It strains credulity to think that the framers of the Constitution were unaware of that, considering the USMC and the U.S. Constitution are virtually contemporary entities.

In other words, an ahistorical question from the start.

However, given the purpose of the SysAdmin, were I writing legislation enacting it it would be fairly non-controversial to say “can never be deployed on the territory of the United States.”

“were I writing legislation enacting it it would be fairly non-controversial to say “can never be deployed on the territory of the United States.”"

I think this is a common interpretation to the Sysadmin concept, but not the “proper” one. For example, in Bush wants his domestic SysAdmin Force now: [1]

“But the reality is that we have both militaries: one that exists to make smoking holes and little else and one that exists to enable that first force to do its thing. I'm not talking about abusing that first force, just tapping the obvious skills sets of the latter.

We will be told that because Louisiana's Guard was itself impacted by the hurricane, that was a major cause of the slow response, but the real story is more mundane than that. The bias against stepping in proactively is profound and pervasive across the military. When Guard personnel (from other states) already in region for training aggressively volunteer on their free days to go in and help with the clean-up, only to be told by superiors, “no thanks,” you know the problem runs very deep, despite all the rhetoric.”

For that matter, he says the domestic SysAdmin as operating now, albeit incompetently: [2]

“So let's not assume that getting more Israeli-like in our domestic SysAdmin force called the police will be the only answer or even the best answer to stemming any onslaught of suicide bombers here in the States. If we provide Muslim immigrant families with real opportunity for economic connectedness, by and large they will police their own, leaving the jihadist professionals to our SysAdmin professionals to handle (cops here at home and in conjunction with others cops across the Core, and the U.S. military in the Gap).”

However, a domestic SysAdmin should expand into its international role:[3]

“Katrina may end up helping FEMA and other domestic SysAdmin-like agencies steal back money that was taken after 9/11 and funneled so intensely in the direction of the Global War on Terrorism. Good or bad?

Largely good, I would say, because getting America up to snuff in its own self-maintaining SysAdmin function makes us far more likely to be willing to engage in such stuff overseas, presuming the White House does a better job in enlisting allies for any future rogue regime takedowns. After all, it was Bush himself in his N.O. speech that promised “the military would play a new role in federal disaster relief.”"

Even PMCs may be involved [4]

“A great example of this is how Blackwater got quickly pulled into the Katrina effort in New Orleans (the subsequent subject of many conspiracy tales). Prior to the hurricane, Prince said, the company has no intention of ever getting involved with domestic crisis response, but the reality was, when push came to shove, Blackwater could put together an effort so much faster than government entities that, once on the scene and proving themselves, the offers just poured in. Now, they have a standing capacity ready to go at a moment’s notice, which shows you how quickly they adapt to new market conditions.”

(which is similar to what I suggested with a Military-Industrial-Sysadmin-Complex [5]…)

[1] http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/002368.html
[2] http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/002075.html
[3] http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/002311.html
[4] http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/003322.html
[5] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/12/23/embracing-defeat-part-iv-embracing-victory.html

Rubbish.

It is the kind of nihilistic triviality beloved by American academics who like to gum up the works by injecting negative intellectual novelties into a functioning system in order to demonstrate their own cleverness to themselves. Law professors, being analytical reductionists are among the worst – left to their own devices they'd theorize us all into a tyranny or anarchy.

Volokh is smart enough to know better but I guess he has a blog to fill like the rest of us…..

The distinction between Army and Navy (with Marines) existed in our British predecessor government. The US during the revolutionary war (Pre-current constitution) had a separate Army and Navy (with Marines) so the precedent is there.

To this day, the Marines are part of the Department of the Navy.

I guess it is time to get of my ass and type up “Department of War, Department of Peace” as a post from my notepad.

In fairness, Volokh's post followed his defense of the Air Force against those who doubted its constitutionality, as its neither an Army nor a Navy [1,2,3].

If the Army and the Marines nowadays belong under an “Army” that is limited to 2 year budgets, that if anything shows how forward thinking the Founding Fathers were. There has always been a need for the SysAmin functions of an “Army,” and always a fear of what such an “Army” could accomplish.

What would be a Barnettian analog of the force that put down the Whiskey Rebellion? Surely it'd be a SysAdmin operation, regardless of whether its bureaucratically assigned to the Army or the Marines

Pursplelog,

I was thinking back to Tom's CSPAN brief where he mentioned that breaking the DOD into two Departments would return us to the pre-1947 order… While the Marines are an old concept, does a USMC that deploys to landlocked states and provinces (Afghanistan and Anbar) fit that historic mold?

[1] http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_01_28-2007_02_03.shtml#1170357907
[2] http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_01_28-2007_02_03.shtml#1170051901
[3] http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_01_28-2007_02_03.shtml#1170032632

tdaxp – in those quotations, I always assumed Barnett meant something along the lines of cops working with the SysAdmin, rather than being a part of it. I've never actually read his books, I just watched his briefing thing online, so I'm no expert on Barnettology (although I think I just coined the discipline).

Historically (before the Cold War created the national security state with its sizeable disgression from Constitutional & Anglo concepts and foundations), the Navy & Marines were considered the Dept. of the Navy, because both were intended to function in peace as well as war, while the Army (The Department of War) was expected to exist (except for the few necessarily permanent functions) only in time of war.

The Marines then and today are utilized for expeditionary purposes first and foremost. They are able to go anywhere anytime with the help of airlift and the Navy in as little time as possible. This sounds like Levithian, which if its the Marines, belongs with the Dept. Of The Navy.

The Army was only supposed to be around in wartime, but since this nation has been at war nearly non-stop since 1945, things have been skewed now and concepts are confused. Chet Richards has an intriguing solution for that problem of course.

Barnett's SysAdmin would appear to also fit with the concept behind the Department of the Navy. The SysAdmin force would be a permanent fixture of US and Allied foreign policy.

The problem appears to be what to do with the Army (back to Richards or an expanded realization of Barnett's vision). Its the historical and Constitutional anomaly.

Domestically, SysAdmin should follow the fundamentals of the expeditionary SysAdmin but should be within the confines of the Justice Dept or whatever will replace the DHS nightmare. Domestically, the need for drastic reforms in the drug war, the legal system, the education system and the very concept of urban communities predates any serious standing up of SysAdmin forces. You have to create the new rules for the new force first. The market-state is emerging regardless of any of this of course.