# Civilian National Security Force?



## a_majoor (2 Nov 2008)

Senator Obama has proposed a Civilian National Security Force with the same "power and funding" as the Armed Forces. As a student of history, this doesn't sound very comforting; since most totalitarian regimes developed parallel armed forces to the military (think of the Soviet MVD "Ministry of the Interior" troops for a simple example). While creating an army of Brownshirts or Stormtroopers may not be the reason for a Civilian National Security Force, we need to know what, exactly, it is. (I note that we potentially have lots of integration issues considering how our forces are intertwined through NORAD, Northern Command, NATO etc.)

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2008/11/01/civilian-national-security-force/



> Civilian National Security Force
> BY Herschel Smith
> 
> So Obama wants to quit relying on the U.S. military alone to implement U.S. national security objectives. Okay, in contemporary slang, The Captain’s Journal is “down with that.” So he’s going to get the State Department playing on the same side as the military? Er … maybe not.
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (3 Nov 2008)

It's just a proposal. And that doesn't necessarily mean that the other Democrats will like it. And didn't someone else mention earlier in the other US election thread that he thought that Pelosi and Obama had different agendas?


----------



## Greymatters (3 Nov 2008)

Isnt the National Guard already categorized as this?  

Needless so say, thats what the USA really needs these days - another  security agency...   :


----------



## a_majoor (3 Nov 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> It's just a proposal. And that doesn't necessarily mean that the other Democrats will like it. And didn't someone else mention earlier in the other US election thread that he thought that Pelosi and Obama had different agendas?



While it is "just" a proposal it's a pretty big and consequential one, with potential consequences all over the place. Is this some means to bypassing the Posse Comitatus act? Is this organization meant to suppliment or replace the National Guard? The Reserves? FEMA? Homeland Security? The Peace Corps? US Customs?

How does it fit in with existing structures like Northern Command or NORAD? What (if any) relationship will be needed between the CNSF and the Canadian Forces?

Unlike Senator Obama's economic proposals, which have clear and well understood consequences (and lots of historical data to back the generally negative consequences predicted), this proposal to create a "large, powerful and well funded" paramilitary or quasimilitary organization is very vague in details, and the House Speaker or Senate Majority leader may not understand what is being proposed well enough to mount an effective opposition. (You also suggest that the Congress will chart its own course without reference to the President, which I believe will happen, since they are not beholden to a putative Obama Administration and will work extra hard to frustrate a putative McCain administration in any case).

As I pointed out, the only historical examples of organizations of this nature are the various parallel forces that totalitarian regimes create outside of the Armed Forces. The National Socialist regime had the SA and SS, Mussolini had his Blackshirts, the USSR had the MVD, Hugo Chavez is creating an armed militia outside the military chain of command...


----------



## Blackadder1916 (3 Nov 2008)

A fart in a hurricane, or actually 4 words from a speech delivered in early July (and probably not 'capitalized' as in the opening post or any of the blogs that the 'furour' is based on).  

As this was a proposal that must have raised some eyebrows somewhere, I was left wondering why I had missed this tidbit when it was reported.  Surely one of the talking heads (of the Republican persuasion) that populate the American news shows would have jumped on this as quickly as a fat kid on a hotdog.  So I clicked on the link in the opening post to get some extra details.  There were none, nor any reference to the origin of this 'proposal';  likewise in any of the other blogs that were linked on that page.  On googling this proposal, I was only able to come upon two other sites (both opinion pieces from columnists that appear to be anti-Obama) that supposedly quote the Senator.

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79917


> "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said at a July 2 speech in Colorado Springs, Colo. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."



Taken in a reasonable context (and noting that no other part of that speech or subsequent expanation is available, if any was asked for or provided) my interpretation would be that Senator Obama was not referring to the creation of a new civilian force but the better support and use of existing (and maybe additional) civilian agencies.


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Nov 2008)

You guys wonder why I call him a marxist ?  ;D


----------



## Drag (3 Nov 2008)

All this from four words in a speech delivered months ago?  Maybe he meant strengthening the police forces in order to deal with the threat of terrorism: Local, State, Various federal agencies.  This is the same as Democrats repeating the "100 years in Iraq quote"  that was taken completely out of context.


----------



## Redeye (3 Nov 2008)

Well, do remember that political pundits rely on taking things out of context and presenting them to the reader/listener in a way that suits their aims.  The remark to me suggests to me that all Obama was talking about was ensuring that non-military agencies are well-funded and able to do their jobs - I don't think he's talking about the creation of some new organization, that'd be something that would have to turn up in a platform.

These are, after all, the same people who call Barack Obama a "Marxist", which is hilarious.  I especially liked his comment "Next they'll call me a Communist because I shared my toys in Kindergarten."



			
				Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> A fart in a hurricane, or actually 4 words from a speech delivered in early July (and probably not 'capitalized' as in the opening post or any of the blogs that the 'furour' is based on).
> 
> As this was a proposal that must have raised some eyebrows somewhere, I was left wondering why I had missed this tidbit when it was reported.  Surely one of the talking heads (of the Republican persuasion) that populate the American news shows would have jumped on this as quickly as a fat kid on a hotdog.  So I clicked on the link in the opening post to get some extra details.  There were none, nor any reference to the origin of this 'proposal';  likewise in any of the other blogs that were linked on that page.  On googling this proposal, I was only able to come upon two other sites (both opinion pieces from columnists that appear to be anti-Obama) that supposedly quote the Senator.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (22 Feb 2009)

Something to vindicate or debunk the usual paranoia regarding "the one" using a civilian army to take away people's rights?  ;D



> NUMBER 1404.10
> 
> 23 January 2009
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Feb 2009)

Two different animals CD. The civilian expeditionary force has been proposed to fill a gap when troops deploy which is good. The Obama defense force may may not happen so I wont get too stressed out at this point. I will add that a republican senator has called for mass demonstrations to  "take back america". I dont think we are close to sparking a popular protest movement - yet. This time next year we might be there.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (22 Feb 2009)

Hmmm, shades of President Woodrow Wilson and his American Protective League (APL). The APL was "_*a quasi-private organization with 250,000 members in 600 cities who were sanctioned by the Wilson administration. These men carried Government Issue badges and freely conducted warrantless searches and interrogations. This organization was empowered by the U.S. Justice Department to spy on Americans for anti-government/anti war behavior. As national police, the APL checked up on people who failed to buy Liberty Bonds and spoke out against the government’s policies.*_"

Full story can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Protective_League


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Feb 2009)

For now I am hoping it was just a passing remark. If he does get Congress to pass the legislation then we shall see. If such an organization was placed under the State NG that would be one thing but if it was setup outside the military chain of command then I would be very concerned.


----------



## Redeye (23 Feb 2009)

I wish I could find a link to the video, because the remark seems to both have been taken out of context and blown totally out of proportion.  What it was clear he was referring to was concern about the disparity between the resources being allocated to the US military (to prosecute dubious foreign adventures like Iraq) in comparison to civil agencies - which I would assume would include DHS, the Border Patrol, Customs, and law enforcement.  I don't believe that he has any intention of creating some additional organization at all, because I saw the speech when he mentioned it and I sure didn't walk away with that impression.




			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> For now I am hoping it was just a passing remark. If he does get Congress to pass the legislation then we shall see. If such an organization was placed under the State NG that would be one thing but if it was setup outside the military chain of command then I would be very concerned.


----------

