The first problem W would face as self-declared fuhrer would be regional loyalty. He could quickly find himself dictator of the red-state south, the rest of the country effectively being self-governed at the state level. Keep in mind that W's approval ratings are at historic lows. Whatever comity he can expect from the lobbyist-owned congress and hack-judiciary will not necessarily be matched by the people. After a coup, in the face of massive popular outrage, who is to say the governors of Washington, or California, or Massachusetts, or Minnesota will take orders from DC?

That is where the national military comes in, of course. Notice that all the leading Democrat presidential candidates are all lined up lock-step behind the idea that our military needs to be larger by 100,000 troops. America faces no credible military threats from anywhere. Our historic commitments to defend South Korea and western Europe from land invasion are looking a little stale. The only reason we need more troops is:

1) To occupy more of the Middle East and fight all the Israeli proxy wars that AIPAC has in mind. We can't hold Iraq and invade Iran with the current force.

2) To keep the beltway crowd in control of the country if they decide to suspend the constitution and enter "continuity."

NSPD-51 and annexes come formally from the Bush White House, but essentially all the beltway players are on board (as with warrantless surveilance and every other partial erasure of the constitution already accomplished), along with the corporate media. Hence what Rosenbaum as observed: not a peep from Congress, the media, or the think tank crowd. An extra 100,000 troops would enable the beltway to wage Israel's wars indefinitely and still enforce martial law at home if necessary.

These are the same troops who can pull a Haditha and later say with a straight face they did nothing wrong. If martial law comes down on America, it will be like Argentina in the 1970s, and alas too late to state the obvious -- we made a mistake putting these people in power.

It's a paradox, and incorrect to say, but true: our armed forces don't fight for our freedom any more. They imperil it. What we desperately need is 100,000 fewer troops. Then you could be sure the beltway crowd won't bother with a coup.

What's most shocking about this post is that no other Slate readers have thought it necessary to respond to it yet. I can't believe that even on a site like this there are no Americans disgusted with this portrayal of our military. That's shameful.

There's a reason that the Democrats respond so forcefully when people accuse them of despising the military. They know it's true and they know that for the vast majority of real Americans it's a deal-breaker.

A military force is not inherently good or bad. It takes on the character of the regime that controls it. Under a responsible regime, the military can be a benign or positive force (albeit famous for wasting money). But under an evil regime, the military sooner or later manifests the same evil as the regime. I will say it as often as you like, no apologies. Human beings have no automatic obligation to like or praise the military of their own countries. Ask any German, or Russian, or Chinese, or Argentine, how much sense that makes. The pre-war German military is a particularly good example. They had institutions and traditions that predated the Nazis. Military leaders knew and discussed the risks of Hitler's rise, but they did not stop it. Instead, they became Hitler's army.

Perhaps you would say the US military is better than that, and at some point would say no before serving an un-constitutional president or torturing and disappearing its fellow citizens. Maybe, but it's not a safe bet. The military is in an inherently difficult position, forbidden to question the political calculations of civilian leaders. But our political process is broken. The corporate media exclude all but a narrow range of voices. Politicians are nearly all bought off by big-money lobbies. Our current regime is in the process of dismantling the constitution before your eyes. They are promoting a "war of civilizations" which will take the form of endless holy wars and Israeli proxy wars in the Middle East. If the American people decide to "go soft" in the war of civilizations, do you think the true believers will stand aside and accept that decision? Or will they find the Argentine solution more satisfactory? In the latter case, what would the US military do? I will say it again: in the current circumstances, the U.S. constitution, our legal and moral traditions, and the lives of dissidents would be distinctly safer if our military were smaller.

American men and women join the military for the best of reasons, to defend their country. Except for fundamentalist Christians, they do not join hoping fight Israeli proxy wars, occupy foreign countries, and rain collateral damage on foreign people too helpless even to get out of the way, let alone attack us. But once they are swept up in the system, they are subject to forces beyond their control. On the far side of Haditha, they are dangerous, sorry to say. A wise government does not force its own people down that path, but as you might have noticed, we don't have a wise government.

You say I despise the military, which is not quite true. I fear the military, with all the stew of emotions that fear entails. And ironically, the military would be better off if people like me were in charge. Then they would be re-focused on what they originally wanted to do: defend America. They would not be fighting messy and useless foreign wars under a cloud of lies, and coming home with PTSD and missing legs.

You also suggest, on no evidence whatever, that I am a Democrat and that my opinions tell something about the Democratic party. In fact, I belong to no party, and participate in no party's affairs. Democratic party insiders, as I noted, are mostly bought off and on board with the war of civilizations. Hillary will keep the military as busy as W did, don't worry. She will love and support the military in all sincerity, on their way to whatever hell you want, and for the lucky ones, half way back.

Self-declared fuhrer. You joking, right?

He hasn't thrown any Democrats into jail, He hasn't thrown any media people into jail. He hasn't nationalized any industries. The closest I've seen anyone get to being a fuhrer are Democrats talking about doing something to talk radio because of Rush.

And ironically, the military would be better off if people like me were in charge.

I'll be more worried that you'll be acting more like a fuhrer than any Republican or Democrat out there.

A military force is not inherently good or bad. It takes on the character of the regime that controls it.

This is precisely what real Americans despise about the Left. Anyone who knows our Army knows that it certainly does have its own character, laws, and traditions; and that chief among them is a respect for the Constitution above personalities.

As I said before, if a President could order the Army to make him a dictator, it would have been done long ago. You and the rest of the Left seem to believe that America in general, and (incredibly) the Army in particular, are moronic sheep which have simply been lucky to get good shepherds thus far. That is why real Americans abhor you.

Ironic how you, like so many right-wing fire-breathers, see nothing strange about attacking my point of view and confirming it at the same time. You imply strongly that the left are not "real Americans." I was born in America, so I am a real American, entitled to protections of the constitution by any common-sense reading. But you have declared, by virtue of my statements about the military, that I am a false American. What are the rights of false Americans, if any? If a band of 19-year-old soldiers were in the future ordered to "disappear" some false Americans, what would they do?

I consider myself a more true American than you, since I believe in its constitutional traditions and principles, and try to defend them. You plainly don't believe in those principles or the right of dissent, having already revoked my citizenship, and you don't even feel a need to conceal your non-belief. Comforting to have you here speaking for the Military.

I realize the US military is aware of the challenges it faces. Officers have had quiet internal discussions about principled dissent, and what to do if plainly unsound or illegal orders start coming from the White House. But in the end, it's asking too much of the military as an institution to expect them to defend the constitution when the political system has gone off track. So far they haven't been doing so well anyhow. According to the constitution, treaties entered into by the USA have the force of law; and the US is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions; so if the military really "respect[ed] the constitution above personalities" they would have refused to carry out torture even when the president's lawyers cleared it and Rumsfeld said to do it. Not a promising start. As military officers are well aware, go-with-the-flow is often the easier choice than a principled stand that could instantly wreck a 20-year career.

Part of the problem is that the constitution is under generalized assault by the right wing, and does not command the respect it once did. Attorney general nominee Mukasey just stated on the record that the President can disregard the law, including the constitution itself, if he believes he is protecting America. Mukasey said this idea was in the constitution, though plainly it's not. His view is about to be ratified by the "opposition" party by way of their confirmation of Mukasey as Attorney General, the nation's highest "law enforcer". Ask anyone inside the beltway -- the president is now above the law. I am not making this up -- it's all on the record, even described in some detail in Slate.

Doesn't the president need to "protect America" from false Americans like me? From people who hate America (Beck)? From liberals = traitors (Coulter)? Do the human rights of dissidents in America have any basis any more, besides mere habit? Ya, just laugh it off, it's not serious ...

The day does not proceed instantly from light to dark. There is a twilight, during which things get darker by degrees right before your eyes. America is in that twilight. If you don't like hearing that, why not shoot the messenger. No wait, just kidding !! Ha ha. I didn't mean that.

That is why real Americans abhor you.

I am a Democrat, I served from 1967-1970, my vote and opinion are just as valid as yours. Saying that half the population of the country is hated by the other half makes for some severe stress on the system wouldn't you think? Actually, there are more registered Democrats than registered Republicans, so maybe we are the real Americans after all.

I am not quite sure why you abhor me. It's honestly confusing.

I did not say that I am a traitor; Ann Coulter did. I did not say that I hate America; Glenn Beck did. I did not say I am a false American; you and hyperionred did. I don't hate anyone. Anyone who abhors me does so on their own initiative; and it did not become so because I mentioned it.

I won't be shy about what I did say: Militaries inevitably take on the moral character of the regimes they serve. If and when a nation slides into totalitarianism, that nation's army becomes a threat to its people. America is sliding into totalitarianism before your eyes. (See Slate article 2176401 for starters.) In the circumstances, we and our constitutional tradition would be safer with a smaller military. I said that.

You could disagree with my argument on theoretical grounds, or dispute the facts that I cited. But no one does that Instead, you simply "abhor" me, and declare that all "real Americans" abhor me, and declare that I am not a real American. I cause "stress on the system." The scary thing is, that is how totalitarians think and operate.

I am not sure who is the real American, or what that means anymore. But I am fairly sure America is not what it used to be.

Certainly. I was saying that real Americans hate the Democrats who hate the military. For example, the guy that started this post believes that the Army is exactly as bad as the regime that controls it. He believes that the Army is a threat to the Constitution.

Having served - admittedly while the Army was enduring one of the darkest periods in its history - do you believe that?

It's very simple. Regardless of your voting habits, if you believe the Army to be some kind of alien threat to our liberty rather than our friends and neighbors doing their best to protect our liberty, then real Americans will necessarily despise you. But of course many Democrats don't believe that - I think the leadership (by and large) does.

The American military is part of a larger threat--not the threat itself. That is the incredible hysteria suffered by a population that does not read, is obsessed with Britany, and believes that the United States is the center of the universe. This hysteria is buttressed by a media whose mission is no longer to report news--remember the Washington Post's Watergate story?--but, rather, to control it.

I can well believe an effort by the Bush administration to manufacture a phoney crisis. He has more than enough allies to support him, and even those supposedly blue states will go along with him, simply because they depend so much upon federal money to survive.