Fortress America

I've always been a pro-defense, strong military, if-you-fight-a-war-you-fight-to-win kind of guy.  Which means support for most of what our military does, since it seems like the most honorable and effective governmental agency we've got.

But there's a disconnect.  Militaries do what the civilian authority decides they should do.  Our military happens to execute as well as one could expect; but that doesn't mean that what they are asked to do is the thing that makes us safest and most free.

Like garrisoning the world, for example.  If you can make a compelling case that that's how we are safest and most free, great.  But how about an alternative that brings home the garrisons:

A big tough navy that can project force and has subs that can blow up any enemy; a kick-ass Marine Corps, stationed here; missile and drone offense and defense that give us other ways to blow up any enemy and keep incomings to a minimum; and 50 tough, well-equipped state militias that would make any invader of our land very sorry indeed.  Some soldiers stationed in our embassies, but otherwise no troops overseas.

Are we less safe with this?  I'm not sure.  I don't think anyone would invade Philadelphia knowing there are lots of armed Phillies fans ready to fight back.  Not to mention Houston.  OK, it wouldn't be taking the battle to the bad guys in the Middle East.  But I just don't know that that's worked.

And wouldn't this be a lot cheaper?  I think so - tens of billions cheaper, in fact, once the transition is made.  Savings like that should make us safer and more free.

And no standing national army, but rather militias where the officers are guys from our neighborhoods?  I'm sure that's more free.  That's almost a definition of freedom.

So, hawkish I am, but for a reason.  Because the purpose of government is to make us safe.  Keeping our infantries here, under relatively local control, seems to me to keep us (including the lads and lassies in the infantries, who are also us) as safe as we can hope.