Civilian National Security Force?

[a_majoor]

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.

“Just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well funded.” So the astute observer and deep thinker might reflect for a minute and be compelled to pose several questions (although the MSM won’t).

  1. How will this Civilian National Security Force (hereafter CNSF) be just as powerful as men with guns, artillery, ordnance, war ships and aircraft?
  2. What will make the CNSF “just as strong” as the U.S. Marine Corps?
  3. How will this CNSF implement national security policy?
  4. Since the 2009 budget includes just over half a trillion dollars for defense spending (The Captain’s Journal supports this, and calls for even more), and since it is judged that this CNSF be “just as well funded” as the military, where will this half a trillion dollars come from?
  5. Finally, if he didn’t really mean that this CNSF would be the beneficiary of half a trillion dollars (to do with we don’t know what), then why did he say so?

At any rate, these questions seem to be compelled by the proposal. The best bet, however, is that the MSM won’t pose a single one of them (but we do get to add another snappy sounding category to our stable of articles - Civilian National Defense Force).

 

[CougarKing]

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]

Isnt the National Guard already categorized as this? 

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

 

[a_majoor]

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]

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]

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

 

[Drag]

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]

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."

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
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.

 

[CougarKing]

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

USD(P&R)

SUBJECT: DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce

References: See Enclosure 1

1. PURPOSE. This Directive:

a. Reissues DoD Directive (DoDD) 1404.10 (Reference (a)) under a new title to establish the policy through which an appropriately sized subset of the DoD civilian workforce is preidentified to be organized, trained, and equipped in a manner that facilitates the use of their capabilities for operational requirements. These requirements are typically away from the normal work locations of DoD civilians, or in situations where other civilians may be evacuated to assist military forces where the use of DoD civilians is appropriate. These employees shall be collectively known as the DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce. Members of the DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce shall be organized, trained, cleared, equipped, and ready to deploy in support of combat operations by the military; contingencies; emergency operations; humanitarian missions; disaster relief; restoration of order; drug interdiction; and stability operations of the Department of Defense in accordance with DoDD 3000.05 (Reference (b)).
b. Updates policies and responsibilities for the designation of part of the DoD Civilian
Expeditionary Workforce using the existing category of Emergency-Essential (E-E) civilian
employee positions, and establishes policies and responsibilities for the designation of part of the DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce using new categories of Non-Combat Essential (NCE) positions and Capability-Based Volunteers (CBVs) employees and former DoD employees. All four categories make up the newly designated DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce.

c. Supersedes any conflicting portions of other DoD issuances. Such instances shall be
identified by the Heads of the DoD Components to the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel
and Readiness (USD(P&R)

PDF file is on this webpage:

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/140410p.pdf
   

 

[tomahawk6]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.