The Founding Fathers knew what the Deep State was -- they had to deal with it. Do you think they blamed only King George for all of the failings in policy? No, they knew it was his advisors and parliament that were causing issues for the colonies. Had King George not been advised by people who were simply wrong about the situation in America, there might have been an amicable resolution. When they sent representatives to petition the king, they knew they were really trying to get heard by the king's advisors and parliament.

Great Britain, after all, had become a machine of conquest and profit. The military, the government, and businesses all conspired together to make as much money as possible and expand their influence as far as possible. It wasn't unlike our modern Deep State -- granted, they didn't have a tremendous military budget and didn't have mega corporations developing advanced technology for advanced warfare, but they did strategically fight battles to secure critical resources so they could monopolize and exploit through trade.

The Founding Fathers didn't want the federal government to control everything. It was meant to unify the states into a single fighting force when facing foreign threats. It was meant to keep the states together with an eternal pact of economic cooperation. It was also meant to be a means to raise money when that money was absolutely needed for national interests.

Obviously, we have gone far from these original goals, and I could speak at length on how every one of the original goals was corrupted by corrupt men and women.

But today, let's look at how the federal government was meant to work when it came to military matters.

What is the military, first of all? The military is the institution that is entrusted with the powers to kill and destroy. The sole purpose of the military is to blow things up, shoot people, and lay waste to vast regions of the earth. This is a truly terrifying concept when you think about it. I call it an "institution" but really, in modern terms, think of it as a "corporation." It's a very special corporation, the only corporation in our country that we grant the power to kill. When we need something dead, we call on it and pay it handsomely for its services.

The Founding Fathers had a lot of options when it came to the military, Let me list a few:

• You can have "no military except in times of war." This is how the Anglo-Saxons did it, and it's how the Greeks did it. It works, by and large, because the people themselves (militia) are the soldiers in the military, and calling them to battle is not an easy thing to do, nor is it done lightly. But the benefit is that the military cannot be used to oppress the people -- that would be silly.
• You can have a permanent military run by the government, supplemented by the militia. This is the old English model, and it works very successfully. In peacetime, the military preserves the technology and techniques of war. In wartime, they bolster their ranks with fresh recruits that they can quickly train. This works pretty well, too, but it doesn't entirely prevent the military being used to oppress the people.
• You can have an elite, specialized military, owned by the state. This is more akin to feudal times, where men had to train practically their entire lives just to be successful in combat, and where battles and wars were waged between these professional armies. But the major drawback is that the military is always used to oppress the people. If they need more money or food, they just take it, and no one can stop them.
• You can have an elite, specialized military for hire, paid for by the state during times of war. The late medieval period and Renaissance had mercenary units that were for hire, and would often be hired to fight against people they were recently working for. (Of note, Renee Descartes was a mercenary commander.) The issue here is these units are available for hire. All your enemy has to do is come up with a larger sum of money and you are now screwed.
• Finally, you can have elite, specialized military owned by citizens of the state. This is the Roman Republic model. The military was truly corporate in this system, and the most powerful individuals in the country had a military to back them up. That said, people expected them to use their military to defend the country, so it often ended up costing more than it was worth. But to be truly elite in this system, you needed to own an army and keep them paid and fed.

Is it any surprise that the Founding Fathers went with the first option, with some degree of the second option? They foresaw that each state would keep its own militia ready for combat, train their citizens or at least call on them in times of war. The federal government would be there to command the troops (via the president) in times of war, but it would have a small, if any, standing army. Indeed, the Founding Fathers thought that we would readily reject any standing army, particularly in times of peace.

Let's look at what actually happened:

1. The states got very lax in their duties. It is expensive and troublesome to maintain a militia. Why should New York, for instance, pay millions for an army while Virginia only paid a few hundred thousand?
2. Troops that fight under a president tend to become loyal to that president, and would rather be federalized than maintain their allegiance to the state. We saw this in the Civil War.
3. It's very hard for the president to call on the military when it is needed for domestic matters. For instance, the Whiskey Rebellion. In the end, it was Washington's charisma and his soldier's loyalty to him as a man that made that venture successful. It could've gone horribly wrong.

In short, a nation needs a national military. It's the "natural" resting spot for these sorts of things. States that get along well together don't really see a need for militias, and won't really pay for them.

Now, we have seen what this "national military" gave rise to. World War II was fought largely by militia called up and trained in modern warfare. It was very successful. Afterwards, however, the argument was made and accepted that we needed to keep a standing army that was well-trained and ready to fight on a moments notice. We simply can't ask our enemies to wait for a few months while we train up our civilians and get them ready for combat.

This makes sense -- if you view the world as an enemy waging war on us. This is an unnatural and unhealthy view, however. For most of world history, nations were at peace with each other. Occasionally, there would be hostility, which would explode into war or just simmer behind the scenes. As a matter of practicality, nations knew that if they declared war or war was declared on them, there was plenty of time to raise an army and train it. Indeed, the very act of raising an army and training was seen as a hostility. (This is one reason why the Romans were successful -- they always had an army ready to go to battle, and could often catch their enemies unaware.)

This view -- that the world is hostile and wants to kill us -- is blatantly wrong. If anything, the world is scared to death of our military and our warfighting capability. A few decades ago, I was a hawk, and I thought it was important that we maintain the best fighting force in the world. I would say out loud -- "if someone threatens us, we should just get it over with and kill them all." What I realize today is that if someone truly threatens us, we should declare a war and destroy them. But here's the thing -- who is really threatening us? The USSR is gone. China doesn't want to fight a war with us -- they would lose badly. Who is there out there that is trying to kill us?

9/11 was the event that was supposed to convince us that we needed to worry about non-state actors AKA terrorists. Sure, 99.9% of the world's people do not want to attack us -- but there are enough people out there who would carry out terrorist attacks that we have better go wage war constantly!!! This is utterly ridiculous.

What Trump showed us is that we don't need to be constantly waging war on the world. We don't need a massive standing army ready to invade any corner of the earth on a moment's notice. If there is a threat -- great, let's declare war, recruit, and ship people off to fight that war. If they are not a threat -- leave them alone and let them be, or spar with them in very minor and meaningless skirmishes.

We need to get back to our constitutional roots:

1. No or a very small standing army.
2. Militias organized by the states (maybe provide funding for each state and set a minimum bar or something)
3. When we are at war, recruit and train the numbers needed for war.

What's doubly re-assuring that such a strategy could work is that we really don't need millions of people standing around military bases cleaning toilets. The things that we do do that are effective and meaningful in times of peace can be handles in an office building by people wearing suits and ties -- provided we keep careful control over their activities (which is another rant!)