Prior to the Bundy incident, I would have been basically in support of the effort to have various federal agencies (IRS, BLM, etc) shed their rapidly developing militarized enforcement wings. The reason for this is the same reason I don't want to have the NSA doing bulk surveillance. There are inherent risks which very likely will be realized at some point. When an organization (or a person) has some capability there is a natural need to used it from time to time even in cases where it is uncalled for. Worse than that, though, it really is a framework that Snowden describes as 'turnkey tyrrany.' It provides an option for solving certain big problems in a certain way, and it is a place that I don't want to go. At the very least, it is an inefficient use of resources.
Alas, the Bundy affair has made it clear that there really is a need to have a militarized force capable of non-trivial military operations. I'm even less inclined to use the actual military for such operations than I would be to have various federal and state agencies have the capability.
The most rational approach seems to be to have one unified, centralized, and militarized unit, and to have a great deal of visibility into all aspects of their operation.
One aspect of such a structure is that there would be mobility issues. That is a feature and not a bug as I see it. Any actions they might take should be very deliberate.
Another aspect of such a structure is that they would not have some of the tactical advantages of surprise and covertness. That is also a feature and not a bug. The entire public should have visibility into every aspect of their operations. Yes, it makes the unit less effective tactically, but it's a price worth paying to achieve very critical public support.
If I were the pres, I would say something like this:
We have an extra-ordinary and threatening situation at Bundy's ranch. For this reason it is as of this time considered a special zone where certain normal rights are suspended.
Everyone who is currently within this special zone is ordered to leave immediately. Those leaving will be evaluated to determine if they have participated in activities which are in violation of any specific laws. Failure to comply with this order is a violation of blah, blah, blah, and the penalties will include blah, blah, blah.
On May 2nd at 0200, we will commence operations to secure the entire area. These operations will be concluded by 0600 hours of the same day. Survivors will be subject to punitive measures as described above.
All events will be documented with audio and video, and all of the documentation will be provided to the media.
Observers from a variety of adversarial organizations will be invited to take part of this operation to facilitate documentation and provide oversight.
Why would men and women choosing to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights make you so uncomfortable? It seems pretty clear the militia guys were welcome there. What's the problem? Please tell me you're not one of those people that think just seeing a legal weapon in plain view is cause to tattle? Open carry IS still legal in most of the US. Chicago and DC do not count as they've clearly been ceded to communist authority. It always seems strange to me when people that claim they support the 2nd Amendment get all weak in the knees when people actually exercise that right.
I have no problem with state executives having the authority to direct their state's guard to do their bidding, provided those guardsman that respond remember the oaths they've taken, but un-elected federal alphabet agency heads should have no such authority.