American Military Interference

In many countries throughout the world (Pakistan being the most current and obvious example), the militaries and intelligence services are very active in internal and domestic issues. The army in Turkey, for another example, tends to overthrow the civilian government whenever they decide they don't like the way things are heading.

Is there any way for the American military or intelligence agencies to become at least partially as nosy in domestic politics? I'm not particularly talking about juntas or repetitive coups, but perhaps the Joint Chiefs of Staff could play a much bigger role in government?

I have dreams of the CIA and the Army collaborating to "endorse" a candidate, but perhaps that all belongs with the sugar plums...
 
Didn't the CIA have JFK killed? Does that count?

Indeed it does, and the Bush family are basically political representatives for arms companies, and thus very much influenced by the military.
The army would never openly endorse a candidate, but they've got plenty of scope for "reshuffling", shall we say.
 
The Founding Fathers were very scared of the military, and took measures to prevent it getting too strong. That's why, for example, there wasn't supposed to be a large standing army.

Still, all that shit went out the crapper during WWII, and afterwards there were a number of very influential generals and admirals, many of whom had some experience governing occupied territories, and who had the loyalty of, you know, every American man between 18 and 35. I could definitely see the Joint Chiefs stepping in after FDR dies, convincing Congress to cede them some more power.
 
The military did get directly involved in politics during the American Civil War. Is there some way to maintain that level of involvement post-war?

hmm... If confederate die-hards took guerilla actions after ACW, then the US military may have stayed strong and involved. Have this go on for a decade and it becomes an accepted tradition.
 
The Founding Fathers were very scared of the military, and took measures to prevent it getting too strong. That's why, for example, there wasn't supposed to be a large standing army.

Still, all that shit went out the crapper during WWII, and afterwards there were a number of very influential generals and admirals, many of whom had some experience governing occupied territories, and who had the loyalty of, you know, every American man between 18 and 35. I could definitely see the Joint Chiefs stepping in after FDR dies, convincing Congress to cede them some more power.

The problem with this theory is that FDR did die (in the midst of a war, no less) and the no one from the joint chiefs or other high-ranking staff stepped in to grab more power.

It is not only the original Founders' fear of a standing army, but federalism, that has generally limited the official role of federal military and intelligence services in domestic matters. Not counting the Civil War (an obvious special case), and the use of the army in Indian Wars and resettlement (which fell under federal authority because Indians were considered independent nations, not part of any State), the federal government has been very hesitant to mobilize regular military forces to enforce domestic laws - even federal ones - when this is not first requested by a state's governor. The only exceptions I can think of occurred during the civil rights era when federal troops were called out to enforce federal court desegregation orders in several Southern States.
 
Top