Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Clarification

There has been some harsh reaction to this post. I feel I am to blame for this only because I do not feel I made my position clear enough. My opinion still stands.

Okay, Obama says that we need this "Civilian National Security Force" because "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set." Thing is, we're not relying completely on the military. We haven't been doing that for over 100 years. In addition to our Armed Forces, we have the FBI, CIA, NSA, BATF, DEA DIA (Diplomatic Intelligence Agency), TSA, Secret Service, and many other Law Enforcement Agencies also protecting our national security. Not to mention the countless state and local police forces across the country.

I've heard one objection to my position made on the basis that Obama wants to establish a National Guard. Thing is, we already have one. It's been around since 1903, and it's designed to be a force of civilian reservists who are to be called upon in times of war to supplement the standing army and to keep the peace in times of extreme crisis at home (riots, natural disasters, etc.) Making the National Guard "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the Army a) defeats the purpose of having a reserve force (They're not meant to be front-line troops, and therefore don't need to be as well-equiped as the standing army), and b) in times of war, National Guard units come under the command of regular Army leaders.

I mentioned that the idea of having this "Civilian National Security Force" scares me, but I failed to explain why. It scares me because Obama says that said force needs to be "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the regular Army. How, exactly, does he plan to make it that strong? By giving it Abrams battle tanks, artillery, and jet fighters? Yes, the National Guard does have those things, but those are only used in times of war, and as I mentioned, National Guard comes under the command of the Army (or Air Force) at those times. Plus, those are all old equipment that has been phased out by the standing military (Ex: most national guard units are equipped with the M60 Patton tank. That was phased out in in the late '80s, with the last being retired just after the Gulf War [and those were used by the Air Force])

So, Obama is disregarding the roles that dozens of Federal and civilian Law Enforcement Agencies take in defending our National Security, and he can't beef up the National Guard without making it a part of the standing Armed Forces. So, what exactly is this "Civilian National Security Force?" The only thing that makes sense (without making something completely redundant and, ergo, completely useless) is a seperate, government-controlled, civilian-operated paramilitary force. What scares me is, why would Obama want such a force? The only thing I can think of is that he wants to use it for something he can't legally use the Army for and that the various LEA's around the country are not put together to do. Exactly what that might be terrifies me.

2 comments:

Sam said...

This is a good clarification. Though I agree with you that it's hardly necessary, I'm more concerned about what it would COST then what he would do with it. Frankly, I don't think Obama is the power-crazed maniac you suspect him to be. If you're worried about a hot-headed, war-obsessed candidate, you need to look no further than the current republican nominee.

Thankful Paul said...

Peace be with you