It looks like there’s a debate beginning regarding what is “legal to have the military do on domestic soil,” according to Western Journal.
President Trump is known for doing what he feels is right, “even when U.S. law forbids him from a given tactic that would achieve a policy objective, especially when the other side is throwing up procedural roadblocks to the same end,” Western Journal explains.
Western Journal explains that the Pentagon feels that if President Trump were to make an order of this kind, it would be considered legal. The issue with this is that the money would have to come from the already existing alotted defense budget. And our country’s defense budget is already being squeezed for every penny when you take into account the military’s “obligations.”
The Wall Street Journal Reported: “The more than 5,000 active-duty U.S. troops deployed to the border since last October haven’t been tasked with building a new wall, but rather with fortifying existing structures and putting up concertina wire.
Defense officials said the Pentagon hasn’t received new orders to build a wall. U.S. troops are scheduled to be at ports of entry along the Mexican border in California, Mexico and Arizona until Jan. 31.
The president can order troops to build a wall, but where the funding for that would come from is unclear, defense officials said.
And lawyers would likely review such an order beforehand, in part, to assess land ownership issues. The Defense Department has paid for materials and troops used during what was dubbed Operation Faithful Patriot.”
The military being involved in border security should be part of the legal definition.
Western Journal writes, “If border security isn’t a national security issue, I don’t know what is.”
The news outlet continues, “It’s one thing to say the military can’t get involved with domestic law enforcement. I agree with that. But to have them operating on U.S. soil for the purpose of protecting U.S. soil from potential foreign adversaries is by any measure an appropriate use.” Then they pose the important question, “That said, is it the wisest use?”
This is just the kind of thing that President Trump talks about before he takes into account what it would actually entail. This would involve the construction of a wall that stretches for hundreds of miles. Material would need to be sourced. Soldiers would need to be trained to be construction workers, or contractors would have to be hired on.
Western Journal explains:
And if you’re not going to use active-duty servicemen and servicewomen, then you need to work out where in the budget you’re going to take the money to pay the civilian contractors who will do the work.
Even then, someone from central command probably has to be put in charge of overseeing the project, and it’s a massive project. It’s not the sort of thing one person can keep an eye on while also checking global threats and so forth. It’s going to require a sizable Pentagon management team.
It’s also the sort of thing that’s rife with the potential for problems and political landmines. All those stories about $600 hammers and $30,000 toilet seats? Most of them were apocryphal, but let a civilian contractor to the Pentagon gild even one lily and see what kind of blowback you’re going to get from the media and from Capitol Hill.
It’s almost certain that with the new Democratic majority in the House, will come a brand new investigation into alleged abuses in the construction of the border wall. Is it time to brace ourselves for another witch hunt? Only time will tell.