hmm
1. Why?
2. Hardly.
You guys have a weird infatuation with military types...
'You guys?' What the hell does that mean?
1 - Soldiers are by and large responsible, and not on the take with bribes and such. Discipline is pretty thorough. The military has decent systems for command and control. Running a city is a pretty basic endeavor for the most part: Get the trash picked up, keep the electricity running, meet payroll, meet security needs, etc. The military seems pretty good at this stuff, especially in a situation when people aren't blowing them up with IEDs and what not.
2 - Chicago has around 3 million people and 50 wards. Each ward is run by an alderman making $100,000, and those corrupt individuals work extremely part time. I'm sure that a military warrant officer could do a better job at a lower compensation level.
Let's look at law enforcement. Military police officers in the US army make $39,000 (
link) Chicago cops with 18 months of experience are making $58,000 minimum, and they enjoy the protection of a powerful labor union.
How about firefighting, another key city service. Military firefighters also earn ~$40,000, and they are on call 24/7. Chicago fire department workers with a few years of experience make $60,000, and they are on duty for 24 hours, 9 or 10 days per month. Therefore, it would take three Chicago firefighters X $60,000 = $180,000 to equal one military firefighter @ $40,000.
So yeah, I think that the military would run a major US city effectively and more cheaply. If you disagree, please feel free to indicate why.