Obama Calls for ‘Civilian Force’ as Large as the Military

[Objective Voice]

The OP is very misleading.

First off, nowhere in the linked article - nor the linked articles within the lead article - is anyone from the Obama Administration or the State Department quoted as stating they want to start such an "army" in the fashion the Anti-War.com article eludes to.

Second, when you read the FactCheck.org Q&A that addresses this subject it's very clear that Pres. Obama only wants more "civilian volunteers" to go into some of the poor 3rd-World nations that have been plagued with war, hunger and strife much like JFK, Reagon and Clinton all tried to do w/the PeaceCorps. He's not asking that these civilians be armed, civilians who would be part of peaceful, non-combat service organizations. He's asking that they go in as volunteers and pickup the slack in those administrative and/or health and welfare, and civil service areas where NATO and U.S. peacekeeping forces can't get to or leave incomplete because they have to move on to other mission oriented things (i.e., combat, not triage or community work such as building roads or schools).

We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set.

We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer.

Now, I understand how his words, "...just as powerful, just as strong..." can be grossly misinterpreted to make it sound like he's trying to establish a new civilian military force, you have to stop and ask yourself "how powerful can an unarmed civilian military force truly be?". Still, just as Conservatives got all bent out of shape when those of us who are more left-leaning quoted him as meaning, "[He'll] move to Costa Rica if in five years if health care in this country goes downhill do to passage of healthcare reform [para-phrased]," I think those on the Right have taken Pres. Obama's words completely out of context here and are using them to promote fear and disention.

Don't believe the hype, folks. It's just more partician Right-wing non-sense.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Oh Joy! More government because its been working so well already. :roll:

Obama Calls for ‘Civilian Force’ as Large as the Military -- News from Antiwar.com

Swwooooossshhh

The sound of Obama losing the last few liberals who supported him.
I'm deeply amused.

However - this might actually SOLVE our unemployment issues. Couple this with his efforts to end homelessness - and voila *magic* chickens all got a roost!

I will however mention that he's merely continuing his belief and support of the Rand Report - in which it was suggested that Terrorist not be called terrorists, anymore . . . and that we should approach our world-reconstruction efforts with a more police/non-military angle.

:shrug:
At least he didn't come up with this idea on his own, ya knoe

It will be absolutely fascinating to see how this might be pulled off (if at all - this might just be a thought balloon rather than serious action) - I'm already betting that such a force would be poor equipped, ill informed and highly untrained to enter into volatile areas and do work. Casualties, mortal and non, will skyrocket and so will our continuing debt and much criticized status as 'world police'

 

[Aunt Spiker]

The OP is very misleading.

First off, nowhere in the linked article - nor the linked articles within the lead article - is anyone from the Obama Administration or the State Department quoted as stating they want to start such an "army" in the fashion the Anti-War.com article eludes to.

Second, when you read the FactCheck.org Q&A that addresses this subject it's very clear that Pres. Obama only wants more "civilian volunteers" to go into some of the poor 3rd-World nations that have been plagued with war, hunger and strife much like JFK, Reagon and Clinton all tried to do w/the PeaceCorps. He's not asking that these civilians be armed, civilians who would be part of peaceful, non-combat service organizations. He's asking that they go in as volunteers and pickup the slack in those administrative and/or health and welfare, and civil service areas where NATO and U.S. peacekeeping forces can't get to or leave incomplete because they have to move on to other mission oriented things (i.e., combat, not triage or community work such as building roads or schools).



Now, I understand how his words, "...just as powerful, just as strong..." can be grossly misinterpreted to make it sound like he's trying to establish a new civilian military force, you have to stop and ask yourself "how powerful can an unarmed civilian military force truly be?". Still, just as Conservatives got all bent out of shape when those of us who are more left-leaning quoted him as meaning, "[He'll] move to Costa Rica if in five years if health care in this country goes downhill do to passage of healthcare reform [para-phrased]," I think those on the Right have taken Pres. Obama's words completely out of context here and are using them to promote fear and disention.

Don't believe the hype, folks. It's just more partician Right-wing non-sense.

Hype?

Defense Department Announces Civilian Expeditionary Workforce

Obama’s promise of a civilian security force is set in motion

The Defense Department has established a “civilian expeditionary workforce” that will see American civilians trained and equipped to deploy overseas in support of worldwide military missions.

The move is seen by some as an initial step towards fulfilling President Obama’s promise to form a civilian national security force as powerful as the U.S. military.

The intent of the program “is to maximize the use of the civilian workforce to allow military personnel to be fully utilized for operational requirements,” according to a Defense Department report.

The program was officially implemented one week ago, on the 23rd January, when Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England signed Defense Department Directive 1404.10 (PDF), which provides a summation of the duties the workforce will undertake.

The directive, which is effective immediately, states that civilian employees of the DoD will be asked to sign agreements stating that they will deploy in support of military missions for up to two years if needed.

Workforce members, who are divided into different designations under the directive, will serve overseas in support of humanitarian, reconstruction and, if necessary, combat-support missions.

“If the employee does not wish to deploy, every effort will be made to reassign the employee to a nondeploying position.” the DoD report states.

While the directive suggests that the DoD will at first seek volunteers to serve in the civilian workforce, section 4, subsection (e) paragraph (2) states:

Management retains the authority to direct and assign civilian employees, either voluntarily, involuntarily, or on an unexpected basis to accomplish the DoD mission.

In addition, the directive states that all workforce members will be subject to physical and psychological testing, both before and after deployment.

The directive refers several times to the civilian workforce as a component of the “Total Force”, which it describes as “The organizations, units, and individuals that compromise the DoD resources for implementing the National Security Strategy.” This “Total Force” includes active, reserve and retired military personnel in addition to DoD civilian employees.

Yes - the original article took words about this from 2008 and coupled it with current actions . . . The silly thing, however, is that they're calling this 'civilian' - however, if you're employed by the government then you're no longer 'civilian'. . . musing.

 

[Objective Voice]

I understand the concern, but it's still very unlikely these civilian volunteers (or government contract employees...however underlying title this civilian force will be called) will ever be armed in the numbers people worry about. I mean, if the Pres. really wanted to take up arms against the civilian populas all he really had to do as CinC is call on the Army or the National Guard. When was the last time our nation's military was called upon to take up arms against the citizenry?

 

[Moon]

Hype?

Defense Department Announces Civilian Expeditionary Workforce



Yes - the original article took words about this from 2008 and coupled it with current actions . . . The silly thing, however, is that they're calling this 'civilian' - however, if you're employed by the government then you're no longer 'civilian'. . . musing.

I addressed this earlier. This directive has been in force since at least 1987 and has nothing to do with a civilian army, whatever that is supposed to be. The reason it exists is to have a designated group of DoD civilian employees that are able to deploy worldwide to support military actions. That does not mean they will be fighting, that means they will be handling issues and tasks that DoD civilian employees currently handle on a routine basis. And yes, civilians employed by the government are still civilians.

 

[Glinda]

Now see i wasnt comparing Oboma to Nazi Germany only his "civilian military" that he wants to create

Oh my. There are plenty of comparisons between GWB and Hitler and their actions that look pretty spooky, too.

I can't help but wonder if you've ever gotten your panties in such a twist over them?

Both men were mediocre students in school.
Both men served in their country's military (well, one more than the other…)
Both men failed in politics during their first attempt.
Both men lived off the largesse of wealthy patrons.
Both men were arrested by the police.
Both men became heads of state after failing to win a majority in their respective national elections
Both men were catapulted to authority by a terrorist attack against their government/people.
Both men used the emergency to create a police state.
Both men had people sent to their camps without the right to counsel and without the consent of any court.
Both men authorized torture to be used on their captives.
Both men lied to their people to justify an unprovoked attack on another country.
Both men used their diplomats to make a mockery of international legal institutions.
Both men had their country's military engage in aggressive war in defiance of international law.
Both men prematurely declared victory early in their war of conquest.
Both men claimed to liberate conquered peoples from a murderous tyrant.

Of course, there is one significant difference between these men:

Bush's grandfather helped in Hitler's rise to power

George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism. –Guardian

However, in turn, the millions that Prescott Bush made working with the Nazis helped fund GWB's rise to power, so I guess that comparison kinda fits, too.

:roll:

Two can play this stupid game, kiddo.

 

[ptif219]

FactCheck.org: Is Obama planning a Gestapo-like "civilian national security force"?

It's a ****ing disgrace to all the people who died under the Nazi regime, to equate your Right Wing Propoganda to this...

You dishonor the memory of those innocent souls who died under the Nazi Regime when you try to compare the Obama administration to it...

Maybe when you actually attack the Obama administration on something solid I'll take you seriously... til then have fun believing this quite frankly offensive drivel.

With all the lies and broken promises why is Obama believable or credible?

 

[deltabtry]

A coworker of mine is a staff sergeant in the National Guard. He has attending meetings discussing whether he would have a problem firing on American citizens. He said he had no qualms.

I can believe this, I still have family both in the nat'l guard and active service. This to has been discussed and I would assume it will always be on the table in one form or another but, to actually get the go code is another story. Just be thankful that the ones who serve in the military actually take their oath to the constitution a bit more seriously than most.

 

[deltabtry]

Why do you think Obama would need to deploy such a force? Would it be because he figures there would be a revolt against the government because of his unpopular strong armed progressive policies of martial law? Why would Obama want to declare martial law, except he has a plan to enslave the American people and by doing so, destroy the Constitution?

Bingo and that is it, even if not to the extreme's you mentioned but all we have to do is look how we treated Hitler before he became a threat, for the most part he was dismissed.

 

[deltabtry]

I understand the concern, but it's still very unlikely these civilian volunteers (or government contract employees...however underlying title this civilian force will be called) will ever be armed in the numbers people worry about. I mean, if the Pres. really wanted to take up arms against the civilian populas all he really had to do as CinC is call on the Army or the National Guard. When was the last time our nation's military was called upon to take up arms against the citizenry?

Then again if the people were complacent and apathedic, would our Government such as Obama arm such a force, I think being worried and untrusting and to question our governments motives is a very healthy thing to do for a free people, this is how we remain free.

 

[Barbbtx]

Oh Joy! More government because its been working so well already. :roll:

Obama Calls for ‘Civilian Force’ as Large as the Military -- News from Antiwar.com

He said this on the campaign trail too. Scared the crap out of me. I see he still hasn't given up on the idea.

 

[Barbbtx]

That's not a bill, and it doesn't say what you want it to say. That was a directive issued a long time ago (here's a link to the 1992 version) that established worldwide deployment guidlines for DoD civilian employees. Note that it was issued on January 23rd, 2008, three days after Obama took office. Not nearly enough time to establish a "civilian army". Note also:



If you're going to play Chicken Little, at least get your facts straight first.

If this is supposed to make me feel better, you failed miserably. I'm more frightened than I was before.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I addressed this earlier. This directive has been in force since at least 1987 and has nothing to do with a civilian army, whatever that is supposed to be. The reason it exists is to have a designated group of DoD civilian employees that are able to deploy worldwide to support military actions. That does not mean they will be fighting, that means they will be handling issues and tasks that DoD civilian employees currently handle on a routine basis. And yes, civilians employed by the government are still civilians.

How can you be a civilian if you're employed by the government?
If you are employed by the government then you are a government employee - either directly or by proxy.

 

[Moon]

How can you be a civilian if you're employed by the government?
If you are employed by the government then you are a government employee - either directly or by proxy.

Civilian refers to non-military. All members of the military are government employees, but not all government employees are in the military.

 

[Moon]

If this is supposed to make me feel better, you failed miserably. I'm more frightened than I was before.

Then you don't understand what it is you are looking at.

 

[bicycleman]

So where's the political upheaval? Where's the mass rioting? Where's the call for a new government?

.

We don't have to do that, "yet." That's what we have elections for, like the ones coming up in November, something that will get rid of the old government.

 

[bicycleman]

How can you be a civilian if you're employed by the government?
If you are employed by the government then you are a government employee - either directly or by proxy.

He is employed by the government in a civilian capacity vs. in a military capacity. There's a difference, you know.

 

[apdst]

Umm, no the National Guard isn't a civilian military. The National Guard fills any number of roles.

On one level, it is an organization for state militias. In this regard, it is a "state military" that can work with state agencies and domestic federal agencies.

It is also a reservist force for the military. The National Guard can be called for overseas service working with the branches of the U.S. military.

The National Guard can also be federalized and used for domestic purposes on behalf of the federal government under very specific circumstances, which mostly covers riots or civil disturbances. Otherwise, the federal government has no military powers on domestic soil - this is the Posse Commitatus Act, and it was passed by Southern Senators after Reconstruction to limit federal power in the South.

This is why Obama, and others, are calling for a "civilian force" as large as the military - because the federal government has very few powers to deal with domestic issues.

One example of this was during Hurricane Katrina. President Bush tried to assert his authority to secure New Orleans during the aftermath, but was prohibited from doing so because of Posse Commitatus. He even went so far as to try to get a U.S. Army officer sworn into the Louisiana National Guard, but that didn't go through.

So, more likely than not, such a civilian force would be most likely geared towards riot control and federal response to manmade and natural disasters. Personally, I wouldn't mind if the National Guard was federalized more but made a purely domestic force and unable by law to be deployed overseas for these reasons. I also think the National Guard along with the Coast Guard be attached to the Department of Homeland Security instead of the Department of Defense as it is now.

So while there are fears of some kind of personal army, such a force would mostly be used for federal disaster response. I don't know how the specifics of it should work, because it will all be quite political, but I do think that the federal government should have a better ability to respond to domestic crises and disasters, and I think that's how it should be geared towards.

I know how it should work. It should work like the Constitution says it should work. No where in the Constitution does it say that the president has the authority to create his own private army.

 

[apdst]

Kristallnacht - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I suggest you go and read a little before making such a comparison.

Unless this SEIU is an invention of Obama and under his direct control like the Brown Shirts were to Hitler... then you are sadly mistaking.

The SEIU isn't an invention of Obama's, but it certainly appears to be an arm of his regime, along with the Black Panthers.

Obama: 'We're going to paint nation purple with SEIU'

 

[apdst]

The thing is what I find stupid is that people compare things to Hitler and his regime to often when they have no argument left. Even comparing Obama regime too Nazi Germany is stupid, and people need to learn their history.





oh and Jet thanks for some reading material.

I'm glad you brought that up, because Obama's private army could be more accurately compared to Mussolini's Squadristi.

 

[apdst]

No, there can't.

Oh, yes there can.

 

[VonDutch]

It a shame that Obamas Civilian Force thread is hijacked by Hitler comparisons, even though it is a very passionate debatable topic, I think it should have its own threads so everyone can bicker their opinions.

Now on the matter of Obamas civilian work force, since the article is so vague (and we can see how peoples imagination runs when that happens) I have to think more knowledge of its use is required to discuss the topic. Will the force be used globally, I think I a civilian force to places like Afghanistan are genius, you declare a section of Afghan. a territory and offer incentives for people to move there. They can push their "civilized" idealogy to "uncivilized" people.

Another point, though extreme, would be to offer this global force option to welfare recipients. Building accredited colleges in Afghan and having volunteered wefarers move there, recieving full benefits still and attending school. To entice a move, you lower the welfare wages stateside and increase them abroad.

Now, if the civilian force is used for National reasons, then we can all see the benefits. You take your unemployed and sign them up, right now they would be working on Gulf Spill clean-up. It was mentioned before but you also create more education oppurtunities (after school programs, study groups, boys/girls clubs, more teachers per student ratio). Maybe setup local "townhall centers" where valuable skills are taught like, self-suffiency (gardening/canning), finanical management, useful skills (carpentry/mechanical), values class (respect), resource management class (dont waste water/fuel/food/electronics/recycle). If we could promote a culture that had more oppurtunity to be less ignorant and more community caring a percentage of our larger problems could be effieciently reduced.

 

[bicycleman]

Speaking of the Obama regime, looks like Janet Napolitano is bucking to be the head of this new civilian force. Look at what she recommends for the TSA. Will this be coming to your own neighborhood?

TSA to Block "Controversial Opinion" on the Web - CBS News Investigates - CBS News

What's next, controversial opinions from debate forums? America's first freedom is gradually disappearing.

 

[bicycleman]

It a shame that Obamas Civilian Force thread is hijacked by Hitler comparisons, even though it is a very passionate debatable topic, I think it should have its own threads so everyone can bicker their opinions.

Now on the matter of Obamas civilian work force, since the article is so vague (and we can see how peoples imagination runs when that happens) I have to think more knowledge of its use is required to discuss the topic. Will the force be used globally, I think I a civilian force to places like Afghanistan are genius, you declare a section of Afghan. a territory and offer incentives for people to move there. They can push their "civilized" idealogy to "uncivilized" people.

Another point, though extreme, would be to offer this global force option to welfare recipients. Building accredited colleges in Afghan and having volunteered wefarers move there, recieving full benefits still and attending school. To entice a move, you lower the welfare wages stateside and increase them abroad.

Now, if the civilian force is used for National reasons, then we can all see the benefits. You take your unemployed and sign them up, right now they would be working on Gulf Spill clean-up. It was mentioned before but you also create more education oppurtunities (after school programs, study groups, boys/girls clubs, more teachers per student ratio). Maybe setup local "townhall centers" where valuable skills are taught like, self-suffiency (gardening/canning), finanical management, useful skills (carpentry/mechanical), values class (respect), resource management class (dont waste water/fuel/food/electronics/recycle). If we could promote a culture that had more oppurtunity to be less ignorant and more community caring a percentage of our larger problems could be effieciently reduced.

It's a shame America's President is Obama.

 

[Objective Voice]

With all the lies and broken promises why is Obama believable or credible?

If you really want to keep track of Pres. Obama's campaign promises, go to: PolitiFact | Sorting out the truth in politics

They keep track of this stuff so you don't have to rely on partician twisted talking points. Of the 505 campaign promises he has made, to date:

119 promises kept
37 promises he has compromised on
19 promises broken
82 promises stalled in Congress
245 promises are listed as "in the works"
3 not yet rated

In case you were wondering...