I admit that I chose not to listen to most of the State of the Union speech. However, I did happen to turn it on briefly, and I heard something that shocked me, but about which I haven’t heard any other commentary:
Bush said:
“[…] A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. And it would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.”
In the chamber, there was essentially zero reaction to this, and Bush just moved straight on in his speech.
My first thought was “Wow – he’s depleting the regular reserve forces, so now he wants to round up civilians and throw them into the mess.” But then it occurred to me that he may be referring to some way to organize or fund mercenary groups or these private military companies that have sprung up.
It’s beginning to seem to me that in a task like we’ve set before us in Iraq, the actions of our troops not only represent military strategy, but like it or not, diplomacy as well, and tend to either make our task easier or dramatically harder. The idea of sending in a bunch of guys in a Civilian Reserve Force sounds very much like bad military AND bad diplomatic strategy.
I’ve read about conflicts between the regular military and the mercenaries that are in Iraq already, as well as the overly aggressive tactics used by mercenaries against civilians there. I really very strongly oppose our country being represented by folks who are not directly responsible to our elected leaders. I just don’t believe you can farm out things like national defense or diplomacy.
What would be the advantages of a Civilian Reserve Corps? How would it differ from the military reserves? Don’t our forces currently consist of volunteers?
You appeal to conservative Joe Sixpack with a commercial that says “Hey! Are you tired of Mexicans and Muslims but too chickenshit to join the Army? Join the Civilian Reserve Corps™”.
You can deploy Civilian Reserve Corps™ along the border with riot batons to beat the incoming illegals, and redeploy the military overseas where they’re needed. But wait, there’s more! Equip your Civilian Reserve™ with tear gas to break up peace rallies! Put them in camouflage, send them to the airport, and have them search anybody brown-looking for like, whatever. Have them skulk around neighborhoods to sniff for liberals smoking weed! Break up political protests without violating Posse Comitatus! And when worse inevitably comes to worst in your little overseas misadventure, use your Civilian Reserve™ to support Troop Surge™ without the political inconvenience of instituting a draft!
Right now lots of troops are pinned down in support roles a good ways away from the fighting, both in Iraq and in places like Kuwait, Qatar, Europe and the States. Equipping a civilian reserve would free some soldiers to actually fight, while only burdening those civilians for certain weekends and annual biweekly drill periods.
It would probably differ from a military reserve by letting in older people, not imposing strict physical fitness requirements for most jobs, and hopefully letting people choose jobs related to civilian specialties.
If such a program were run properly, it would provide a very large labor pool that could be available locally as well for situations like disaster relief.
Well, that is a reading quite divorced from the actual text, but it sounds, in principle, a bit more tolerable to think of these folks as being involved in strictly support roles. I’m still not clear on why this would benefit from being parceled out from the current reserves, though.
And I think that using the reserves as they have been in Iraq is a travesty already, so I wouldn’t trust Bush as far as I could throw him that he a) isn’t talking about farming things out to mercenaries (especially since we already have been doing that in Iraq) and b) wouldn’t abuse a Civilian Reserve Corps as well.
Well, civilians aren’t troops, for one thing. They’re civilians, which makes them not subject to stop loss, under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ, or under the direct command of military authority. Besides, they would be volunteers with families and jobs at home - ones they could leave for short times only, unlike the military reserves.
More than this and they could quit, which military reserves cannot do.
I’m just curious - are you talking about some current program or existing plan that you know of, or are you simply speculating about what Bush’s proposal might actually entail?
I, too, assumed that Bush was talking about farming out more support roles to civilian non-combatants.
Roles like cooking, laundry, shipping/receiving, and maybe civil engineering tasks.
I am not sure if he wants to create Government Service positions for these folks, or if he means to contract out these jobs, ala Haliburton.
One of the advantages of contractors filling a role, as opposed to a civil servant (or active duty military) is that the government itself is not responsible for that individuals medical or retirement benefits, and when the task is done, those contractors can be fired a whole lot easier. (Civil servants are more protected, and the government is required to find another tasking/job for them, when possible. This leaves them on the government payrolls.)
Well, the role of the military and the role of the civilian is pretty sharply delineated both in U.S. and international law. One big difference is civilians generally can choose their employment and leave at will. Another is that they are not subject to military law as a general rule.
Given that, it is easy to see how a Civilian Reserve Corps would differ from the military reserves. Think of a Job Corps or Peace Corps, but working more closely with the military or with the Iraqi or Afghani governments.