“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set[.]…”We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”
First of all, why exactly can’t we rely on our military for all or a major portion of our national security objectives? Isn’t that what the military is for?
Second, we already do have a “civilian national security force,” which completes the picture. It’s called police, in many different guises; from federal organizations like the FBI and DEA to state police forces, city and local police forces, sheriff’s departments, etc. etc. That Senator Obama seeks a massive “national security force” over and above what we already have is a truly ominous development. What “national security objectives” does he have in mind?
Actually, this is not hard to understand. Given his ideological bent, Senator Obama seems to be in favor of a permanent single-party state. Just for fun, let us call this perpetually ruling party The One Party (TOP). To assure its survival, TOP must have a powerful paramilitary apparatus, the TOP-SA, as a counterweight to the traditional security forces, with a separate chain of command that answers only to TOP–and to The One. The purpose of TOP-SA will be to enforce every wish of TOP. My guess is that if Senator Obama gets his way, the TOP-SA will ultimately develop into a heavily armed force that is above the law. In its ranks will march, side by side, opportunists, starry-eyed fools, and anyone and everyone with a real or imagined grievance. All will believe that the end always justifies the means, and will be liberally rewarded for their exertions and loyalty. In other words, this is the end of the rule of law and of democracy.
It’s not as if we haven’t seen all this before. Remember the combined police/SA patrols in National Socialist Germany of the 1930s, with police having to look the other way whenever the SA wanted to kick someone around–or worse. Remember the “people’s militias” and youth organizations like Komsomol and Pioneer in Communist countries. And then, in all these dispensations, there were the secret police forces, block committees, political snitches, etc. etc.: all part of the massive security apparatus without which the wheels of single-party states cannot turn.
But here is one crucial difference. The Europeans were at the mercy of their ruling elites. Americans are by an large an armed citizenry that insists on its rights and freedoms under the Constitution. That is a potent counterweight against the future TOP-SA or any similar totalitarian manifestation.