tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post1831161909328111083..comments2023-12-31T03:18:37.403-06:00Comments on "E pur si muove!": That Civilian Security Force, Again?Lester Hunthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14746157071827337723noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-5949598981565639892009-04-10T09:01:00.000-05:002009-04-10T09:01:00.000-05:00Doug, That makes a lot of sense. Basically, it so...Doug, <BR/><BR/>That makes a lot of sense. Basically, it sounds like a beefed-up Peace Corps. When I was a kid there were plenty of people complaining that the US was committed to being the "policeman of the world": that it is impossible to do so successfully, and that a really serious attempt would destroy us economically. <BR/><BR/>Now that it is becoming clear that this police-man-of-the-world thing is probably just the sort of disaster its harshest critics have always said it is, the solution proposed to to do even more. It is one more example of an expansion of government power leading to even greater expansions of government power (the latter being an attempt to patch up the nasty consequences of the former). Policeman of the world doesn't work, so lets try policeman-plus-nanny of the world. <BR/><BR/>It's both sensible and insane at the same time. Like so much that happens in government.<BR/><BR/>Maybe I should do another post on this, using your comment!Lester Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14746157071827337723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-5802879021903540502009-04-10T02:12:00.000-05:002009-04-10T02:12:00.000-05:00Lester,I agree that the phrase "Civilian National ...Lester,<BR/><BR/>I agree that the phrase "Civilian National Security Force" sounds ominous--and budget busting--but I suspect it was just a poor word choice and a bit of hyperbole by then Candidate Obama. Notice how the more recent NDU speech substitutes "capabilities" for "force."<BR/><BR/>Here's some context from the National Security Strategy document that Gates released last summer. In a section titled "Integrate and unify our efforts: a new Jointness," Gates notes that "Our efforts require a unified approach to both planning and implementing policy. Iraq and Afghanistan remind us that military success alone is insufficient to achieve victory. . . . The Department of Defense has taken on many of these burdens. Our forces have stepped up to the task of long-term reconstruction, development and governance. The U.S. Armed Forces will need to institutionalize and retain these capabilities, but this is no replacement for civilian involvement and expertise. The United States must improve its ability to deploy civilian expertise rapidly, and continue to increase effectiveness by joining with organizations and people outside of government – untapped resources with enormous potential. We can make better use of the expertise of our universities and of industry to assist in reconstruction and long-term improvements to economic vitality and good governance. Greater civilian participation is necessary both to make military operations successful and<BR/>to relieve stress on the men and women of the armed forces. Having permanent civilian capabilities available and using them early could also make it less likely<BR/>that military forces will need to be deployed in the first place."<BR/><BR/>Gates is, in part, voicing a frustration long felt in the military. There are many, many military members doing jobs in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere that would be better done by skilled civilians--if resources and sufficient volunteers existed. (Whether anyone from the US should be doing those jobs at all is an issue for another post.)<BR/><BR/>Now return to Obama's speech. Immediately before the unfortunate "Forces" comment, he was speaking of doubling the size of the Peace Corps and expanding the Foreign Service, obviously as examples of an expanded nonmilitary "national security" capability. He has also listed the following initiatives on the White House website, under the rubric "Develop Whole of Government Initiatives to Promote Global Stability." Initiative #1) Integrate Military and Civilian Efforts: The Obama-Biden Administration will build up the capacity of each non-Pentagon agency to deploy personnel and area experts where they are needed, to help move soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines out of civilian roles, and #2) Create a Civilian Assistance Corps (CAC): Obama and Biden will create a national CAC of 25,000 personnel. This corps of civilian volunteers with special skill sets (doctors, lawyers, engineers, city planners, agriculture specialists, police, etc.) would be organized to provide each federal agency with a pool of volunteer experts willing to deploy in times of need at home and abroad.<BR/><BR/>The phrase "national security" is being used above in an expansive sense--and has been since at least the Clinton era. People in Washington have been talking about HIV spread, climate change, poverty, water shortages, etc, etc. as potential national security issues. I even recall seing a document that identified the woeful state of our K-12 math and science education as a national security issue. I've long seen this definition game as part value added, part silliness, and part money grab for new capabilities. But, if you buy into the idea that national security threats involve much more than just foreign militaries, then one can understand why some might advocate for nonmilitary, civilian "national security" capabilities.<BR/><BR/>This whole thing simply strikes me as Obama wanting to engage the world with more people in suits or shorts bringing medicines, urban planning expertise, agricultural assistance, and so on, rather than having the US military be the public face of America in so many regions.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps we ought ask whether America should be engaged globally to the degree it is. But should it remain so engaged, then less military and more civilian presence--more soft power, as the term goes--could be a worthwhile move.Dougnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-68113892881645575062009-04-01T17:59:00.000-05:002009-04-01T17:59:00.000-05:00Maybe it's step one to reinstitute the draft. Russ...Maybe it's step one to reinstitute the draft. Russia is talking about conscription again. Americans are already super volunteers, why in the world do we need government money for this sort of crap. You know these programs would have political agendas. Is it four years yet? Is it two years yet?Annnoreply@blogger.com