Long Road to the Militarization of the USA

A common false belief that exists among some hopeful naive individuals is that nations are somehow immune to the forces of history, and will not have to suffer or go through the turbulence that previous societies have gone through, (such as the Greek civil wars) in spite of clear warning signs with ominous parallels. Historical amnesia makes for a populace that is easily manipulated and that can be slowly separated from or be indoctrinated to surrender their identity and security. In 2008, Barack Obama called for a nationally funded ‘civilian national security force’, one which would be domestically militarized to meet national security objectives.

[See video clip of his remark here]


Throughout his administration, US federal departments were steadily accumulating large quantities of military hardware and arming up with more powerful and advanced weaponry, even including silencers for the US Fish and Wildlife Service.


The number of law enforcement officers has also increased dramatically for various US federal departments, and since 2004, the American government has purchased over 1.7 billion bullets, including 453 million hollow points (those figures are outdated) as they were released in 2016.

[For those specific items, and a detailed overview, see items 6 & 7 on page 5 here]


Still, those stats give a clear image of what is really going on.

Police departments across America are becoming increasingly militarized, while domestic discussion about gun control remains in the spotlight. The ‘swatification’ continues as one author puts it, with the flow of military hardware and advanced weaponry to police units intensifying.


A militarized state is the classic imperial strategy, and this notion of a domestic security force fits within the larger objective of regional military forces that could supply or form part of a standing global army under the UN Security Council, where the use of force does not have to be employed by national armies or traditional peacekeeping units, but can be delegated to regional entities or a lead nation to handle a security threat. Perhaps more alarming is the fact that the increasing authority of the UN means the ability to deploy military forces in rapid fashion to meet any perceived security threat, or any even any potential threat as deemed necessary by the Security Council.

In including the phrase ‘threat to the peace’ in Article 39 of the Charter, Kirk points out, the founders determined that ‘it is not necessary… for the Council to wait until an actual breach of the peace has occurred before the use of its own coercive measures.’[1]

The weaponization of the state upon the American people is accelerating, with UN proponents seeking to disarm a populace seeking to protect its inalienable rights. Those who cannot see the danger or revolutionaries who think that the system needs to be torn down are unknowingly playing into the hands of imperialists who carefully watch and wait for the right crisis. [2]


[1] C. Luck, A Council for All Seasons: The Creation of the Security Council and Its Relevance Today, Chapter 2 in Lowe et al, (2008) The United Nations Security Council and War, quoting from G. Kirk, The Enforcement of Security, Yale Law Journal 55, no. 5 (Aug. 1946, p. 1088)

[2] Henry Kissinger stated that “You do not design a new world order as an emergency measure. But you need an emergency to bring about a new world order.”

Quoted in Khanna, P. (2011). How to Run the World: Charting a Course to the Next Renaissance, p. 5. Random House, NY.