Clark Wants to Create Civilian Reserve

Clark Wants to Create Civilian Reserve
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: October 14, 2003


Filed at 6:43 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrat Wesley Clark says if elected president, he would create a corps of civilians who could be called up for service in national emergencies much like the National Guard.

Every American age 18 or over could register for Clark's civilian reserve, listing skills that could aid the country in a disaster. Registration is voluntary and would involve a commitment to serve any time for five years.

In times of national emergency, such as floods, forest fires or terrorist attacks, the president would have the power to call to duty up to 5,000 civilian reservists. Tours would last as long as six months. Congress could authorize more to be mobilized.

Civilian reservists also could be sent overseas for jobs like reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq.

more........

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Clark-Civilian-Service.html

have done something very similar to this since 911.

They were a great help during the blackout in the Northeast this past summer.

No they aren't armed either. But they do direct traffic and assist in delivering necessities to shut-ins and the elderly during a time of regional emergency.

Sounds like an ex-military guy to me.

I hope his other 3 speeches deal with solutions to problems that don't sound like they're coming from a military guy. So far I haven't seen our country's problems being solved by military solutions, so I'm leary of domestic policies that echo that approach.

but I'm with you, khephra, feeling like Clark's approach to everything is going to be based on his closed perception of military life. The military is wonderful, but it's one small view of a much larger whole. He needs to show that he can think outside of the box, that America isn't just one large military. Problems are more complex than solving them all the military way.

I'm not even against this idea in principle at this stage, since it's voluntary. I just want to see him thinking outside of a military model. The next 3 policy speeches of his will be really telling in this regard.

Is the Peace Corps "Militaristic"?

Are all such volunteer programs "militaristic"?

OR, are you using preconcieved notions about Clark to make an oblique attack on him or any idea he'll be putting forth.

These comments say more about your prejudice than it does about Clark or his proposal...

You are trying to create a "boogieman". According to you, because Clark worked in the Military his ideas will necessarily have a militaristic tone.

What a load of biased crap.

And I haven't read yet how anyone would characterize what we know so far about this proposal is any more militaritic than say, Kerry's ideas concerning National Service.

Or how they are any more militaristic than any OTHER volunteer program.

that "Organizations Are Inherently Militaristic". This plan sounds like a "draft-lite" program though.

Paint much with the wide brush?

If you're going to have a fit about what I say, at least be critical of what I actually say.

But don't let that stop you from distorting my opinions.

You just proved my point by saying DRAFT-LITE.
A draft is mandatory military service, where you learn to kill.

WHY does what's been proporsed sound to you like DRAFT LITE?

What could the little we know about this so far make anyone think "military".

Because it may have principles such as Organization and Heirarchy and Centralized Authority?

The fact of the matter is, the Hart/Rudman report showed we are woefully unprepared to respond to Terrorism and National Emergencies.

The Bush Administration and the Neo Cons have showed us that the LEFT is unprepared to deal with fascism as they have coopted Patriotism.

The fact is, the Right is trying to divide and dismantle our Communities. We can have as many GOVERNMENT entities doing the work that needs to get done... but inless people get involved... things are going to get more divisive and more anarchist.

Homeland Security is an IMMEDIATE necessity and Junior has made matters worse by going into Iraq and underfunding first responders.

First responders cannot do it alone. Citizens MUST be involved. And we must pull together to counter the onslaught on the COMMON GOOD.

Further, there is the matter of disorganization. The FACT is that there are organizations and departments across the country that need to be intergrated. And American Citizens are part of that.

The Left is a bunch of disorganized special interest groups unable to put aside parts of their own agenda to create an Organized Front.

ANY successful Program that is going to be able to deal with National Issues must be inherently Organized and consist of HEIRACRCHY and a Centralized Command.

Sowhat you call "militaristic" MAY BE what would actually make a National Program and STRATEGY SUCCEED.

Of course, since there is nothing inherently Militaristic in what's been proposed so far... I can only speculate what makes you say that.

But then so many on the Left are attached to failure.

Gee, where does it sound like a draft? Maybe it's the idea of 5 year terms for our youth that could see them in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, but it's a "draft-lite" because it is voluntary

Some of you Clark supporters should REALLY learn that commenting on your candidate's policies does NOT equal an attack on him. I wasn't an enemy to you in this thread. Go pick on the people who call Clark a killer and leave us people alone who want to discuss his plan without being jumped on. All you are doing is turning people like me who had an open mind about Clark's policies into people who couldn't give a fuck anymore.

Military- of or relating to soldiers, army or war.

YOU are the one who used the term military.

What in the proposal so far mentions ANYTHING to do with Soldiers, Army or War.

The answer is NOTHING.

So the only rationale behind someone saying it is militaristic would be their own preconcieved notions about the persona making the proposal.

Preconcieved notion- prejudice.

You act like someone just attacked your mother.

The article mentions the volunteers being sent to the last two countries that we've fought wars in. Two countries, I might add, where we are STILL fighting wars in.

BTW, you don't have a clue as to how I view the military as a whole. While I never served, I wanted to at one point, but I was told that because of my various physical problems that there would be no way that I'd be let in.

My grandfather fought in WW2 in Italy in a ski patrol and ended up getting a purple heart.

My Uncle was in the Air force.

I'd say a good 50% of the men I hang out with are vets.

I'm not anti-militaristic.

General Clark (we're always reminded of his service), proposes a new volunteer core and the two countries mentioned are currently are war zone and I'm not supposed to think that it sounds "militaristic"?

Clark supporters push his military experience as a plus...and it is.

But they're also pushing him as a General.

If you don't expect people to examine his policies in conjunction with him being a military man THEN DON'T PUSH THAT HE'S A MILLITARY MAN.

You can't have it just the way you want it. Dean opens himself up to being weak on foriegn policy by pushing his Doctor side too much. Clark is in danger of doing the same thing too but with the domestic side if he just pushes himself as a military man.

Or Iraq.

And you acknowledge that... then go on to spout the following:

"After reading that press release, I now feel like it's even MORE militaristic in feeling than before."

Apparently, now the proposal isn't just militaristic its MORE militaristic...

Even though it doen't mention Soldiers, Army or War.

Now, you have a problem with Patriotism and for some bizarre reason equate it with Militarism.

I advocate on Clark's behalf becasue he shown LEADERSHIP, an ability to create winning STRATEGY, a gift for DIPLOMACY and a willingness to stand up and DO THE RIGHT THING (even if it means getting fired).

NONE of these things have anything implicityly to do with the MILITARY or his BEING inthe military.

A human being can exhibit these qualities in ANY professsion.

And it just so happens that Clark's profession has been primarily the Military.

So PLEASE don't give me the crap how Clark supporters are pushing the Military aspect.

I most certainly AM NOT and the DU'ers don't.

Although we DO have to deal with the charges of "war criminal" and such.

The only thing I've personally mentioned about Clark's service record is he stood up to the Conservatives in the Pentagon and NATO and that he improved problems with race, day care and abuse on the bases where he worked.

AGAIN, a good executive could do those things in ANY organization... And with Clark, the fact it was the military is pretty much beside the point... excpet to point out that the MILITARY Is famous for being adverse to change and not too senstive when itcomes to race, women's rights or family services.

So actually, Clark's time in the Army was pretty UNCONVENTIONAL. And not "typical" Army behavior at all.

The "military" is ground into these guys and he has been in it for a long time. We don't need a militaruy president. Remember what Ike said.

There is something here that gets those alarm bells sounding.

the Salvation Army.

more people to your way of thinking if you would change your tone, which is a little abrasive.

from an ex-military person? It actually sounds like an extension of the Peace Corps, which was founded by another ex-military person, JFK. I guess he should have been thinking outside the box as well.

Something tells me if Howard Dean, waterwalker, came up with this idea, it would be used as further evidence of his unique brilliance, his ability to look at situation and use his medical background to ... think outside the box and come up with a unique solution.

I'm not against it in principle. There's a big difference there. I want to hear more details before I decide whether I like it or not.

A civilian volunteer force...well, as pointed out bellow, we already have them. It's the overseas aspect that will clarify my judgment on the issue.

But in principle, I have nothing against civilian volunteer forces.

...

As it coming from an ex-military man? Hell yeah, it does make a difference. This is one of his first policy statements and it involves organizing a large group of our young into a new organization and then possibly sending them overseas to places such as Iraq and Afghanistan. If this was coming from a Republican we be seeing 2343 threads in GD about this being a stealth draft.

....

As per Howard Dean? Nice insult to my intelligence and integrity.

I don't think Dean walks on water, and nether does any other candidate, even yours.

If Dean proposed this I'm be on his forum and writing him letters and generally letting it be know that I was really uncomfortable with the idea.

And that's all I've really said--I'm uncomfortable.

Some of you Clark supporters have understood my concerns and been extremely nice. Some of you seem to want to make this out as a Dean supporter attacking your candidate.

Whatever floats your boat.

I do not believe for one instant that if Dean came up with this idea, you'd be 'uncomfortable' in the slightest with it, but I have to take your word for it. Your first two posts on this issue, by the way, clearly stated that your concern was not with the program itself, but that it comes from 'a military guy,' and you want to see him 'thinking outside the military model.'

Americorps came from 'military guy' Clinton. Peace Corps came from 'military guy' JFK. Some folks have 'military guy' on the brain, just as other folks have water on the brain. And beneath their feet.

By the way, 'New American Patriotism,' which apparently so disturbs you, is Clark's official campaign slogan, not something that was cooked up for this specific militaristic program. I don't particularly care for the slogan either, as it sounds bloodless and uninspiring, but I don't think it sounds 'militaristic.' It's a campaign slogan. I suppose if his were 'Clark for America,' it would be an example of typical militaristic arrogance.

and then saying that you'll take their word for it, still means that you don't believe them.

Here's something that I believe and take my word on it too...

I believe that talking to someone who won't believe you is a waste of time.

PLONK.

Not sure what this will turn out to be, but it sounds in the vein of Kerry's idea of Service.

Reminds me of the thread about making Community or National Service mandatory.

Alot of people objecting sounded like spoiled children whose parents feed, cloth, house and also give them an allowance but who then refuse to do any chores.

We are part of a family or a collective whole.

We have rights and we SHOULD have obligations.

And Clark's idea, which I'll reserve judgement on til more is known, is voluntary.

What does recostruction overseas mean? Reconstruction means post war reconstruction whether domestic or foreign aggression in other countries. Fine idea if it weren't for that over seas reconstruction requirement.

I am fairly certain Wesley Clark isn't stupid enough to send American civilians into Iraq while the situation is still "in flux".

However, you do realise that the Peace Corps volunteers work around the globe, right?

Would you object to Peace Corps volunteers helping build schools in Iraq if and when the situation stabilizes?

Don't you think that having American folk interacting with Iraqi folk in a positive setting might be a good idea?

proposing a civilian corp to handle domestic disaster,etc. not Peace Corps. A condition requiring duty in foreign reconstruction opens the door for post war reconstruction that would require volunteers to end up in a military situation. Nothing to guarantee that Clark might not send volunteers into dangerous foreign situations. Sure a Peace Corp would be fine if volunteers are willing to place their lives on the line as many have in the past. Yes, I have heard of the Peace Corp, been around for quite a few years.

I would not call this service voluntary.
Voluntary means you have other choices.
We are rapidly approaching an economic
reality that removes ALL choices.
Can't afford education? No insurance?
Join the civilian corp! We'll ship your ass
to a remote part of the world, pay you
Walmart wages and make you buy your
food and shelter from the company store.
Voluntary my ass! Hah.
Who is doing the rebuilding?
HALLIBURTON folks-Bechtel, GE, the usual suspects.
Think those folks will be happy to see those
American volunteers rebuilding their bombed out
countries? I'm sure they will throw flowers.
Some of you still don't get it, do ya?

This is the set up for a move to further
benefit multi-national corporations.
Cheap labor- that's the plan here.
And they will call it, "fulfilling your civil and patriotic duty"
and why not, these young people wont have any
other choice by then.
This has been part of the plan all along.

BHN

18 yr olds often have NO idea what they want to do, and spend the first few years in college, taking classes and changing their minds every semester..

I have thought that a good plan would be :

Mandatory service from 18-22
many fields available..like an appenticeship

at the end of the 4 yr service, they would receive 50% off vouchers at any state school they chose...or even more of a discount depending on the training they received in their service..

they could also "convert" their time and enter military at a higher rank that the beginning grade, if they served as national guard during their "service"time..

This would take a lot of pressure off of many parents and there would be no escaping the service (rich daddies could not buy your way out)..The lousy jobs that kids have to settle for, might actually have to start paying decent wages to attract employees, and colleges would have an older , more settled student body.. They would all enter as "legal age", so a lot of the current under age drinking and hazing issues would be gone as well..

It helped young folks get work after the Great Depression.

As I read the description, people would be encouraged to register and give an indication of what skills they have that might be useful in case of national disasters. They could then be called up as necessary in the aftermath of hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.

No training, no service -- just a sort of national hotline.

Except that they could also be ripped out of their normal lives at any time and sent off for six months to direct traffic in Baghdad.

Is there something here that doesn't add up?

>18 yr olds often have NO idea what they want to do, and spend the first few years in >college, taking classes and changing their minds every semester..

I knew what I wanted to study when I was 18 and I went to MIT to study it,
got my degree in it, and am working in the field still.
I didn't even know anyone who changed majors more than once.

>I have thought that a good plan would be :

>Mandatory service from 18-22
>many fields available..like an appenticeship

This proposal is all good except the mandatory part.

> at the end of the 4 yr service, they would receive 50% off vouchers at any state
> school they chose...or even more of a discount depending on the training they
> received in their service..

Seems like incentive enough to get plenty of volunteers.

>They could also "convert" their time and enter military at a higher rank that the >beginning grade, if they served as national guard during their "service"time..

I presume they can do that today.

>This would take a lot of pressure off of many parents

a pretty lame reason to abscond with four years of every kids life!

> and there would be no escaping the service (rich daddies could not buy your way out)..

do you really believe it would work like that? Come on now!

>The lousy jobs that kids have to settle for, might actually have to start paying
>decent wages to attract employees,

no, because a lot of low-tier jobs would be replaced with people working civilian national service jobs for even less. The people who used to do those jobs would be displaced and exert downward pressure on wages as they get pushed into jobs with less stability and fewer benefits.

> and colleges would have an older , more settled student body.. They would all enter
> as "legal age", so a lot of the current under age drinking and hazing issues would
> be gone as well..

Or they might be just as bad or worse when the lid finally comes off.
I would have been climbing the walls by the time I was 22 under that system.

today.

I'll see you there!

Keep 'em at home Wes. We have enough 18-year-olds in the crosshairs in Afghanistan and Iraq. The 'corroborators' over there are clearly targets, and softer than guys in Bradleys.

Of course if we could get the Guardsmen out of Afghanistan instead of extending their tours, there wouldn't be such a need.

Not convinced he can yet. The career military officers I know, can be myopic in their approach to things civilian.

?

Do you honestly think Clark would send civilians over there while there's a guerilla war going on?

Or maybe, after we here the whole idea, it'll be more like going to Iraq when things have stablilized to build schools... sort of like
the Peace Corps or Earthwatch.

People should volunteer to help out in a crisis, not be forced to serve. What's next, a military draft?

Jeez...read the article!

"Every American age 18 or over could register for Clark's civilian reserve, listing skills that could aid the country in a disaster. Registration is voluntary and would involve a commitment to serve any time for five years."

I read the article, thank you very much. It doesn't matter if it's voluntary or not. This is just another force to use as some leader sees fit. Too much potential for abuse.

"Civilian reservists also could be sent overseas for jobs like reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq."

'Nuff said.

That is the MOST important line in the article-
Please see my post above...
BHN

As has been pointed out, there is no mention of this in Clark's Press Release about the speech, and the speech does'nt happen until later today.

Anyone is going to emphasize the
"over seas construction" clause?
Wouldn't that be like showing your
cards at the poker table?

No, they will pump up the virtues
of a work ethic and community service
and fail to mention that our economy
has left them no other choices-
military enlistment, or civilian work camp.
Either way, more walmart wages for everyone.
Halliburton and the Carlyse group scores again-
What amazes me is the lack of comprehension
of how corporatism is working here.
They call something wonderful, people swoon,
and then the reality hits the fan, and people
say, Oh, how could that happen?
I am physically ill right now.
This is NOT A GOOD THING- TRUST ME.

BHN

Then lets dispense with the Supreme Court- cause they not only have the POTENTIAL for abuse- they already abused their postion by selecting Junior.

"This is just another force to use as some leader sees fit. Too much potential for abuse."

HAVE you ever heard of Americorp or the Peace corp?

So in other words, don't DO ANYTHING, becasue ultimately, it might be abused by the GOP.

You would advocate stasis?

abused by the very man proposing it.

no thanks, "general."

I do not object to manditory service. I think it would be a good thing. Let's hear more about it.

But I like this...Can you imagine how great this would be? Americorp with some funding?

But I agree that a new & improved National service program could be a good thing

I thought I heard on NPR that they were struggling to continue financially.

Massive cuts...But Eli Segal, the guy who started Americorps, is helping to run Clark's campaign, so I think Clark would do a lot to bring it back to its former self.

for jobs like reconstruction in Iraq & Afghanistan". Sounds great until it gets to that part. Say this was in affect at the present time, how many people would want to be be targets for post war 'construction' such as soldiers are experiencing right now. Fine idea, similar to the programs FDR put into place after Wall St. took the fall in the 20s (CCC, NRA,etc). Take the overseas bull out of it and sounds great.

All I can think of is Israel when I hear this and the young men there who are now doing time because they REFUSE to kill innocent Palestinians. What happens when the wrong person gets into power and uses it for ill-gotten gains. What if these young folks were used to round up American citizens for Gitmo?

Just a question.... :shrug:

Why don't we beef up what we've already got --

U.N., for one
Red Cross and other private sector volunteer organizations
Americorps
Peace Corps

Instead of creating something brand new.

Sheesh.

We've got some REAL problems in this country. This kind of idea sounds to me like something you distract people with instead of addressing far more pressing problems. Frosting on the cake in peacetime, that kind of thing.

Silly. At best.

Eloriel

They are at the mercy of budget cuts, disorganization and inefficiency.

In the end, what people are objecting to here is ORGANIZATION.

Which is where Democrats get crucified by the GOP.

We are a bunch of disparate special interest groups who don't know how to work together and use our energies collectively and EFFICIENTLY.

When you have so many groups doing similiar things there's alot of redundancy and lack of coordination.

And don't try to tie my hands with union labor, either!

But in this instance I don't see why that's a bad thing. One of the things the military excels at is mobilizing people. So why not use that skill with an eye towards service? I'm a two-term americorps alum. This strikes me as a little different because it would be more disaster relief. I have some questions that maybe some of you folks seein him this afternoon could answer. Forgive me if any of these are answered in the article, I don't have a subscription.

Would it be under FEMA or a similar organization?

How closely would it work with organizations like Red Cross?

Could you opt out of international response?

THAT is the dictionary definition.

Please explain what in the proposal SO FAR has anything vaguely inimating Soldiers, Army or War.

:eyes:

google it -- alot of eyes will be opened.

It's a private firm that supplies military contracting, labor and (ahem) policy advice to foreign gov'ts ... Rummy's wet dream of privatizing the US Military.

And Clark, I believe, is either on the board or is a consultant.


:scared:

:hippie:

Thank GOD!
I am not alone.
Try out a google on
Clark and Acxiom- the company supplying Poindexter's TIA
with information on EVERYONE-
and then do a google on
Clark and Sirva- they specialize in relocating people
whose jobs have moved overseas...
Clark is part of the corporatist/globalization cabal-
He is heavily enmenshed with Frank Carlucci too-
But no one wants to look at his corporate ties.
He's a DEMOCRAT!
Yeah, and I am Marilyn Monroe.
He is a corporatist and they don't have a party,
they just strike poses in them when it suits the
agenda.
BHN

... so he knows a heckuva lot more than me ....
but Thanks & keep diggin' !!!

:toast:


:hippie:

The overseas reconstruction part is like a poison pill. Clark should drop it. Most of the troops don't want to be in Iraq right now--fewer civilians are going to want to be put in that type of situation.

here http://www.clark04.com/press/release/019/

and it says nothing about foreign service. Not to mention the fact that he has not even made the details of this proposed program public. He is not even speaking on the issue until 2pm EDST today. I'll wait until I see the details, but agree that the program should not contain an overseas component.

Jay

After reading that press release, I now feel like it's even MORE militaristic in feeling than before.

---

""In the face of new and growing challenges, we need to call on a New American Patriotism - from our leaders and our citizens," Clark will tell the crowd at Hunter College. "A New American Patriotism calls on leadership that will make the right choices for all of our people; it calls for an administration that unites our country and works with the world community, and it calls all Americans to action in order to make the commitments and sacrifices to meet these historic challenges."

---

A "New American Patriotism"???

Oooooooook....

people are patriotic in a productive way :eyes:

for using "patriotism" to push its policies, all the while wrapping itself up in a flag, you'll have to excuse me if I don't embrace a Democratic version of Patriotism Politics.

moniker Is An Attempt To... take back the word patriotism from the Bushistas. It's not really about wrapping ones self in the flag.

Jay

This program has just sent up some warning flags for me. I've also said that I don't have anything against it in principle.

I'll wait for the details before I come down on one side or the other. Pre-release info isn't the proper way to judge a policy from anyone except the Bushies. (They're safe to pre-emptively attack because by now we pretty much know that everything they propose will suck in one way or another. ;-) )

But there are some warning signs going off for me. I pray to Elvis that "patriotism" isn't going to play a big part in Clark's campaign. I'm really sick of that being pushed by politicans of any party at the moment. It's too self-serving, imo.

So, I'm still listening....

You want to "Volunteer?"......Just say no!



CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
So I Built This Web Site
Read The Book

Sure, under Clark it would be a good thing, but think of what would happen if another Bush* gets into office (and you know it will happen). Here's a ready made volunteer army for more imperial power grabs without resorting to a draft.

No way, no how! DO NOT VOLUNTEER FOR SUCH A THING UNLESS YOU ARE PREPARED TO FIGHT ANOTHER BFEE WAR!

I think that unless I put down "Killing people, blowing shit up" down as my special skill / talent, I doubt that I'd be sent to fight.

This isn't military service.

It is not militaristic- it is the formation of
a slave labor walmart employee to benefit
the multi-national elite.
With the economy tanking, those who do not
enlist in the service, will have no choice but to
enlist in the cilvilian work force.
Either way, we are all going to work for
Big Brother and the company store.
Get used to it, cause the lemmings are going
to go right along with the plan.
BHN

:tinfoilhat:

Clark is a closet Stalinist. Mmm-hmm. We're all gonna have to work for the government... right. Because volunteering to help out in a time of crisis is just one step away from a "slave labor walmart."

And we will see where this issue stands.
And no, Clark is not a Stalinist, he is a Corporatist,
and a stalking horse- Bush will win again, and if
not- you will wish he had. TRUST me...I have been
following these folks for a very long time.
Dems and Repukes alike have NO clue what
is coming.

BHN

Bush will win again, and if
not- you will wish he had.

OK, we're done. When you're honestly saying that Bush would be preferable to Clark, there's really not even a point in talking anymore.

You aint seen nothing yet.
Wait till they bring the REAL empire leader on.
You and I don't have the same information.
If you can keep an open mind, I suggest spending
some time here:
http://www.kcandassociates.org
The site is offering free access for the rest
of this year.
No tin foil, just research and analysis.
I have followed the guys work for a very long time.
EVERYTHING has been completely accurate-
no magic, just incredibel research and logicial
analysis of what is indicated by the research.
Warning: If you comprehend what is written there,
prepare for a long depression.
We are mor efucked than you can imagine.
Peace-
BHN

First he accuses Clark of flip-flopping on the war, which he didn't. Then he goes on to talk about Bush creating an empire, just as Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and Carter did before him. He lies about Clark not answering questions about who he voted for in 2000.

Clark arguably was approached all right, but I suggest by the Grey Men who remain behind the curtains and “really run the show,” as Benjamin Disraeli once described them. An elite. The men who put up millions of dollars to see their agenda fulfilled, not mine, not yours, theirs; and their agenda is the corporate agenda whose ideological makeup is Corporatism.

Yes, the Draft Clark movement was a big conspiracy by "Grey Men." Everyone, including myself, who decided that Clark was a good guy and would make a great President, was either a victim of the conspiracy or a willful member.

First Clark eludes euphemistically to the coming military draft, “encourage broader public service”? i.e., selective service, which would include Democrats and lefties all (though their ears are stuffed so with pride they cannot hear what he is saying).

Yup... more concrete research and analysis here.

Face it. This guy's a nutter.

with expertise in a wide variety of skills.

When it comes down to it, every last damn one of 'em is a ground pounding grunt that can pull a trigger.

Yes, it would be wonderful and noble under a Clark, a Clinton, or just about any Democrat you care to name (I think Lieberman would be an exception), but how perverted would another member of the BFEE make it?

That's my take on anything proposed by any Democrat from now on, "how would Bush* handle this and how would I like having Bush* with this resource?"

I'll reserve judgement in the negative until facts come out otherwise. Its a shame someone without a military background didn't suggest this so as to not rasie the hackles of those who have apprehension against a miltary state.

Seems like a good idea, and a way for a young kid to get some good practical work experience. I know its different, but in a similar vein we had an Americorps college grad here for a year. She got her loans paid, made enough money to live, and gained increidble experience, all the while providing a service my agency couldn't have afforded to provide citizens of our county otherwise. After she left hear her experience gave her the edge to get an asst. exec director job that she in no way could've gotten had she been a worker ina group home for a year.

"Civilian reservists also could be sent overseas for jobs like reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq"

how many engineers are there that could volunteer to help with infrastructure or lawyers to help set up a judicial system or doctors to help set up hospitals or teachers to help set up schools?

I think it sounds like a wonderful idea.

we're helping rebuild a country and also building good will with the people there.

the best way to make allies is to make friends

We could comb through our engineering schools, medical and law schools for our brightest prospects and offer them an opportunity to spend part or all of their senior year (or, I guess, the first year after graduation) in places like Afghanistan and get actual experience in building bridges and water systems, in basic diagnostics and health care, in establishing the rule of law.
This would be voluntary and have an excellent benefit package (like, we pick up the last year of your educational costs and pay you ot-number of dollars to boot).
Advantages? Well, the locals get bridges and clean water, basic health care and some jurisprudence and the grads get some honest-to-goodness practical experience in performing their crafts. A bridge is a bridge and a human body is a human body. Also, these youngsters get out in the big world and learn compassion, interpersonal skills and, not unimportantly, how good we in the US really have it by comparison (and, all the bitching aside, this is still a damned fine place to live).
There. I just took 300 words to say what dwickham said in under 100.
John
Also, I'd have no problem with mandatory service provided that there were numerous non-military options (though there are plenty of kids like I was in 1974, who have no problem with military service and would choose that option) and provided there were a very limited number of outs -- none of which have to do with who you know or how much money and how many connections Daddy has. With rights come responsibilities. And the most positive thing I took home with me from the service is my ability to work and get along with people who have very little in common with me.
Not all problems can be solved by throwing money at them. Sometimes manpower and youthful enthusiasm do the trick, though.

because most of the national guard will be called up and posted overseas therefore, we need someone else around to perform those duties.

but it makes sense to have something like this. I'd love to help out with my 1337 computer science skills if infrastructure went down and they needed somebody to do the work. But it doesn't make sense for them to put me on the payroll or something.

Additionally, people who are ineligible for military service (like myself) would also be able to help. If anything, this is less militaristic than retooling the National Guard to perform more of those duties.

First, Clark has stated over and over again, a philosophy that is has its underpinnings in the simple truism: You don't win people's hearts and minds while you are bombing them.

He is on record calling for an equal amount of funds to be spent by our country for humanitarian purposes as are currently being spent for the military. Notice that in this case the purposed service would be for emergency and disaster occurrences.

This would mean that the people who volunteered would be well trained and enabled with a valuable skill set. In addition, this corp would bolster any local-state efforts to develop emergency plans, thus saving money at that level. After all, if an emergency occurs one could conclude that the effected area would be localized rather than nationalized. The idea of forming one group of "first responders" that can be mobilized makes sound economic sense, while putting more resources into those volunteers to increase their knowledge and ultimately, their ability to get the job done. At the same time, it provides a great opportunity to those who would like to improve their lot, but have no interest in joining the military.

I would imagine that any international application would fall under the "emergency-disaster" title. If there is a major earthquake abroad, how do we respond as a country? Having a highly trained group of Americans to help in another country, would go a long way in changing our interface with a world that increasingly hates our guts.

Is this open to abuse. Only if those who write the mission statement and the over sight rules are complete dunder heads. Currently, the regime is functioning without this organization is the most criminal fashion that America has ever closed its eyes to. Are we to let the rightwing dictate our every move to do the right thing?

actually this sort of stuff is being done right now by the red cross and darpa who go into communities after disasters with experts to help survivors.

we started with BushI and his thousand points of light thing - which sounded good but we all know was disingenuous. Then Clinton with Americorps - which was a more realistic attempt to build a CCC that the pubs in congress (and on talk radio) wouldn't see and scream 'socialist'. Bush moved the burden to the private sector through defunding Americorps and pushing his faith based initiative thing. It's not like we're not spending money on this stuff regardless - it's just that right now we're spending it on jackasses like Pat Robertson through Operation Blessing.

So to me I see this as a well considered stance on how government should be involved in this sort of activity.

However - I would suggest they take the peace corps and make it the 'overseas extension' of this sort of service, and leave the overseas service bit out. That or limit the overseas deployment times to something really short - 30 or 60 days. That makes it more of an 'emergency' force than a nationbuilding one - and less likely to be exploited by a bad president (can anyone say 'serve your country one weekend a month').

I think they should add a 'purely volunteer' aspect to it as well - where people could put their names into the system and have the choice of accepting the callup. If things are slow one quarter, or there's something that I feel really strongly about, it'd be nice to be able to have that organization in place.

Bill Moyers went into that .... scary people there.

Thanks for the insight.

I'd have to know that there would be some way to keep from repeating what's happening with the National Guard right now.

What do I mean by that?

I mean that these volunteers get called up for duty, right? They go off expecting to be back after so much time or after their term runs out.

What's to keep someone like Bush from coming along and declaring a war or "emergency" and, by executive order or some other BS like that, that President (not Clark) keeps them in the service until he decides to let them out?

This would be so easy to turn into a reconstruction slave-labor pool by a future Republican President (shudder the thought!) that it's silly.

Because the policy hasn't officially been announced yet, my understanding was that the max would be 6 months of service. I'm also curious just how much binding force this would have. Since it's not nearly as crucial as the military, it seems to me that there'd be more options to opt-out.

This would be so easy to turn into a reconstruction slave-labor pool by a future Republican President (shudder the thought!) that it's silly.

There is nothing to stop them now from turning the prison system into a slave-labor pool. In fact, the other day Ed. Meese (Bechtel) proposed to do just that.

Again, the rightwing will and has abused almost everything that can be proposed to do good. They could simple use the unemployed if they wanted to, because that's who they are.

This configuration allows for the public training of people, all volunteers, who want to improve their own lives and the lives of others.

A greater fear of mine, is that the BFEE is poised to steal another election, and we will never know if America can be a better place.

BTW, has anyone read "The Two Percent Solution"? I picked it up last night and admit to being intrigued.

Is that the one about how 2% of the population decides everything for the other 98%? If so, no. But it is on my list.

It's about how two cents out of every US dollar would fund everything we need including universal healthcare and quality education. I gather it is the buzz. I also gather that there are aspects that both the right and left will love and hate.

I'm working on a few books now so it will be a while before I read it. I just wondered what a preview would sound like.

the stage is now being set for what is discussed
by the author of the link below-


If you do NOTHING else today- READ THIS ESSAY!
It is long; it will require time and concentration
but it will perhaps deepen your insight
and understanding of the subject its relativity to what Clark
has just announced. PLEASE! OH PLEASE. PLEASE?
ESPECIALLY if you have children- I do, and I am now officially
leaving the country, They will NEVER get my kid.
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article4605.htm

BNH

On Edit: I repeat BFEE/Halliburton/Bechtel/GE/Exxon?etc...
NEVER! OVER MY DEAD BODY YOU BASTARDS.

http://www.clark04.com/speeches/005/

now... as to the part everyone was griping about

-snip-
Under my plan, the President will have the power to call up to 5,000 civilian reservists by Executive Order, and with an act of Congress, would be authorized to mobilize even more.

Members would be offered the opportunity to serve as the need for their skills arose. And the call to serve would, in almost all cases, be voluntary. For the most part, Civilian Reserve members could choose whether or not to accept the call to action.
-snip-

this is a GREAT idea

``For the most part, Civilian Reserve members could choose whether or not to accept the call to action.''

if there is any clause involving non-voluntary service, you can bet that it will be abused. ask yourself this question: how would Bush use this program? i think we all know he'd abuse the hell out of it. he'd use it in the most partisan way. he'd exploit all the ambiguities in language to force people to serve even in cases that should be voluntary. this is not a good program.

Members would be offered the opportunity to serve as the need for their skills arose. And the call to serve would, in almost all cases, be voluntary. For the most part, Civilian Reserve members could choose whether or not to accept the call to action.

I'm ASSUMING this means for members of the civilian reservist group. But I don't trust this. Little warning bells are starting to go off in my head.

The "ask what you can do for your country" mantra has been dead for several generations now. I'm attracted to the idea of VOLUNTARY public service, and I think it's a good plan.

incentives you mentioned and NO chance in hell...strictly documented, that they would ever go overseas PERIOD?

And since we are all too impatient here in the good old USofA, why don't we interview and talk to some of these young 'uns in Israel and Germany (I'm sure there are other places as well) who are already REQUIRED/MANDATED to serve in organizations such as these? Interview them w/o minders and people telling them what they can or cannot say to you regarding the following questions:

Are they happy? Would they do it again? What did they like and/or dislike? Would they recommed it to their best friend? What would you change? How do you see it helping you in the future?

Then maybe talk to some of the parents to see how they feel about it, AFTER THE FACT.

Learning from other people's mistakes is a great advantage rather than trying to start from square one. PLUS, it would give some comfort to those who might be on the line and uncomfortable with something this different.

:shrug:

instead of putting the patriotic burden only on individual citizens, how about a "voluntary" program whereby our good corporate citizens are "allowed" to register their products with the government - and then in times of national emergency, war, or forest fires, the government will be allowed to commandeer their output for 6 months at a time, in exchange for a nominal stipend?

the courts keep ruling that corporations have many of the rights of living breathing human citizens, rights such as free speech... so why don't corps also have the duties of citizens?

i imagine that the products and services of lockheed, halliburton, raytheon might be very useful to the government at times...

And may well happen some day.

Why not be an optimist.

Corporate America WILL be dragged into the 21st Century... kicking and screaming.

we mere mortals?

``In times of national emergency, such as floods, forest fires or terrorist attacks, the president would have the power to call to duty up to 5,000 civilian reservists. Tours would last as long as six months. Congress could authorize more to be mobilized.''

leaving this decision solely in the hands of the president would open the doors to all sorts of abuse. imagine for example, a closely fought election, and the president has the discretion to deploy this patriot corps for disaster relief in a swing state, or in a "hostile" state that is not in play... these volunteers could end up being used as troops in the an electoral battle. i think there would need to be more checks and balances in order for this to be a good program.

That is EXTREMELY important.

honestly, if a class 5 hurricane struck NC in October and 5000 people were forcefully called up for a month to help fix things I'd like to think that that would be OK

still - the idea of a forceful callup requiring a legislative authorization has merit - maybe even a 2/3 vote. These details of such a check against unreasonable use can and should be debated and worked out later - the basic idea is still a great visionary concept.

The war on Afghanistan passed with only one dissenting vote.

If there is a need to call people only those who have signed up as volunteers would be called. Then...even if you signed up, it would still be voluntary. I believe the qualifier would refer to those skills that were in very high demand.

Voluntary is the operative word. If you don't like this plan, then don't volunteer. Simple. Done. "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." The guy is asking for a sense of community and people are turning it into a combo TriLateral Commission meets PNAC.

... is to imagine how the program would be used by a president you don't like. not clark. not dean. not jfk. how would nixon, reagan, or bush have used this program? would you support this idea if bush had proposed it? i think (hope) that most intelligent people would strongly oppose a program that seems clearly designed to give more unaccountable unchecked power to the current white house resident.

imho this is clearly a BAD idea.

ok - lets talk about checks and balances and details since you cant see the positives until we knock down the negatives

lets go with the current mr evil - since i think he's the worst of the lot

he'd claim the 'war on tearr' was an 'extreme and dire emergency' and call up 5000 people to send to baghdad to train police or firefighters or act as translators or somesuch - and those 5000 people wouldnt have the right to decline.

fair enough?

ok - so lets talk about some of the possible ways to mitigate such a risk. Agreed - the idea will require some adjustment to ensure it is not abused - but you dont present a positive uplifting idea like this and surround it with a bunch of negative 'prevent abuse' language. You stuff the abuse prevention in when you're looking at practical application. Let's say it requires, as i said, a 2/3 in the house and senate. i doubt Bush'd get 2/3 of the senate on that right now - but lets say Bush loses, Clark wins, the plan goes through, and then we get Jeb running the show in 2008 (and your name is on the 5 year dotted line). Lets also say that the country shifts so far right during the next 5 years that the senate goes 2/3 pub (afterall, there's a lot of oxycontin out there).

if the idea of requiring approval from the senate and house for a manditory call up isnt enough (and i think in most situations it probably would be) lets say the 5 year committment is too much - or that people have the right to remove themselves from their term of service. So make it so that you have the right to opt out of the system after each presidential election... there has to be a reasonable check/balance in your mind that would make this work - so why not bring a more positive attitude to the table and suggest something.

in the end this is still a voluntary program. you dont have to sign up to begin with. And, as for the $100m it would cost - i'd rather have it spent this way than to have it go to Operation Blessing or some other nutjob Faith-Based initiative to pray away hurricanes rather than cleanup after them.

ok - lets talk about checks and balances and details since you cant see the positives until we knock down the negatives

oh, i can see positives all right, but that isn't enough. just like there are positives from the patriot act, and from a military draft. it's not all bad. in fact, in a better world, where we could trust our government... maybe the patriot act would even be reasonable. but in the real world, where we can't trust our government, it's not.

there has to be a reasonable check/balance in your mind that would make this work - so why not bring a more positive attitude to the table and suggest something.

it's Clark's job, not mine, to define his positions. and the sketchy way he proposed this, without the necessary checks and balances, again bespeaks his political naivete. i'm not as willing as some here to engage in best-case thinking about this proposal.

First it's voluntary to sign up. Then it's voluntary on a case-by-case basis for each potential project you have the option to join.

The only exception is a very narrow and rare one for national emergency, of up to 5,000 people. For example, earthquakes and hurricanes and acts of war. NOT for an elective invasion that Clark never would have carried out in the first place.

DTH

So if Clark is running the program, I sign up. If Arnold is running the program, I have a backache.

To invoke the emergency clause unless it was truly an emergency.

DTH

"I read the article, thank you very much. It doesn't matter if it's voluntary or not. This is just another force to use as some leader sees fit. Too much potential for abuse.

Very well put. And Texas Patriot also put it well."

We don't need some politician or bureaucrat deciding to ship us off somewhere.

... it doesn't stop him. prime example: the extended deployment of national guard troops for iraq reconstruction. the fraudulent tax cuts were unpopular enough to be considered "political suicide". the $87 billion aid request is very unpopular. yet bush does these things, and more. saying something would be "political suicide" is no substitute for real checks and balances. if the founding fathers took your attitude, we wouldn't have the bill of rights, or any of the checks and balances in the constitution. i mean, why do we need them? it'd be "political suicide" for the executive to try to grab excessive power, or for the legislature to try to control the courts, or the courts to dictate elections. wouldn't it???

http://www.tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=851

ESPRIT DE CORPS
by Spencer Ackerman

Candidate: Wesley Clark
Category: Domestic Policy
Grade: A reserve component.

In terms of innovation, Clark's plan is
light years ahead of anything offered
by any other candidate or the Bush
Pentagon. It takes into account the
current threat environment--homeland
security and low-intensity combat
operations mixed with the need for rapid
reconstruction--and marshals
already considerable American resources to
address the need. And what's
more, it would help bridge the unfortunate
gap in our society between
civilians and the military that protects
them, by introducing military values
of unit cohesion and shared responsibility
to civilian life. That's a form of
patriotism that we could always use more
of.

Wotta surprize!

Why should military power be the only thing we keep a reserve of? A ready reserve of all professions and skills makes us ready to handle anything, nut just war.

This way the Halliburton's of the world won't have the United States over a barrel charging us through the nose for "contractors." The armed services can focus on fighting, police can focus on policing, engineers engineering, etc.

It is a damned brilliant idea by Clark, and I hope he gets the recognition for it that he deserves.

But really, I would take it further. I'm pretty sure I'll ruffle a few feathers here, but I think there should be some kind of public service expected of all citizens. But I would make it voluntary in this way - only those who want to go onto higher education must serve in either the military, Peace Corps or Americorps. You have to serve out your one or two years before you can be admitted into any institution of higher learning. Those who opt for the military only have to do one year, the other two have to do two years. This way we make sure we get the best and brightest, and the rich won't get any special treatment. (I suppose the super-rich could just live off what they have and not have to serve, but after a few generations of being less educated than the middle-class, maybe some of that will even out?)

They might even bother to vote! When one is invested in his/her country, they tend to participate. If ordinary citizens are participating, maybe we can get rid of the damn Black boxes voting machines and go back to the good old paper ballot. Maybe then, 1/2 of the country that doesn't vote will feel like it's their country too!

Community service is a big nowdays. High School students have to show some of that on their college applications. Without it it's much harder to get in.

This reminds me of Jimmy Carter projects after his presidency. Hell, better regular citizens doing the work than them damn corporations!

It's kinda like a New Deal....plus you get health care and pay. So those poor souls who are starving down the street can do something constructive and yet won't have to join the army or go to prison....to make it. A lot of young people now join the army cause that's their only option. I guess the General prefers that they have a variety of options without having to sign up for two years....and then doing unconstructive things like dropping bombs.

I participate, therefore I am.

In a seminal case on the Second Amendment, SCOTUS noted in UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

QUOTE
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
UNQUOTE

In general, "the militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age". The "unorganized militia . . . consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia." (10 USC 311)

Following SCOTUS' observation and current law, the "unorganized militia", consisting of about 100 million men and women, when called to duty by the governor of their states, is expected to report with either a M-16 rifle and/or M-9 pistol or equivalent supplied by themselves. The M-16 rifle and M-9 pistol are standard arms in common use by U.S. armed forces.

Most states have a small state guard but they are poorly equipped, essentially unorganized, and untrained. Moreover, some states have most of their state National Guard personnel on active duty so that a state governor is unable to respond to whatever emergencies might arise.

By our Constitution, "We the People" hold Congress responsible "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." (Clause 16, Section 8, Article I, US Constitution)

Congress has not provided for organizing and arming the "unorganized militia". Congress must therefore, (a) provide a standard military firearm with ammunition for every member of the "unorganized militia", (b) require that each "unorganized militia" member be trained and retrained periodically, and (c) provide facilities and personnel for training the "unorganized militia".

The above actions would prepare the "unorganized militia" to fulfill its historic role and assist the "active military" and "organized militia" in the "War on Terrorism".

Seems like this would be great in a country with no unemployment and everyone making living wages, many bored people looking for something to give meaning to their lives.

Unfortunately millions of Americans are unemployed, millions are trying to live on minimum wages, millions are under-employed and can't afford housing, cars, even food in some cases.

Why ignore the elephant in the room and worry about the ant???