Whats with the "standing Army"?

How to start this. So, start with the known facts and work outward.
Standing armies. Its fact that our founders considered a standing army to be as near to tyranny as you can get without having an actual tyranny. They mention this no less than once in the founding documents, multiple times within correspondence amongst themselves in the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers.
That’s not to say they felt armies were unnecessary; quite the opposite. They were in the middle of a war to win independence. They knew that force was a necessary evil. It’s the selective use of that force that makes war political, and not power grabbing.
When we started this country, after we had won our independence, we held onto only a handful of the military force we used to win. That was mostly navy with small detachments of marines to maintain our shipping lanes. There were also small regiments of Army Regulars within country but mostly on the territorial edges of the country. These were volunteer forces that were more of a police force to help the locals maintain treaties with indigenous peoples and other nationalities in competition for the land.
The President was the Chief Commander of the forces though not directly involved in conflicts. His was the hand that was needed to keep the forces in a strictly political nature, not one of power.
When larger skirmishes were involved, the people would head to the local command to ‘enlist’. Between larger skirmishes, they would maintain the “guard”. In some states it was mandatory for all males to congregate for drill IF they weren’t going to go to church on Sunday. It was expected for the families to maintain a field grade weapon, with shot and powder. All of this was expected and accepted. People didn’t rely upon the military to maintain peace amongst themselves. Local constables were in place to help keep order in situations of ‘law breaking’ but they were not the key policing factor. The people were.

This system was in place up to the time of the Civil War. Even then, when war was inevitable, people signed up with the local command. There were exception to this, especially in the south where conscription was fairly common. Granted, during that time, there were several instances of major Constitutional violations, on both sides. The fact that the war happened at all shows just how out of touch the Federal Government was getting at that point.
At the declaration of the Spanish American war, people signed up at the local Command.
At the declaration of the Great War (WWI) same thing.
Voluntary Enlistment right after the Bombing of Pearl Harbor, Same thing. The sign up was so heavy at that time, the Army and Navy were turning away many.

SO how did that work. Small regiments between conflicts. Major build up at the start of war. Where did the command structure come from?
Some of it was made up of former Command ‘Re-upping’. Some of it was career officers bucking for political office that stayed in between conflicts. Amazingly, there tended to be more combat experience without a standing army than we have had in the last 60 years with our current establishment.(the last 7 years not included.)
What changed and why?
Immediately after WWII, we were the only power that was left unscathed on our own soil.(Pearl harbor not included then) We were the only power that had a fully functional industrial complex and an economy that wasn’t overburdened: at least not as badly as the rest of the world at that point. We were making weapons for every country that was an ally since they were weakened by war upon their soil.(Westinghouse made Mosin-Nagants for Russia! As did Remington.)
And we had the bomb.
We also had a lot readjusting to do. Many families that were separated by the war, had to shift gears with Dad coming home. Much of the forces then were disbanded and sent home and things seemed to return to normal. Only they didn’t. We had several new sections of the military. The Navy had grown, we now had the newly formed Air Force. And we had the bomb.
Someone had to have control of that little nightmare. It wasn’t something that you could mothball for when you needed it. Especially when one of your allies was quickly turning into something else, wanting the same footing you had recently acquired.
It was easier for the PTB to keep a force on hand, just in case, than depend upon patriotism to drive recruitment in time of need. There was enough agreement among the citizens then, that it was convenient to ignore that little tidbit about ‘standing armies’.
One interesting point about WWII: ALL of the officers Brigadier General on up, were leftovers from the first World War. Several in office at the time were leftovers from then also. Many of the first enlistees were leftovers from that time. The instructors of ‘the boots’ were combat VETS. This has been a rare thing until our current time frame. At the start of the Vietnam War, there were very few instructors with combat experience, very few in commands with actual combat experience.
I think things went downhill greatly when our country made the turn towards having an active military. When conscription was chosen around the Vietnam War, things really took a turn for the worst.
Where did things really go wrong though? Its actually a combination of things. Mostly decisions made by persons in positions of responsibility without repercussion. Education went downhill, patriotism went the sidelines, both in schools and at home eventually. The country as a whole starting showing more selfishness. We lost the morals and integrity of past generations.
This allowed the PTB to grow further power within the military complex. The Chiefs of Staff started turning out to be more politicians than Commanders. Fewer and fewer Presidents have had military experience, let alone combat experience. (Current president being the best example of that.) There may not be a need for it, but it is a trait that helps in relations with a system that shouldn’t be there by our founder’s ideas. It also helps weight the hard choices when force is inevitable. (One thing any vet can tell you: “when in doubt, do something. It may not be the right thing but doing nothing will get people killed”. The other side of that coin is to listen to those in your command. It may not change your mind but it will give you an insight into the needs of your people. Our current president never learned those lessons.)
One thing that gave me hope about the whole mess of the military/industrial complex was just after 9/11. The recruiting stations filled quickly. We hadn’t even declared a war at that point, yet many young people felt the call of duty in their souls. Do I like the idea of sending people to die? Hell no. but I have no qualms about defending my own ideas, life and property and this country fits in that list very neatly. Those people that answered that call know exactly what I mean, or they wouldn’t have made that call.(debatably, this may have been a contrived event, some may even include Pearl Harbor in that as well as other events in history. Fact is, even if contrived, it worked to swell the ranks.)

Sadly, TPTB felt the need to continue a practice experimented with in Korea, fleshed out in Vietnam and perfected in the war-rooms of the military colleges. War is a racket now, purely and simply a racket. It runs the economy to some extent, makes multinational banks Masses of money as they work both sides of the trouble.(and this was documented during WWII, Exxon being part of that, as well as IBM) Hell, I don’t think there has been an Honest war since the skirmish between two surveyors and a couple of natives at a place now called Battlecreek Michigan. Even the Civil War had masses amount of money playing both sides against the middle.
No, the real problem is allowing the PTB to have any power over the military at all; making it so that being an Officer has to be by Congressional Appointment. Imagine if the military were still ‘Militia’ and the Government could only request our services? What if the militia had atomic weapons and the Government started getting out of line? Well, that’s a rather silly thought, if things hadn’t changed ‘way back when’ chances are we wouldn’t have come to the point of atomic/nuclear anything AND TPTB probably wouldn’t be in the position they are in now. Funny how that threat of retaliation tends to keep people in line. It’s what they do to honest people in this country, I would like to see the tables turned on ‘em.

Now we are at a point in history where that standing army may be the deathknell of freedom within this country. There have been studies done, internally, to determine if the military could be used during times of unrest and the results have been less than positive for freedom. I am certain that there are groups within the ranks that will not 'rise up' against their fellow Americans. The unit I was in was ready to go rogue if such an event happened. I can't say that the same unit would have the same feelings now, its been almost 20 years, but seeing how there was such strong Patriotism then, I am sure there are units now that feel the same.
(for the record, I was discharged with an OTH. I did some things that were stupid but the only charge they were able to get to stick was UA (AWOL for the army people). During the Courts Martial, the Captain in charge made the courts record stick the label of "patriotic activist" to my records. During the Clinton Era, it was like sewing a red "A" to my clothes. Here's the clincher, this was after Desert Storm, which I was involved in, and just after the LA riots. You can see where the problem was, I am sure.) Part of the problem here is control of WHAT is being taught at a young age and the propaganda of what is allowed within the Military itself.

Our young are being taught that this is not a standing army. Many of those that enlist, are young, from depressed areas, many of whom are looking for an 'out'. Some are from areas like the area I live in now. They go in because "my dad was a marine/soldier/sailor, his dad was, and his dad was", its traditional. There is noting wrong with either reason, and yet, both are wrong at the same time. Wanting a step up and willingness to work for it is honorable. Following in family footsteps is honorable. A standing army is wrong.

And the military, personnel wise, is only about 1/100th the physical population. Spending is more for support and equipment than in actual salaries. Our equipment is constant evolution while the rest of the world 'attempts to keep up'. Yet when we are confronted by groups that are still using pre-WWI bolt action rifles, our latest and greatest only helps us hold the field. The mentality within the command structure is hobbled by political aspiration. That mentality is what costs the ones on the ground, the highest price. That was what happened in WWI, and Vietnam. There was a disconnect from actual use of military towards political gain by the command.
If we want to win wars, it requires getting in there, doing the job with ALL available resources, and getting out as quickly as we got in(WWII is a great example of this). Our current complex is more about maintaining the conflict. You don't win wars that way, and you sure as hell don't make friends with those on the ground, on either side of the conflict. There are others that make much better arguments against the military complex than I can. I will leave this post at that point.