I’m resposting my comment from another thread:
I know it may seem that I am speaking out of both sides of my mouth, but I see both sides—I am on both sides. Military doctrine has changed dramatically over the past few decades. The “we never did it that way when I was in,” doesn’t pass muster. Our military now operates as a unified force under combatant commands. It works well in that environment: one force; one fight. We are all still in different services, but we fight under one commander. And yes, we still swear oaths to protect the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
The problem is that many conservatives (rightly) fear who may be making that decision at the federal level, and an expanded chain of command that excludes local constituencies. There is a danger that the unified command structure be used to integrate all levels of military and law enforcement into a single chain of command, rather than continuing to work cooperatively. This is not only confusing, but totally illegal. Law enforcement and military have distinctly different jobs and they cannot be mixed without horrific consequences. The definition of police state is a state where the police and military have no distinction.
I don’t think we are there, but there is reason to raise a flag and ask the questions. However, acting like Alex Jones disciples is not solution either. Write letters; go to conferences; research modern warfare and policing. Find out what is happening and respond in a reasonable manner.
You can’t have it both ways. These same folks, who are complaining now, will be complaining that we didn’t figure out how to respond to an attack or national disaster that taxes our resources and personnel. And remember, many, if not most of us, are the same as you. We are here to defend the country and are working in an asymmetric environment that requires that we work to strengthen, not break, the very system that we have sworn to protect.