"Bob Ackley -> John Crane"  wrote in
news:14791$POL_DISORDER{at}JamNNTPd:

 BA>>> Sure.  There's no support for either of them in the
 BA>   Constitution. BA>> Probably of the national government's agencies -
 BA>   and employees - BA>> could (and IMO shoul be eliminated on those
 BA>   same grounds.

 JC>> Careful what you wish for... I don't seem to recall anything
 BA>   directly JC> supporting a large standing army either.

 BA> There isn't, in fact a permanent standing army is specifically
 BA> forbidden by the Constitution.  I've made that point before.  There's
 BA> no such limit or prohibition on a navy, though.

The realities of war caught up with the military, hence the need for large
standing armies.

The best part about our system is however, without the need caused by an
emergency, like a war, armies are reduced.

Just look at the numbers of demobilized soldiers after WW2.

It's these blasted "brush fire" wars like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and
Afghnanistan that put a constant drain on resources, with little to show
for it.

--- Xnews/5.04.25