neutral, then the Defense Department must be critically evaluated. The Constitutional requirements must be fulfilled - which means changing radically the nature of the military and its size.

Initially, the Defense budget may be cut as overseas missions end. In the meantime, spending programs such as the B-2 bomber and the Army School of the Americas can be eliminated, and development and research spending could be cut in half. As the mission of the armed forces returns to defense, the nation can seriously consider privatizing the armed services.

I do not speak of eliminating the public defense altogether -- I simply want to make it free from being controlled by the State it defends.

I believe we can look at developing a defense program that requires neither tax dollars nor user fees from US citizens. As the defense budget is pared down, the money from real (not inflationary) savings can be placed into a military trust that can be invested into a low-risk fund. Let them sell some of those $80 screws and a few $120 toilet seats; maybe the British government would buy them. Yearly interest can provide much of the needed operating funds for defense, and in times of emergency the principal can be withdrawn and replenished through a voluntary bond program.

Once the government monopoly on supplying defense is ended, private companies could come bidding to do the work to fulfill the Constitutional provision. Eventually, the private sector could do everything to defend the country, and the State can be removed from defense altogether. Since our defense would actually be defense we could rest assured that the borders of this nation would be as safe as possible.

www.american-partisan.com