Civilian National Security Force

**Shek** · 04 Dec 08,, 01:47

Originally Posted by gunnut

I am not really clear on what these military advisors do and how large the contingent usually is. But I figure a civilian national security force is larger, higher profile, and involved more with the local community than military advisors would. That makes them more vulnerable.

Smaller and less profile (guns tend to attract attention). The local community interaction is exactly what is needed and body armor and guns tend to get into the way. Therein lies the paradox: "The more you protect your force, the less secure you are."

Originally Posted by gunnut

Sir, in your view, where would this "civilian national security" force be deployed, if we have one operating today? Barring Iraq and Afghanistan of course, since we have a huge military presence there and we did invade them.

Any future Iraqs or Afghanistan, for starters. We can wish it away like we did after Vietnam, and you can see how well that worked out for us the past decade. We could use them in Africa to use "soft" power to compete with the Chinese. We could use them in the Balkans. I'm sure they'd be helpful in spots in SE Asia.

**mliraj** · 04 Dec 08,, 02:16

Originally Posted by Shek

Any future Iraqs or Afghanistan, for starters. We can wish it away like we did after Vietnam, and you can see how well that worked out for us the past decade. We could use them in Africa to use "soft" power to compete with the Chinese. We could use them in the Balkans. I'm sure they'd be helpful in spots in SE Asia.

Sir, don´t forget Latin America. Although none of my neighbours, thanks God, is anywhere near the awful situation of a lot of african countries, or Balkan ones, a renewal of "nice" American presence, and USAID, for example, could be a really good way to do so, would completely undermine efforts of some "caudillos", especially some moronic ones as Chavez.
On the other hand, if you just leave them and wish them to go away, they tend not to... and powerful foreigner companies are such useful scapegoats, as some Brazilian companies have seen in the last two years in Bolivia and Ecuador, and as American companies have seen for a long time now.
Using USAID as an example of soft power, several of our most important universities have been based mostly on American land-grant universities. This kind of thing can be REALLY cheap, since one Tomahawk, for example, would pay for a whole lot of exchange programs...
Of course Tomahawks and what have you would still be necessary, to be the stick contraposed to the carrot...

**Shek** · 04 Dec 08,, 02:33

Originally Posted by mliraj

Sir, don´t forget Latin America. Although none of my neighbours, thanks God, is anywhere near the awful situation of a lot of african countries, or Balkan ones, a renewal of "nice" American presence, and USAID, for example, could be a really good way to do so, would completely undermine efforts of some "caudillos", especially some moronic ones as Chavez.
On the other hand, if you just leave them and wish them to go away, they tend not to... and powerful foreigner companies are such useful scapegoats, as some Brazilian companies have seen in the last two years in Bolivia and Ecuador, and as American companies have seen for a long time now.
Using USAID as an example of soft power, several of our most important universities have been based mostly on American land-grant universities. This kind of thing can be REALLY cheap, since one Tomahawk, for example, would pay for a whole lot of exchange programs...
Of course Tomahawks and what have you would still be necessary, to be the stick contraposed to the carrot...

Thanks for catching my oversight. Columbia would be a good place to start. It's hard to make a good impression across the region when you claim a country to be a good friend and then you have a hard time getting your Congress to pass legislation to help them out with aid programs. It only boosts the stature of Chavez et al.

**mliraj** · 04 Dec 08,, 02:59

Originally Posted by Shek

Thanks for catching my oversight. Columbia would be a good place to start. It's hard to make a good impression across the region when you claim a country to be a good friend and then you have a hard time getting your Congress to pass legislation to help them out with aid programs. It only boosts the stature of Chavez et al.

Sir, I am whole lot closer

On the other hand, when you are all the time having to look at not so friendly guys which may use some kind of gun on you, you have to concentrate a bit closer to the more immediate problems, and I think most of the gain of some organization of this type would be in avoiding the problem to become as hard as that.
In another post back somewhen gunnut asked why was this an US obligation. I posted a reply, but forget to mention the main reason it is. For the exactly the same reason, the US needs 14 (I think) aircraft carriers, each equivalent to over 75 % of all complete air forces in the world, and similar military power. In other words, because it is the only country that can project this kind of power. Fortunately, while far from perfect, it is still (Bush not withstanding, and that guy really irked a lot of friends of the US) the best, or at least the best I can see, option of country to have that kind of power.
Imagine if US power was on the hands of Chaves, or Putin, or (name at least a dozen other international figures).

**sourkraut115** · 04 Dec 08,, 11:19

Mliraj- sir, the image of the SS jumped to mind partly because I have in fact been at least somewhat exposed to the right-wing panic... although I think many members of the right wing, such as myself (we're really not all drooling Neanderthal idiots marching in lockstep to some slavering Klansman's beat, as some would have you believe), would be greatly mollified upon hearing that the real purpose of this force was auxilliary stabilization duties outside the USA (although this would be a force rather suited to the dreaded "NeoCon" faction of America's "right", currently losing favor rapidly). I would regard forming a parallel military or police force as wholly opposed to the federal republic and dangerous to liberty and freedom. Therefore, I am glad to see that I, and many others, were mistaken in our original interpretation of the concept, and that the President-elect had something totally different in mind, if that is in fact the case.

The Natonal Guard, by the way, is not a separate entity really. It is a reserve component of the Army (and of the Air Force), and its primary Federal mission is warfighting as conventional ground combat units. There is a relatively seamless transition between the Army and Army National Guard, and all Guardsmen wear "US Army" (or Air Force in the case of the Air Guard) on their left breast. I have been a Guardsman for nearly sixteen years, in addition to serving four years in the Regular Army; mobilized twice on Federal orders and once by the State of Maryland (along with some smaller disaster relief activations by the state). The special distinction of the Guard is that it is legally a component of the state militia in each state, and when not in Federal service Guard units, with their equipment, personnel, and training, are available to the state governors. This has led to Guard units frequently being used in emergencies as a dometic reserve force, because it is the force most readily at hand for civil authorities; the Guard's usefulness in such duties is enhanced because a great many of the soldiers are also first responders in their civilian lives (I am a career police officer, as are a great many of my colleagues) or bring significant civilian skills to play that no regular Army unit of comparable size could hope to include. However, barring an invasion or insurrection within the state, these functions (including civil disturbance and riot control) are really secondary missions for the Guard; the organization, equipment, and training are all aimed at full-spectrum warfighting. There are some small units dedicated to specialist Homeland Security roles, but they are a tiny minority. Also, since the Guard, when not Federally mobilized and placed under the lawful authority of the President, falls under the control of the state (and territorial) governments, I think people are less likely to fear 54separate small armies, most of them far away, than one monolithic parallel "security" force.

Again, if the purpose of this plan is to build a corps of experts for the very difficult mission of rebuilding countries, it has at least some merit; we should be prepared for criticism that we have created a Colonial Ministry, however, if we go forward.

**mliraj** · 04 Dec 08,, 11:56

Originally Posted by sourkraut115

(we're really not all drooling Neanderthal idiots marching in lockstep to some slavering Klansman's beat, as some would have you believe)

The Natonal Guard, by the way, is not a separate entity really. It is a reserve component of the Army (and of the Air Force), and its primary ...
people are less likely to fear 54separate small armies, most of them far away, than one monolithic parallel "security" force.

difficult mission of rebuilding countries, it has at least some merit; we should be prepared for criticism that we have created a Colonial Ministry, however, if we go forward.

Sir, I had no, repeat NO, intention of implying the criticism it seems I did. Although Brazilian and American concepts of Right and Left are not completely similar, my own political ideas are center to right of center, but as I said, not anywhere close to what seems to an outsider to be Right Wing political ideas in the US.
As for the National Guard, I was mainly using it as some kind of example, since I recall, probably wrongly, that it was used some times as a blunt instrument of power, in civilian disturbances. The point I was trying to make is that although it´s size range a lot from state to state, I understand that for the bigger ones, say California, Texas, New York, Florida, etc, its combat power is probably larger than most National armed forces in the world, and they are not centrally governed, but state-mandated, and at least partially funded.
As for the Colonial Ministry, I can bet 100 to 1 that it will be said so, and at least when used directly after US military intervention that will be really hard to contradict. On the other hand, if used INSTEAD (hopefully at least) of that intervention, I believe that this kind of comment will mostly come from those that would denigrate anything the US does anyway, so it isn´t a big change...

**Albany Rifles** · 04 Dec 08,, 18:07

As I pointed out in an earlier post these oragnizations would be perfect in subsaharan Africa where the DOD AFRICOM has not been able to get a warm welcome (thought there are a lot of USASOC there) but these organizations could pay big dividends for both the supported nation as well as the US. As has been pointed out they could also work well in Latin America.

They could be tremendous expanders fo national power...and less controversial!

**gunnut** · 04 Dec 08,, 18:18

You know, I just thought of something, instead of direct aid money to a foreign government, this type of nation building team might be money better spent.

However, what if the foreign government doesn't want our guys interering with his plundering of his people?

**Shek** · 04 Dec 08,, 18:53

Originally Posted by gunnut

You know, I just thought of something, instead of direct aid money to a foreign government, this type of nation building team might be money better spent.

However, what if the foreign government doesn't want our guys interering with his plundering of his people?

Then we put that ruler on our knee and spank them.

This is not a panacea. Just like any other tool that applies instruments of national power, it is a tool. Successful policy requires that you use the appropriate tools at the appropriate time in the appropriate amount. The current administration has overrelied upon the military instrument of power ("hard" power) when in many cases, "soft" power could have achieved the same ends and in some of those cases, more effectively.

As far as direct aid, oftentimes, aid has strings attached to it. Here's $10 billion. You can use only to buy US goods. I don't know how often that is or what percentage, but there's a sometimes a domestic political interest in the foreign aid (which is an indirect subsidy to a domestic constituency).

**astralis** · 04 Dec 08,, 19:36

gunnut,

OK. I never liked Peace Corp anyways. Can we disband it if we have this "civilian national security" force?

that would be a bad idea- the peace corps provides a very useful counterpoint to the idea that americans are just out there for their own raw power interest.

to some degree it is an illusion, but it is an useful illusion. very cheap way to accumulate soft power.

on another level, it is also very useful for government hiring. peace corps work is not easy; volunteering and doing a good term of service acts as an indicator of ability, resourcefulness, and initiative.

**mliraj** · 04 Dec 08,, 20:15

Originally Posted by Shek

Then we put that ruler on our knee and spank them.

Sir, I don´t have international experience, but in the Brazilian countryside, most everyone has a TV. If the country is some version of at least nominal democracy, it should have some kind of ad agency. Properly worked, ad campaigns can be a wonderful tool... just ask Steve Jobs

**Shiny Capstar** · 04 Dec 08,, 20:27

Originally Posted by mliraj

Sir, I don´t have international experience, but in the Brazilian countryside, most everyone has a TV. If the country is some version of at least nominal democracy, it should have some kind of ad agency. Properly worked, ad campaigns can be a wonderful tool... just ask Steve Jobs

Ah adverts, you think they don't have any effect on you... then you decide you suddenly need some new piece of junk

)

**mliraj** · 04 Dec 08,, 20:49

Originally Posted by Shiny Capstar

Ah adverts, you think they don't have any effect on you... then you decide you suddenly need some new piece of junk

)

And that piece of junk may just be something you can only get being friends of the US... of course, it would really have to be subtle, and culturally appropriate, or in other words, specifically made to order...