So is it not a bit two-faced to hold the US to it exclusively? Are you going to tell me that the UK and the rest of Europe follow the Geneva convention to the tee?

EDIT: I see your point...yes...it may be wrong of our goverment to complain about Gevena violations when we don't follow them completely. But regardless...Iraq has been in violation of human rights by any standard you hold them against.

What human rights law specifically affords that right?


From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which admittedly isn't law:

Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Here we are mincing over whether Guantanamo is a prison or POW camp, while it's probably a resort compared to how ANY troops were quartered at the time the Geneva Convention was written.

That's a niggling point (though it is codified, so someone thought it was important).

The important thing, I think, is that I believe that these people should be treated better, even if there wasn't a codified set of rules. The US, I thought, was based on the ideas that all men are created equal. If it's true that US citizens accused of similar ``crimes'' are treated better, then that inequality spits in the basis of our country.

I know that there are no US laws that say so, but there shouldn't have to be.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

I see. So it is not specifically tied to equal treatment to foreigners in and civilian of a particular nation. I guess one would just have to determine whether it is inhuman or degrading treatment to detain them in ... sunny Guantanamo Bay. [you have to say the last part in your game show host voice as they would when announcing a trip].

Don't you mean "by its own success"? The last time I checked, a country can't just decide that they're going to be a superpower. Furthermore, most countries which begin to climb the ladder end up falling from grace rather quickly. You phrase your argument as if one day, we just decided we were going to take an "unproportional" share. We *earned* that share. And our responsible use of that power (in most cases) is what allows us to keep it.

Well, I guess we are talking about those cases when the power is not used responsibly (more on that later). True, a contry can't just decide to be superpower, but it can decide not to be. I am not sure it would be wise, but the choice is there.

The "empire builder" comment is just plain ridiculous, and nullifies your pat-on-the-back about not passing judgements based on prejudice. America might throw its weight around a little bit on foreign policy matters, and mistakes have certainly been made (Vietnam being one of the most recognizable.) But nothing America's ever done has been an effort to build an empire, take over someone else's land, or anything of the sort. I'm not so delusional to think that every move the U.S. has ever made is of the noblest intentions of making the world a better place, but to call us imperialists is taking things a little too far.

Just US policy towards Latin America in 19th and 80% of 20th century would earn it label 'imperialist' with the same right as to Britain or France of 19th century. There was no dictator too unsavory to install and support if that suited US economic interests.

That changed a lot, but current US foreign policy is lead under delusion of mission of global empire building. 'Wolfowitz doctrine' (about a decade old) seems to be shaping most of the present administration's moves. This and this are two articles on this that I picked almost at random. Here is link to some thoughts from American academia (I think I already linked to that somewhere - read particularly the second part, by Paul W. Schroeder). The common thread (from reading and talking with some diplomats I know) is that foreigners are wary of America; American intellectuals are affraid for America.

BTW, don't you find establishment of Department of Homeland Security amusing? What is then Department of Defense defending, if not homeland?

This quote from Colin Powell (one of the few in the Bush Administration I respect) sums up how much land the U.S. is after in its world affairs

"We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we’ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace. But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works."

While Europe has much to thank US for its role in WWII (quite late role, BTW - US entered the war when, for example, battle for Britain was already won), especially France, I hope you are not implying US did that solely for altruism? Surely, prospect of first Hitler and later Stalin ruling the continent did not look good for American global interests, no?

I think US did not have any ulterior motives, say, in Kosovo campaign (except perhaps showing Europe a bit how is that done, after they have failed miserably). Afghanistan intervention could fairly be (and was, by most of the world) considered self-defence. But there were no legitimate reasons whatsoever to enter the war in Iraq now (after going through the motions of reestablishing the regime of UN inspections). The same Mr. Powell you quote (and whom I also respect the most of the current administration) balked today at the idea that interim administration in post-war Iraq should be organized or sanctioned by UN. Contracts for infrastructure and oil-field reconstruction have already been awarded, without bids, to 'buddies' (e.g. the company used to be headed by Dick Cheney), to be paid for, at undisclosed price, by Iraqi oil...

I hope that (I think your) reasoning from another thread about swift improvement of common Iraqi lives will prove correct, and I will be happy to renounce my scepticism. However, see Afghanistan a year later. Is improvement big enough (especially outside of Kabul) to more then balance casualties (in the eyes of domestic population)? Probably is, but I am not sure...

BTW, don't you find establishment of Department of Homeland Security amusing? What is then Department of Defense defending, if not homeland?

There is a prohibition in the US from using military forces inside the US. So from your point of view, Yes it might be amusing or seem redundant... but within the borders of the US, the DOD has no jurisdiction.

So the US decided they wanted Panama to build a canal, fomented revolution in Panama, and somehow claimed rights to have a warship in the area, preventing the rebellion from being quelled, based on a treaty with a country that no longer existed that stated that the US couldn't intervene.

Hmm. In some further research, I found this page which goes into a little more detail about the nature of the revolt.

"While careful not to endorse the revolt, Roosevelt discreetly let it be known that the U.S. would view this as a positive development and could be counted on to act accordingly. Critics later charged that Roosevelt conspired to instigate the revolution in Panama. In fact, fearing that the U.S. might choose an alternate route through Nicaragua, an enterprising group of Panamanian businessmen--anxious to reap the commercial benefits of the canal--seized the moment. There had been numerous uprisings in the region, and the U.S. had helped suppress them in the past. As Roosevelt later put it, "While I was President I kept my foot on these revolutions… [in this case] I did not have to foment it; I simply lifted my foot."

So it doesn't seem to me that the U.S. encouraged the revolt, it just sounds like the revolt was there and they chose to selectively not stop it because it was in their interest. Sending the warships in is a different story, and obviously they were protecting their interests in the canal.

So maybe 100 years ago, through careful maneuvering, a bit of military might, and a lot of cash, we got control of a canal in Panama. Which we've since relinquished control of entirely. That makes us imperialists today?

BTW, don't you find establishment of Department of Homeland Security amusing? What is then Department of Defense defending, if not homeland?

I don't find it amusing in the least. I find it scary. ``Homeland'' is a word they used a lot in that PNAC paper I went on a harague about a while back. In addition, the fact that they use that word at all is scary. If the continental US is the ``homeland'', as I assume, then what else is it that we're defending? This goes hand-in-hand with Bush's use of the phrase ``sovereign right'' to enter Iraq in his speech announcing the ultimatum given to Iraq.

This all smacks very heavily of colonialism and imperialism. I'm not necessarily saying that it is, though I believe it to be so, but it sure does sound a hell of a lot like it. (I fear I've started another tangent.)

That makes us imperialists today?

No. But that wasn't what you said:

But nothing America's ever done has been an effort to build an empire, take over someone else's land, or anything of the sort.

I think that the article you quote may be a little apologetic. I may be a little harsh. The truth is probably somewhere in between. Regardless, it was to the US's interests to have that rebellion succeed, and they did what needed to be done to get it, regardless of the exact methods.

If it's true that US citizens accused of similar ``crimes'' are treated better, then that inequality spits in the basis of our country.

It doesn't always help to be US citizen - one can still be pronounced 'enemy combatant' and denied legal protection.

Yeah. Don't get me started on how all of this has helped Ashcroft's ideals of resticting civil liberties.

The US gets to use McDonalds and Disney.

You're picking examples which make it very easy for me to, again, respond "does the world need to have McDonalds and EuroDisney?" Just because we've created things that have an appeal abroad, we're imperialists?

Part of the problem is that we here in Europe see (from our perspective at least), the US making some of the same foreign policy decisions/mistakes that we did when we were empire-building. How can we tell the difference?

Well I'm trying to see how you can relate the use of McDonalds and Disney to the acquisition of, say, India.

Don't get me wrong. I like America. I like all of the Americans that I've met -- both in person, and on the BBS. But, face it, your government comes across as arrogant, and misconstruing our criticism of US policy as criticism of US citizens is entirely missing the point.

This is my favorite part of this whole argument. Instead of illustrating things with apples-to-apples comparisons, everything I've been getting in response to my questions has been "well, the U.S. comes off as arrogant." I think Bush and most of his administration are complete dopes. Did Bill Clinton's administration also come off as arrogant across the pond? Or is this "arrogance" tied to the policies and not the actual people making them? How long have these "arrogant policies" existed? And can you people please cite one or several that are within the last 100 years and doesn't involve McDonalds, Starbucks, Border's, or Disney?!?

, I found this page which goes into a little more detail about the nature of the revolt.

"While careful not to endorse the revolt, Roosevelt discreetly let it be known that the U.S. would view this as a positive development ........ As Roosevelt later put it, "While I was President I kept my foot on these revolutions… [in this case] I did not have to foment it; I simply lifted my foot."

Tony, allow me to recommend the recent biography of Roosevelt, _Theodore Rex_ by Edmund Morris. While it is what I would call a balanced and generally favorable review of Roosevelt's person and presidency, it goes into some length on the machinations and persons behind the Panama/Panama Canal "takeover" and I will say that the account came a lot closer to the case as presented by Bitt than in the account (apologia?) you discovered.

And it was a great read.

If the continental US is the ``homeland'', as I assume, then what else is it that we're defending? This goes hand-in-hand with Bush's use of the phrase ``sovereign right'' to enter Iraq in his speech announcing the ultimatum given to Iraq.

This all smacks very heavily of colonialism and imperialism. I'm not necessarily saying that it is, though I believe it to be so, but it sure does sound a hell of a lot like it.


My point exactly.

No. But that wasn't what you said:

Yes, and I admitted not having good knowledge of the Panama example, and I concede that we probably acted a bit heavy-handed in that situation. Having lost on that point, I'm now trying to find more recent examples, which would be more relevant to the "current foreign policy" that everyone is bemoaning.

Hey, I'm not arguing the case very well. Forget I mentioned Disney -- I can rarely help having a subtle dig even when I'm trying to argue sensibly -- it's as much trying to deflate my own self-important sense of windbaggery as the other persons.

Moving on from that:

Just because we've created things that have an appeal abroad, we're imperialists?

To a certain extent, yes, albeit unwittingly.

everything I've been getting ... "the U.S. comes off as arrogant"

That's because it's true. I'm not saying that the US is arrogant. What I'm saying is that the US needs to take more care not to appear arrogant. The current administration is failing miserably, IMO.

dictionary.com has this:

"arrogant: Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance."

...which just about sums up -- to my mind -- current US foreign policy (overbearing).

Did Bill Clinton's administration also come off as arrogant across the pond?

No. Not particularly.

I didn't really want to get into an argument about "US imperialism" -- I will happily concede that traditional, territorial, imperialism doesn't describe the US. If anything, the US (government/populace) is traditionally isolationist.

So, in order to clarify/alter my standpoint about US imperialism, I had a quick poke around on Google for recent commentary. I found the following:

"The US is imperialist"

• Dominating The Electronic Era: Towards a New Century of American Imperialism
• American Imperialism: The Single Biggest Danger To World Peace
• Afghanistan, bin Laden and the hypocrisy of American imperialism
  

"No it's not"

• Some thoughts on American imperialism.
• A Funny Sort of Empire
  

The commentary that accuses the US of imperialism is reactionary, and rarely on point, but I'm trying to give you an idea of what you're up against.

I also found this: Why Don't They Like Us?

and this: The Myth of Cultural Imperialism, which (based on a brief skim -- I'll read it more fully later) is a fairly balanced discussion of the "cultural imperialism" that I was trying to talk about.

So, to summarise: Some people think that America is arrogant. It's a fact, whether it's wrong or right. See if you can change their impressions.

In reply to:

---

Did Bill Clinton's administration also come off as arrogant across the pond?

No. Not particularly.

---

I'm wondering why nobody complained that Clinton skipped the whole UN process on Kosovo because Russia promised a veto and instead went the NATO route. Is it simply because the cause was more univerally appealing? Was it because he wasn't a Republican? To be honest, I didn't even notice that we skipped the UN on this one. I just assumed Russia was mad that we were making all of their weapons (their main export) look like junk. But Russia was kind enough to provide our opponent with the only type of radar that can be used to shoot down a F117A stealth fighter. [shrugs]

As one comedian said, "The only time that Clinton cared about the U.N. is when it was bracketted by the C and the T." :P

http://www.kare11.com/news/news-article.asp?NEWS_ID=44083 (Pledge of Allegiance Bill Passes in House)

Just to butt in here - I notice the bill "also calls for more instruction in flag etiquette".

If you ever have to hang/design a Union Flag for gawd's sake make sure it's the correct way up. I have seen it hung upside-down many times, often in places that should know better. A couple of times I've seen it printed in newspapers and printed on vehicles and hoardings.

The key point to remember is that the St.Patrick's cross (in red) is rotated counter-clockwise, leaving a wide band on the top edge. When you know this it is very obvious when you see one upside-down.



Gareth

Was it because he wasn't a Republican?

From this side of the pond, we can't tell the difference, so I don't think that was it.

I think that it helped a little that neither Clinton or his VP were 'big-oil' and that Kosovo is hardly noted for it's oil exports.

A lot of the scepticism over this Gulf War has arisen from distrust over the motive. The fact that Halliburton had been awarded a contract in Iraq before a single shot had been fired hardly helped to allay this distrust.

I also think that while Clinton's complete avoidance of the UN route was not really desirable, it's easier to maintain respect for someone who effectively says "This needs to be done, I can do it, I'm gonna do it, look I've done it and it helped" than it is to maintain respect for someone who says "This needs to be done, I can do it, I'm gonna do it, How can I legitimise my decision?".

Hmm. I'm not sure whether that will be understood as intended. Let me analogise;
Say you want a $10000 tool to perform your job. Although this new tool would potentially allow you to perform significantly more effectively, no one has complained about your work whilst you've been using the old one. So you ask your boss, he asks his boss and so on, until eventually the proposal gets put to the board of directors who due to the company's poor financial health, advise against it. Then you go and buy it anyway because you had already made the decision. Would you be surprised if everyone was pissed at you?
Now suppose that instead of asking, you just ordered the thing and had the invoice sent to the accounts department. By the time the invoice is sent and the accounts department trace who put the order in, you can prove that the productivity gains were worth the outlay. After an initial grilling you would probably be recognised as a prudent risk taker.

So you're saying the Bush should have never seeked UN approval because they would have just said no anyway?

And for the record, my "just say you're Canadian" tactic (which I've never actually used) was only thought of out of fear of being killed because I'm American (no matter how nice I am to people) not because I wanted to destroy a hotel room like a rock star and blame it on someone from Toronto. It might be hiding behind another flag, but it's not disgracing another country. I doubt many Canadians would mind.

I'm in a unique position. I'm actually from Dearborn, Michigan. Yes it's home to Ford Motor Company and a short drive to General Motors Headquarters and Chrysler's too (so we get a lot of international visitors), but it's an even shorter drive to Canada. I've known many Canadians in my life as either friends, co-workers or girlfriends.

My favorite topic to discuss when I meet someone new from abroad (even if it's just across the Detroit River) is politics and international affairs. But I've never really run into some of the opinions being expressed here. I guess Tony and I and a few others feel a bit backed into a corner or at least that our nation is a bit unappreciated even when we do admit our mistakes (all of us have fully admitted that our track record is less than perfect.) But some of you are also getting a bit frustrated that we "still aren't getting the point". I think because of the war and the events leading up to it, we are all a bit emotional and/or passionate about how we are expressing ourselves.

But it's great that we can have an informed debate here without any pot shots or name calling. Another thing that I've noticed is the lack of "politicising" the war discussion. I think Michael Moore lost all of his credibility during his speach at the Oscars when he basically said that Bush wasn't really elected. He just showed his true colors - he isn't against the war so much as against Bush.

One final thing, if any of you think that Dearborn, Michigan sounds familiar, it's because you may have heard of it in the news lately. Dearborn has the largest concentration of Arabic peoples (from many nations) outside of the Middle East. So due to that and the fact that quite a few arrests have been made here on terrorism charges, everytime you hear of "Arab-American viewspoints" it was most likely recorded a few miles from here. I've been lucky enough to talk about Bin Laden and Hussein with a few people from Yemen and Lebanon. Maybe they weren't being forthcoming with me, but they were a bit kinder than genixia!

It might be hiding behind another flag, but it's not disgracing another country. I doubt many Canadians would mind.

Many Canadians might think that somewhat presumptuous.

We do on the whole mind, but will be nice to you regardless. We mind, because when enough of you folks pretend to be us, the bad guys eventually will catch on, and then we may be confused with you folks. We've taken reasonable care over the years to not inspire entire major religions and peoples into terrorizing our nation and people, and we would like not to overly confuse the bad guys as to who we aren't.

Cheers

Fair enough.

So you're saying the Bush should have never seeked UN approval because they would have just said no anyway?

Well, we do have to recognise that there is a difference between the Kosovo situation (trying to effect peace) and full-scale invasion of a country to effect a regime change. I don't think that Clinton would have invaded Iraq without first trying the UN route either. I suspect that he would have had more success with the UN though, specifically with a second resolution.
Clinton had a lot more UN credibility due to his Israeli-Palestine peace process efforts, and would have stood a greater chance of getting Arab nations onboard. (And this despite his Kosovo operations)
Bush managed to drop that ball completely, and hence the UN process was a lot more difficult than it could have been. Gen. Wesley Clarke stated categorically tonight that there won't be any stability in the region until the Israel/Palestine situation stabilises. Curiously enough, Bush had just publically re-iterated his support for a peace process there merely hours after Tony Boy had left town.

I also really do believe that the motivation distrust I mentioned earlier had a big bearing - and that hurdle would have been less for Clinton.

Very soon after it became clear that GWB had won the 2000 election, my wife (a USAian) stated "Well I guess we'll be invading Iraq soon". Regardless of whether it is the right thing to do or not, it was hardly unexpected, especially after the 'Axis of Evil' speech, and that made the diplomatic path a rocky one.

Ironically, despite the anti-French sentiment that has been expressed in the US, I think that in years to come we'll reflect that the French hard line position combined with Saddam's complete disregard for UN resolutions was the defining factor that killed any chance of a non-military solution, more so than the US/UK military posturing.

However, this doesn't bode well. Already politicians are trying to ensure US corporate interests are promoted in the reconstruction of Iraq. I'm sure that when the Iraqis realise in a few years that the cellphones they've bought won't roam to any of their neighbors countries that they're going to be really happy. When they discover that the motivating factor in the decision was US corporate profits, they're going to be ecstatic. And surely when they realise that one of the added benefits of CDMA is the potential of GPS location ('for emergency calls'), and that echelon is probably watching their every move....
Ok, so maybe the choice of a cellphone system is fairly irrelevant in the scale of things. But I'd bet that's only the tip of the iceberg.
Now I should be clear - it's not obvious to me where the money to pay this will come from. On the one hand, we've got the Administration asking for a supplemental that includes provisions to help reconstuct Iraq, ie US taxpayers.
On the other, we've got politicians saying that the Iraqi oil will pay for reconstruction through an expansion of the UN oil-for-food program. The cynic in me suspects that US taxpayer dollars will be used for reconstruction (including such US-centric provisions) along with the expectation that Iraqi oil pays back the 'loan'. (With interest...)
I really hope I'm wrong. I really can't see how such actions would help US foreign relations in the middle east.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to be unkind earlier, although I'll admit I was being blunt and provocative with my questions.

I just got so mad when I heard about this latest turn of events. is the US admin stupid. Haven't they been listening to what Osama has been saying? His biggest problem is the US stepping onto 'holy' arab soil. Any presence is abhorrent to him. Putting a temporary US administration in is just inviting him.
He may be a crackpot, but he's a very dangerous crackpot.
This would be the first of many irresponsible things the US could do.

He may be a crackpot, but he's a very dangerous crackpot.

I'm confused ... who are you calling a crackpot? President Bush or Usama?

bonzi:

BTW, don't you find establishment of Department of Homeland Security amusing? What is then Department of Defense defending, if not homeland?

wfaulk:

I don't find it amusing in the least. I find it scary. ``Homeland'' is a word they used a lot in that PNAC paper I went on a harague about a while back. In addition, the fact that they use that word at all is scary. If the continental US is the ``homeland'', as I assume, then what else is it that we're defending? This goes hand-in-hand with Bush's use of the phrase ``sovereign right'' to enter Iraq in his speech announcing the ultimatum given to Iraq.

Boy, there is no conspiracy theory too far-fetched for you guys!

Let's review the facts.

The newly-formed Department of Homeland Security was formed to address the lack of one umbrella organization to make sure that various departments within the U.S. government are communicating properly. The idea is that if there is accountability straight up to a cabinet position, the CIA, FBI, INS, and dozens of other alphabet organizations will communicate more. It's also designed to bring State and local governments, police forces, etc. into closer, more consistent communication with federal agencies which are tasked with anti-terrorism oversight.

The DoD is, as it has always been, primarily concerned with the U.S. armed forces, for defense of the country in a military sense. The Homeland Security position obviously needs the backing of the armed forces, and if a serious terrorist incident occurs, the armed forces are certainly available. But the DHS didn't suddenly come about because our military is no longer concerned with defending within our borders. It is there because the attacks on 9/11/01 showed a consistent lack of cooperation between various governmental agencies. BOTH the DoD and the DHS are concerned with defending within our borders, and, in fact, both are concerned with matters abroad, as the DHS assuredly gets involved with counterterrorism efforts abroad.

Also, the word "defense" is used throughout the world to mean not only defense within a country's borders, but also defending that country's interests abroad. You guys are acting like the U.S. military is the only military that's ever gone to another country to wage war. Ever heard that the best defense is a good offense? I suppose you had a problem when the U.S. went to the "defense" of European nations during WWII?

You guys are really weakening some otherwise-plausible arguments with ridiculous conspiracy theories. To think that somehow the foundation of the DHS reflects on a shift in the role of the U.S. military is preposterous. If 9/11 didn't happen, there would be no DHS.

While Europe has much to thank US for its role in WWII (quite late role, BTW - US entered the war when, for example, battle for Britain was already won), especially France, I hope you are not implying US did that solely for altruism? Surely, prospect of first Hitler and later Stalin ruling the continent did not look good for American global interests, no?

Yes, and the U.S. is the first country to ever sit on the sidelines of a war because getting involved in the war did not suit its interests, right? Fact is, despite this isolationism, the U.S. was lending economic support prior to entering the war militarily.

Can you blame our country for being hesitant to send troops to Europe after losing so many in WWI? Once the true threat was understood (with France conquered and Britain falling fast) the U.S. realized the Europeans weren't going to be able to solve their own problems, so we reluctantly joined the SECOND war that we had absolutely no hand in creating. How can you on one hand say that the U.S. didn't enter WWII soon enough, and on another hand criticize the U.S. for intervening in other countries' foreign affairs?

Oh, I get it, isolationism and neutrality was a bad thing back then, but now, our desire to protect democracy abroad and stop evil dictators from turning into the NEXT Hitler is bad. What the fuck are we supposed to do to make you happy?

Look, I wanted the U.S. to do more to gain international support for action in Iraq. But the weapons inspection process was a complete sham, and it's very convenient that the countries most opposed to the war were the ones with economic ties to Iraq, including Russia, who has been supplying them with night vision goggles, GPS-jamming equipment, and all sorts of other goodies, in violation of U.N. sanctions. If they're not listening to the U.N., why should we?

Regarding the post-war rebuilding contracts, five American companies were involved in the bidding process that was won by the Haliburton company that Cheney is associated with. Your statement "without bids" is utterly false. While it certainly does look shady, there's no sign that anything illegal or unethical happened in the bidding process. It just looks real bad.

The bottom line is everyone, from the U.S., to France, to Russia, to Dick Cheney, is acting in their own self-interest. But for some reason, it's okay for France to protect their economic ties to Iraq, for Russia to sell munitions to Iraq... But if the U.S. wants to take care of what it sees as a threat, and realizes the rest of the world isn't going to do it, that's no good.. right?

His biggest problem is the US stepping onto 'holy' arab soil

I believe you have this backwards. His biggest problem is he is a militant Islamic extremist who wants to kill innocent people. From that, all else flows. It's called terrorism and the idea behind terrorism is to terrorize people (by killing ordinary innocent people) into doing your will even though you have no authority. He is not the government of any country much less of a country in which the US has a presence with that country's agreement.

But the DHS didn't suddenly come about because our military is no longer concerned with defending within our borders.

Actually I disagree with you here - to a point. Since the chance of any sovereign nation actually mounting a full scale invasion of the USA is virtually none, and the existing laws effectively prevent the military from acting within the US borders unless such an event happens, I don't think that military planners do spend much time planning for in-border defense. I think that this was amply demonstrated on Sept 11, 2001 when hijackers managed to fly 2 relatively slow and un-maneoverable jumbos all the way from Boston to NY without being intercepted by fighter jets. And another one into the US Military HQ. Now you could say that this was an unexpected move, or question what action any fighter jet could have taken, but I think the point is still valid. The military failed to have any defense for an in-border attack. And air defense is possibly their most important role, given the lack of credible ground/sea -based aggressors.

But, all of the alphabet organisations exist only because the military's role in domestic affairs is limited by law. I don't think that we'd like to see;
INS replaced by the Army.
FBI replaced by the Army.
Local police replaced by the Army.
State Troopers replaced by the Army.
etc.

That being said, when you look at the specialist police teams, such as anti-riot squads, SWAT teams etc, their munitions and training are such that I don't think there would be much difference if they *were* replaced by Army teams.

Actually I disagree with you here - to a point.

You are correct on this point.

The Posse Comitatus Act made it a federal crime to employ "any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws." It was passed after the civil war to keep military forces from policing polling places in Southern states.

Much of it derives from the US Constitution in which (it was intended) most of the power within the United STATES remain within the States. If I remember correctly, there was a huge dispute in the War on Drugs about the use of the military in drug interdiction.

Regular Military forces are not trained to police. They are trained to help the enemies soldiers die for their country.