Should Iraq have militias? Should the US?

[IkeWarnedUs]

I was watching General Kimmit's briefing this morning and heard him say this:

"We have a very strong policy and a very direct policy towards militias. Militias are inconsistent with a democratic and sovereign nation with a central government." (link - this statement is just past half way down: http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040405-0579.html)

That statement stuck in my mind all day. I thought the US was in favor of building Iraqi militias to help the US soldiers in the "fight against terrorism". I went through my archives and sure enough, I found this article from the December 3, 2003 USA Today:

U.S., Iraq consider new militia

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraqi political parties and coalition authorities are discussing the creation of a 1,000-member militia to bolster the U.S. military's fight against a guerrilla insurgency, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Wednesday.

The militia would be formed by uniting fighters from five Iraqi political parties under the joint leadership of the U.S. military and the emerging Iraqi Civil Defense Corps, American officials in Baghdad and Washington said on condition of anonymity.
<snip>
If created, the paramilitary battalion would represent a significant policy reversal by Washington. The United States previously declared private militias illegal and called on Iraqi political leaders to disband the groups.

link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-12-03-iraq-council_x.htm

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "militia" as "a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service".

So, is an Iraqi militia a good idea? Was it a good idea at one time, when the CPA thought they could control it? Who does a militia take their orders from? Who arms them? Who do members of a militia owe their allegiance to? Can a citizen join and leave a militia at will? Can people who are not citizens of the country in question serve in a militia? Are militia members accountable for their actions under any law? If a citizen acts as a member of a militia can they be prosecuted for murder and other crimes committed on behalf of their militia? Are the civilian "contractors" from Blackwater really a militia?

The Second Amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." How does that jive with General Kimmit's statement that "Militias are inconsistent with a democratic and sovereign nation with a central government."? If Kimmit speaks for the US policy, does that mean the Second Amendment is obsolete?

[Sandpiper]

1. General Kimmit's viewpoint shows how far we've strayed

From the original intent of the founding fathers and the constitution.

The founding fathers thought that a large standing military and a powerful, centralized federal government were inimical to the existence of democracy. Their idea regarding the role of the military was fundamentally different than it is today. They believed that the role of the Armed Forces was for national defense, not to go around the globe looking for dragons to slay.

The reason the Second Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights was because well regulated citizen militias were intended to play a large part in national defense.

The founding fathers opposed a large standing military answerable to the federal government only, because from their own experience, they saw that such a militaries were used primarily for aggression rather than defense.

And we can see today how right they were to feel that way.

[IkeWarnedUs]

2. I was hoping for some feedback

I posted this late last night, so I am going to kick in hopes of getting some feedback from other DU'ers.

I am not a big fan of guns personally, but nor do I feel they need to be outlawed. This issue of militias has really been bothering me.

Earlier yesterday I went to my old faithful Webster's Dictionary (1979 edition) to make sure I understood what a militia is. The definition in my opening post was easier to cut and paste, but the one in the book is what really got my brain cells going:

1. any military force or army composed of citizens rather than professional soldiers, called out in time of emergency 2. in the US, all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not already members of the regular armed forces; members of the National Guard and of the Reserves (of the Army, Air Force, Cost Guard, Navy and Marine Corps) constitute the organized militia; all others, the unorganized militia (bold emphasis as shown in the book)

If the argument for gun ownership is the second amendment, it seems militias are a good idea, especially since our "organized" militia is busy fighting around the world. I always felt like Gen. Kimmit said (which scares me) that our "democratic and sovereign nation" doesn't need civilian militias. Now I'm not so sure.

As we piss more and more people off - including many prone to violence - should we be arming ourselves? If so, are simple handguns enough? Or would we just be guaranteeing that there will be violent clashes in the US by doing so? Should we be arming ourselves individually, or as communities? Can we rely on our local police to protect and coordinate our local defense if necessary? If not, who would?

And if it's right for us to prepare to form US militias, is it right for Iraqi's to do so?

I NEVER thought I would be concerned with this. Should I be? I really would like to hear other DU'ers thoughts.

edit to correct a spelling error