Replying to a message of Ross Sauer to Bob Ackley:

 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.

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

The US has had a standing army, despite that Constitutional prohibition, 
for over 200 years.  It has nothing to do with the realities of war.  The
problem with a standing army is that if you have one you're likely to use
it - Vietnam and the current fiasco in the Middle East being salient
examples.

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

There are more flag officers in the US military today than there were in 1944.

 RS> Just look at the numbers of demobilized soldiers after WW2.

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

If the country is going to involve itself in foreign countries to the extent
that this country appears to want to, it should form a 'foreign legion' apart
from the regular military to handle its foreign adventures.  France did exactly
that back when it had colonies.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+