Thread: Militarize homeland security (OP-ed)

http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/138582.html

Militarize homeland security
By James P. Pinkerton -
Published 12:00 am PDT Friday, March 16, 2007

Are we serious about homeland security? If so, we should not allow the unionization of homeland securitizers. Indeed, homeland security should be militarized, not unionized.

Yet, at the same time, the status quo is not acceptable either. Big change is needed truly to safeguard the homeland -- although sadly, at the rate we are going, that change won't come till after an American city is nuked.

Unionization atop bureaucratization is no way to get anything done, as the Postal Service or the public schools have demonstrated. In a unionized bureaucracy, the employee culture reorients itself from the stated mission of the organization to the maintenance of good jobs at good wages -- and the elimination of any prospect of being fired for incompetence or malfeasance.

So the effort in the new Democratic-controlled Congress to allow union collective-bargaining rights for Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees is a discouraging sign -- a sign Democrats are seeing homeland security as just another program.

But Republicans, content with the status quo, are little better.

And those Republicans pushing for privatization of some homeland security functions, such as immigration control, are even worse.

In a world full of terrorists and their terrible weapons, homeland security should be exalted into the same category as national security. Both functions are sacred public trusts, best carried out by people so sworn to their duty that they wear uniforms to symbolize their devotion. In return, these uniformed warriors for America receive significant gratitude and admiration.

In the Greco-Roman political tradition -- the tradition that gives us Greek words such as "democracy" and Latin words such as "republic" -- the highest calling of all is military service, which is to say, willingness to lay down one's life, if need be, for the love of one's countrymen.

Because the stakes are so high, the military has comparatively little tolerance for poor performance. In the armed services, it's "up or out" after a certain number of years. That's why one very rarely sees a 30-something lieutenant; if he or she hasn't made captain by then, a mandatory separation from service is a near certainty.

The Walter Reed hospital scandal was disturbing, but when the news hit, those most disturbed were in the military. That's why two generals were quickly forced out by Secretary of Defense Bob Gates.

And more heads will roll. That's the right approach, and yet it never would have happened if the military were unionized.

So back to homeland security. Once again, the question: Do we want homeland security to be effective? If we do, we would not unionize TSA; we would militarize it. We would not provide homeland securitizers with union cards; we would provide them with uniforms, esprit and medals. And give them a noble motto, which could be borrowed from the U.S. Army: "This we'll defend." Oh, and let's provide the Army of Homeland Security with better leadership, too.

Does anybody think of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff as an inspiring leader? He's a lawyer -- 'nuff said.

For tough leadership when the going gets rough, one looks to the military. Some will say that it's inappropriate to use soldiers on the home front, citing the Posse Comitatus law of 1878. Yet, aside from the common-sense principle that our 21st century security needs should not be dictated by a 19th century statute, it's worth recalling the cynical origins of Posse Comitatus; it was enacted by racist Southern Democrats to protect the "freedom" of the Ku Klux Klan to terrorize blacks, free from interference by the Union Army.

Today, a tacit pro-Posse Comitatus alliance exists -- a strange-bedfellowing of neo-Confederates, the American Civil Liberties Union and those who want a porky and patronage-y homeland security boondoggle, populated by AFL-CIO members.

That's not the way to defend our country.

No to unions they support illegals. We need armed military on the border. the drug smugglers are armed and illegals trying to cross are causing harm to border patrol. The border patrol is outmanned and outgunned. Bring our military home and put them on the border.

Just make sure they have ammo this time. That was the biggest joke the last time, and the President assured Mexico that our boy's guns had no bullets. Like the guys in Lebanon back in the 80's.

Exactly. Armed troops all along the border with orders to shot all trespassers. Would not take long to control illegal immigration.

Isn't there a treaty which does not allow this? If Mexican troops carry arms on their side to help smugglers, why can't we arm troops on our side?

This may be "off the wall", but is it possible our government does not want to control illegal DRUGS either. Think of the money pumped into our economy by big spending dealers.........

Originally Posted by Hylander_1314

Just make sure they have ammo this time. That was the biggest joke the last time, and the President assured Mexico that our boy's guns had no bullets. Like the guys in Lebanon back in the 80's.

Bush knows that if we really have military with weapons ready to fire on the border, an international incident will break-out. BP has already had armed stand-offs with the Mexican military on our soil. BP doesn't want to fire the first shot. If the US military were placed on the border with the duty to defend our border against invasion, it is a matter of time before they rightfully mow down Mexican military units, and war with Mexico may break-out. I say let's get it on!!!!

But I guess Bush prefers to kowtow to the Mexican government, allow Mexican military to invade our nation, and allow Meth to flow in unabated. Bush is a complete weakling. We are being strong-armed by a Third World nation's military.