Powered By Christian Gifts

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Nobama's Civilian National Security Forces Explained?

Cross posted from ANewtOne. HT ~Snooper~.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

HT goes to the JPA Live BTR Show and Danger Girl for an article in Military Times, which is owned by Gannett which also publishes the USA Today newspaper.
I called your attention to the MT's affiliation because the MT in no way and by no means whatsoever is linked to the "official" military news outlets. All "official" news outlets of the military are either .org or .gov. Any alleged military news outlet which has a .com or a .net designator should be taken with a grain of salt - or something of a lesser value.

This, however, does not apply to blogs or bloggers for the obvious - even to the oblivious - reasons. To perform a back-check, please visit this site.

Now that the disclaimer has been provided, we will now take a look at this interview by USA Today staffers with Barack Obama, giving the inference that the military is interviewing Barack Insane Hussein Obama. Scurrilous does not even come close to the implications here, does it?

In this interview the following question was asked:

Q: You said you don't want to rob Peter to pay Paul, so how are you going to pay
Paul? Troop increases are an enormous expense.

To arrive at the full intent and the presented answer - if you can call it that - one will have to read the entire interview. This interview is a near prefect case study for a pretty verbiage explanation as to how the would-be First Czar of the newly formed USSA (with a "k") will decimate the now United States Armed Forces. He claims that he wants to expand the military but what he doesn't say is that he intends on taking the punch our military has away from them. We will have a bigger military with a lesser punch. This sounds counter productive to me.

In conjunction with this and before we continue with this interview by USA Today staffers, please recall this statement: (where he mentions AmeriCorps and Peace Corps as the "civilians")
"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

That statement alone is scary but having it placed in context is frightening. Barack, in this interview, has placed it in context. One of the partners here at A Newt One, Loki, has stated that if Barack intends to utilize AmeriCorps and Peace Corps personnel to fill vacancies in embassies and missions "that have been boarded up", he certainly doesn't understand the United States Constitution that he has purported to have once been an instructor thereof. However, it gets worse than that. This has grown beyond the pale of frightening.

[...] I should add, by the way, that part of the change that I want
when it comes to Army and Marine structures is the mix of training that we're
providing and mix of personnel that are in these forces. One of the things I
have been so impressed with is the heroic job that our men and women in uniform
have done basically on the fly having to train themselves on the spot to
function as engineers or function as social workers or function as translators
or political consultants. There's just been a whole bunch of work that has been
done that we haven't prepared people for. They learn on the job, but if anything
Iraq should have given us a template for the kinds of skill sets that we're
going to have to provide to our military. And that's true in Iraq. That's true
in Afghanistan. That also means, by the way, that we're going to have to, I
believe, reconfigure our civilian national security force. In a way that just
hasn't been done.

I mean, we still have a national security apparatus on the civilian
side in the way the State Department is structured and [Agency for International
Development] and all these various agencies.
That hearkens back to the Cold War.
And we need that wing of our national security apparatus to carry its weight.
When we talk about reinventing our military, we should reinvent that apparatus
as well. We need to be able to deploy teams that combine agricultural
specialists and engineers and linguists and cultural specialists who are
prepared to go into some of the most dangerous areas alongside our military.


Parse that.

This interview was published on 08 JUL 08, 6 days after his speech in Colorado Springs. However, he makes no mention of AmeriCorps or Peace Corps personnel but he does say this:
[...] Absolutely, but the only problem with soft power is the term itself
makes people think it's not as strong as hard power. And my point is that if
we've got a State Department or personnel that have been trained just to be
behind walls, and they have not been equipped to get out there alongside our
military and engage, then we don't have the kind of national security apparatus
that is needed. That has to be planned for; it has to be paid for. Those
personnel have to be trained.
And they all have to be
and that is something that we have not accomplished yet, but
that's going to be what's increasingly important in our future to make sure that
our military has the support that it needs to do what it does the best,
which is fight wars.

And there you have it. He is going to arm State Department Personnel so they can fight along side the United States Military. He is going to utilize AmeriCorps and Peace Corps Personnel to go into areas the US Military does to be the Agents of Change. Case closed and checkmate.

Excuse me Barack but the US Military Special Forces already handle such activities. Does the Anbar Awakening ring a bell? Our military, in special detail, has the training you are babbling about and making it sound like this is a new concept and making it sound like a good idea because you thought of it. Sorry. The US Military has already been doing this for years and decades.

Previous posts in regards to the Enemy of The State running for President of the USA