On 2012-12-18, at 1:20 PM, Sean Andrews wrote:
> If it is weird that SCOTUS allows
> for right wing militias, it is absolutely loony that the army feels okay
> basically arming and training paramilitaries who might eventually pose a
> threat to their power. Unless, of course, they think those folks might be
> of use: they've come in handy in Columbia, Afghanistan, and many other
> places, but it is weird to think of them as useful on home turf. Is this
> just economically determined buffoonary - we're going back to having a
> league of mercenaries instead of a standing army. I don't know enough about
> military history to interpret this, but it seems like a bigger threat to
> national security than guns on their own.
These weekend warriors may seem clownish today, but you're right. Were the US to become an even more sharply polarized society, the right-wing militias would grow and pose a far more serious threat than the suicidal and mostly apolitical lone gunmen firing randomly into crowds. At least, that is, to the racial minorities and the democratic forces and institutions who they would target. Whatever their reservations about ragtag storm troopers not firmly in their control, the ruling classes everywhere, including the military high command, have encouraged and financed fascist gangs whenever their hold on power has become precarious and the loyalty of the ranks in the police and armed forces was no longer assured.