News Release

December 17, 2003

Media Contact: (202) 789-5200

Greater Domestic Role for Military Would Be a Mistake
Ill-conceived policy would undermine Posse Comitatus, trample on civil liberties

WASHINGTON -- A growing number of policymakers believe that because our military is so effective at fighting wars abroad, it can be equally effective fighting the war on terror here at home. But that view is as simplistic as it is dangerous. A new Cato Institute study argues that if we begin to militarize American society to fight the domestic war on terror, we risk collateral damage to civilian life and liberty at home.

In "Deployed in the U.S.A.: The Creeping Militarization of the Home Front," Cato Senior Editor Gene Healy argues that "in matters of homeland security the military should be viewed as a last resort, and not a first responder." As Healy notes, soldiers are trained to shoot to kill; police officers, ideally, to serve and protect. For that reason, Americans have long resisted the use of standing armies to keep the domestic peace.

Unfortunately, that principle is in danger of being forgotten in the post-9/11 world. Since the terror attacks of 2001, the U.S. government has flirted with border militarization, military surveillance of civil society, and proposals to weaken the Posse Comitatus Act, the 125-year-old statute that restricts use of the military to enforce the laws domestically.

Those proposals put civilians at risk, and they're unlikely to reduce the terrorist threat. As Healy puts it, "the military is a blunt instrument: effective for destroying enemy troops en masse but ill suited for the fight on the home front, which requires a scalpel, rather than a hammer."