The Modern Militia

"The Militia" is referred to several times in the United States Constitution, but it is rarely mentioned in modern American political discourse. Nonetheless, the citizen armies of the states do continue to exist; the United States Code deems all members of the National Guard and the Naval Militia to be part of the organized militia and all male citizens or intended male citizens who are at least 17 but not yet 45 years of age to be part of the unorganized militia. Thus, I am a member of the militia myself merely by virtue of my American citizenship, my gender, and my age! As a newly realized militiaman, I thought it would be worthwhile to devote a blog post to the concept and role of the militia in the United States.

The Constitution is quite clear in designating the militia as at least partially at the behest of the federal government. In Article I, Section 8, Congress is given the responsibility "to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" although the states are explicitly given the authority to appoint officers and train the militiamen. At the same time, the Congress also has the authority to raise armies and maintain a naval force. Thus, there is a recognition that state militias alone may not be sufficient to provide for the national defense, but at the same time state militias are not left to look purely after the interests of the individual states. In cases of crisis, state militias have a responsibility to look after the national interests as well. Furthermore, according to Article II, Section 2, the President is Commander in Chief of the militia when they are called into action, just as he is Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. With this being said, what is the proper role of militia versus the proper role of the military? Why do we need both?

I have thought for a long time that the primary purpose of the militia was to combat a federal government that had shown itself to be tyrannical. My current studies have led me away from this conclusion, for it makes no sense that an armed force would fight against its own Commander in Chief. The militia can hardly check the power of the federal government if they themselves are beholden to it. On the other hand, the militia system might have been able to make it more difficult for a military leader to assume tyrannical powers because the militia is not a standing army of professional soldiers who are perpetually on duty. However, the fact that the Constitution explicitly allows for an Army and a Navy in addition to the militia undermines the capability of the militia to prevent the rising up of military tyrants. Ultimately, I think a natural reading of the Constitution suggests that the militia should continue to fulfill the two major roles it continues to fulfill today: to respond quickly to crises within their home states (as, for
instance, when a state's National Guard assists in evacuation and disaster relief) and to supplement the military in a time of national crisis (state militias could very easily be the first line of defense against an unanticipated invasion).

While I don't feel the current existence of both a permanent standing military force and a militia is unconstitutional, this is certainly not the only arrangement that would be possible. There are at least a couple of major disadvantages to maintaining a standing army. As I alluded to earlier, standing armies can give ambitious military leaders the muscle they need to seize power -- this is perhaps not something most Americans are particularly afraid of at this moment, but military dictatorships are still common around the world. Secondly, permanent standing armies make foreign invasions tempting for expansionistic governments, so nations with standing armies are likely to go to war much more often than those without them. There are also disadvantages to relying on the militia alone, however. I think the existence of the militia as well as the absence of a standing federal army would tend to encourage secession and ultimately the creation of many small, weak states. Secondly, I think it is harder to maintain a strong militia than to maintain a strong standing army unless, ultimately, each state ends up having its own permanent standing army of professional soldiers rather than the part-time band of armed citizens the militia has traditionally been. Any weak point in the chain -- a single state that fails to fund and train its militia properly, for instance -- could lead to a national disaster. All in all, the present compromise seems reasonable.

Although it is legal, I wonder if the current deployment of National Guard members in Iraq agrees with the spirit of the Constitution. The militia is a defensive rather than an offensive force, a reactive rather than a proactive army. To take Guardsmen and Guardswomen from the states they protect into a foreign country seems to be a misuse of a militia and damaging to the safety of the states. Some states have State Defense Forces to ensure that there is always a force available to those states even if much of the National Guard is occupied elsewhere, but I'm not sure this should be necessary.