Civilian Reserve Corps: Threat or Fantasy?

President Bush went before a joint session of Congress on January 23 to give his 2007 State of the Union address. As expected, he did call for an increase in the size of the U.S. military.

“One of the first steps we can take together is to add to the ranks of our military—so that the American Armed Forces are ready for all the challenges ahead. Tonight I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years. “

As he called for these military increases, he also pitched an idea that sent a shiver down my spine.

“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.”

A civilian reserve corps? That one made me think. Back in the day, FDR set up the Civilian Conservation Corps to put Americans to work during the worst of the Great Depression (1929-1936). I’m sure that’s what we were supposed to be reminded of when Mr. Bush spoke those words. There is just one problem with that idea.

In today’s world of adversarial politics where the goal is to achieve total power, we run the risk of having a “Civilian Reserve Corp” become much more than a new form of civil service. It’s really not hard to see where this might lead.

In the long run, the Federal government could become the single largest employer in the nation. The millions put to work by this addition to our growing bureaucracy would constitute the largest pro-government voting block in the country. Indirectly, Federal power grows…again. As bad as this could be, there are more sinister undertones.

In my published work, I've predicted a near future situation in which the Federal authorities have almost total power. In this portrayal, I foresee that our elected officials will excersize even more jurisdictions than they do today. If we follow through with this CRC, we risk the creation of a politically correct cadre that could one day turn on us.

The indoctrination of such a large and loyal following wouldn’t be hard. The longer it was in effect, the more fanatical its membership would be. There would be class struggle, and a diabolical form of elitism that would prey on victims and perpetrators alike. Party members would be held in high regard while others would be viewed with suspicion and contempt.

In the end, there might only be one State sanctioned ideological group allowed to hold power. Those who failed to swear undying loyalty might find themselves classified as a danger to the people. Patriotic laws, warrantless investigations, and verdicts from military commissions would all serve the interests of the State as agents of Homeland Security rushed to carry out the bidding of their masters.

The Axis powers that plunged the world in to global war had their own versions of the Civilian Reeve Corps. They were quite useful, too. In every case, they functioned as efficient brainwashing mechanisms while allowing the State to find and neutralize political dissidents. Those who would not serve the regime willingly could still be made to perform manual labor in service to “the cause.”

The CRC’s potential enhancement of Federal power could also mean that our armed forces are undermined. History teaches us that industrialized tyrannies have always needed to keep their national armies on a short leash. In most cases, this has meant the introduction of political officers as overseers and propagandistic indoctrination programs for officers and enlisted personnel.

America’s 21st century post-industrial military is undergoing a slow but methodical transformation into a more politicized force. CRC members could assume many non-combat support roles. If the professional core of the force has no control over its rear echelon functions, it will be less likely to oppose Federal policy. By stension, this means they won’t be able to refuse orders…or…stop a civilian coupe.

Under these prognosticated conditions, it wouldn’t be hard for a future President to over-step their Constitution authority. None of the 50 State governments would be able to refute or oppose any Federal mandates. It’s quite likely that CRC members would hold too much power over them. Federal forces (military) could easily be used to bring rogue elements back in to line. Loyal judges would have no trouble justifying the State’s actions.

This may seem like a lot to expect for such a modest proposal. Even so, it’s worth noting that small beginnings can eventually result in larger outcomes. If we allow the Federal government to assume so much authority that it endangers the private sector, we risk losing our economic freedoms. If we should allow our national defense to become trivialized and of no threat to power-hungry leaders…we will have only ourselves to blame.…

Interesting thoughts Justin. Personally, I interpreted it as meaning hiring more mercenaries. As I posted in another thread, these "civilians' don't operate under the normal 'rules of engagement'.

Private contractors - winning again.

im an asshole
and as an asshole i think your probably useless to your country

maybe you can join the over polpulated length of inventory





mu ha

The Civilian Reserve Corp idea sounds to me like a way for the government force individuals (who otherwise can't be) into doing their bidding.

I also agree with the mercenary post....Bush can't hardly state that they want mercenaries, so it only makes sense to 'reword' his true intent.

Either way, he gets what he needs.

I'm not so sure I disagree with the mercenary thing though, these individuals are experts at what they do ( more specialized training than the average soldier), choose to do it, and get paid well. If there were more mercs, we would only need minimal troops over there to 'ensure democracy' after the mercs have wiped out whoever the government had deemed a 'threat'.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should be there at all.....but we are, so it may as well get done the right way.

As far as a Civilian Reserve Corp.....I'm sure there are people beating down his door to volunteer for 'a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time'. *eyeroll*


He sure does try.

Originally posted by sky1

I'm not so sure I disagree with the mercenary thing though, these individuals are experts at what they do ( more specialized training than the average soldier), choose to do it, and get paid well. If there were more mercs, we would only need minimal troops over there to 'ensure democracy' after the mercs have wiped out whoever the government had deemed a 'threat'.

Do you think it's right though that 'mercenaries' are paid $150,000 while the official military get paid $25,000 to do similar jobs?

It's just more money for big business in my eyes.

It's true that the CRC would allow the Federal government to develope a mercenary force. The long-term implications are that it could be used to supplement the U.S. professional military in combat support roles. This cadre could be a very political arm of the government's work force.

In time, the CRC could extend its reach into civil service. Non-combat and rear area functions, which would affect the professional fabric of the military. In time, the miitary could be incapable of opposing a civilian takeover. While this could mean that the the army wouldn't be capable of its own coupe de-tat, we would effectively be at the mercy of the people in charge...because...their would no longer be a nationalist military to keep them in check.

When it comes to the civil service, CRC implications can be much more sinister. Political correctness can be taken to a whole new level. Imagine a doubleing or tripling of the current Federal civil service in just one decade. By 2025, we might wake up to find that Uncle Sam is the country's number one employer. Bearing in mind that Federal officials don't have to worry about profits, we could see a lot of people on the roles...just to ensure their loyalty.

I guess all that you say is possible, but I just got the impression the CRC would be made up of ex-military who could be doing things like equipment repair, supply functions, personel jobs, medical services and the like. He wasn't very specific on the roles they would take. I cant see them running around with helmets and rifles shooting and killing. They would be to hard to control that way. I do see the concern that the government would be one of the major US employers and thus have a loyal voting block, but if you think about it, big corperations have the most influence on our gov. anyway, so whats the diff?

It's true that corporations have a lot of juice. Trouble is, that government is supposed tobe seperate. If the CRC blossoms in to its fullest potential, there will be little difference between corporations and government. In effect, the Federal government will be a not-for-profit corporation in its own right, answerable to a very small board of directors and group of investors. The fact of the matter is that the Civilian Reserve Corps represents another power grab. One more step down the long road toward an all-powerful unitary executive. Tyranny.

posted by Justin Oldham

President Bush called for an increase in the size of the U.S. military . . ask Congress to authorize an increase in our Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years [up from today’s 780,000] . . he also pitched an idea that sent a shiver down my spine . . A second task is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps . . [it] would function much like our military reserve. It would allow the DoD to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad . . [it] would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the “defining struggle of our time.”

The [Bush43] CRC would allow the Federal government to develop a mercenary force. FDR set up the Civilian Conservation Corps to put Americans to work during the worst of the Great Depression. I’m sure that’s what we were supposed to be reminded of when Mr. Bush spoke those words. There is just one problem with that idea. In today’s world of politics where the goal is to achieve total power, we run the risk of having a “Civilian Reserve Corp” become much more than a new form of civil service.

I foresee our elected officials will exercise even more jurisdictions than they do today . . In my published work, I've predicted a near future situation in which the Federal authorities have [assumed] almost total power . . the Federal government [has] become the largest employer in the nation. The growing bureaucracy would constitute the largest pro-government voting block in the country. Patriotic laws, warrantees investigations, and verdicts from military commissions would all serve the interests of the [Bush43] State as [secret] agents of Homeland Security carry out the bidding of their masters.

1930s Germany had the Brown Shirts - the SA - and Italy’s Mussolini had the Black Shirts - the Fascistia. History teaches that industrialized tyrannies always need to keep their national armies on a short leash. In most cases, this has meant the introduction of political officers as overseers and propagandistic indoctrination programs for officers and enlisted personnel. [See USSR and PRC].

America’s 21st century post-industrial military is undergoing a slow but methodical transformation into a politicized armed force. CRC members could assume many non-combat support roles. If the professional core of the armed force has no control over its rear echelon functions, it will be less likely to oppose Federal policy. By extension this means the general officer corp won’t be able to refuse orders or stop a “civilian” coup . . CRC members would hold too much power over them. Federal military forces could easily be used to bring rogue elements into line. Loyal judges would have no trouble justifying the [Bush43] State’s actions. [Edited by Don W]

We are running out of time to “Give Peace a Chance.” In 2001, the covert Neo Con president Bush43 declared “perpetual” war on terrorism. VP Cheney has used those same words. Nowadays, with the public’s enthusiasm for eternal war status on the wane, we don’t hear that but in its place we are now told it will be either decades or generations long. We can’t do that.

We must find a way to seek out, arrest and try those who commit acts of violence against others. We cannot afford either financially-wise or liberty-wise to follow the Bush-Cheney Doctrine. I have said it before, the US is like a drunken sailor wobbling down the street, trying to find an opponent worthy of his prowess and strength. America is looking for an enemy worthy of our armed might!

The CCC was aimed at unemployed urban youth. In the 1930s, there was never a shortage of work to keep young people busy, on the family farm. The pay was $30 a month, but the CCC man had to send $25 home to his parents. In many instance, that would be the only cash in the house. The CCC were clothed, lived in small barracks, and were fed, all at government expense. The $5 was more than adequate for their limited opportunities to spend. If you ever visit any of our National Parks, you will find much work was done by the CCC and was so well done, it is still used today. 70 years later. We got our money’s worth in more than 1 way!

For unemployed adults, the New Deal offered the PWA - Public Works Administration and the WPA - Works Progress Administration . I confess I do not know the reason for 2 agencies apparently both building roads, bridges, post offices, Federal courthouses and TB sanatoriums as well as such resorts as the Timberline Lodge at Mt. Hood. Although FDR did not do much for America’s blacks, he did do the one thing he could, he ordered equal pay for equal work regardless of race or color, on all Federal jobs. A first step albeit a tiny step.

I do wish we could find some way to be critical of the current occupants of the White House and overlords of our Federal bureaucracy without the constant bad mouthing of “government” or of “the Federal government.” To the extent we do not or cannot keep the reality the institution of government, and the temporary leaders of it separate, we are following-on the propagandists theme of bashing all government, blaming all faults on “government” and working their way towards an end result I do not care to speculate on.

Foot Note: The German SA. Brown Shirts. Sturmabteilung. Storm Division. Headed by Ernst Rohm who was murdered by Hitler.


[edit on 1/25/2007 by donwhite]

I have to admit, I was a little hesitant to mention the SA. The idea is just that repellant to me. It's not enough for us to think poorly of the flawed men and women who intend to lead us in to unwanted tyranny, we've got to understand that much of what we blame on government stems from the rules and regulations that make so much of the bad stuff possible.

As it currently exists, Federal civil service does not reward good character. Many of the rules that are sold to us as moral and ethical are only in place to perpetuate the culture of corruption that actually exists. We need more that just a better class of people in government. We need better rules and regs.

posted by Justin Oldham

As it currently exists, Federal civil service does not reward good character. Many of the rules that are sold to us as moral and ethical are only in place to perpetuate the culture of corruption that actually exists. We need more that just a better class of people in government. We need better rules and regs. [Edited by Don W]

The US Government expanded exponentially during the 1930s and 1940s. Such agencies as the Army Mapping Service which had a large facility in my hometown, got going in a big way by 1941. Military installation around the country began to get ready for the coming war. Can you imagine constriction to house 13 million men under arms? The new FHA - Federal Housing Agency - which set building standards around the country and process loans by the10s of 1000s. A second FHA - Farmer’s Home Administration - did a similar thing for people on the farm. A new Department of Agriculture which now graded all farm produce, so that we are so accustomed to buying high quality produce that we think God did it that way. Not so, it was the New Deal. National parks. Yes, they existed before 1933, but it was during the 1930s that we made them what they are today. REA. Rural Electrification Administration. Prior to 1933, fewer than 10% of America’s farms were electrified. After 1945, the number was reversed, 90% of our farms had electricity. It was not just money. I have relatives who had lots of money who did not get electricity until 1946. The private utilities did not have the foresight to run the wires. Before 1933, most rural roads were dirt. Impassable when it rained. The New Deal had a Farm to Market Road project. By the 1950s, in my state of Ky, you could hardly find an unpaved road. Private enterprise was not responsbile for any of this. Yes, they did the work for the most part, but it was the government that had the ideas, that laid the plans, that thought out and designed the systems.

It just gripes me to no end to hear people gratuitously bad-mouth the greatest government in the world!

will people apply to the CRC or will be a selective service type deal?

posted by Stewart Lewis

Will people apply to the CRC or will [it] be a selective service type deal? [Edited by Don W]

US Con. Art. 2, Sec. 3. “He shall from time to time give to the Congress information on the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient . . “

President Bush was laying down the gauntlet for the next two years of cut and slash politics between Capitol Hill and the White House. I do not think he had any misconception that anything he said in the S of the U speech would carry any weight with the Congress. The 2008 campaign is under way!

He forgot (on purpose) to mention New Orleans, Katrina or FEMA, all of which are still alive and sadly, not over yet. He is telling those people they are off his radar. Yet, he found it easy to ask for $10 billion for Afghan. Poppy growing was not allowed by those religious fanatics in Afghan. The Taliban. We killed the fanatics, and the poppy growing begins. We’ve been “mucking” around in Columbia for 30 years. Yet coc aine gets cheaper and more plentiful every year. You know without being told that Bogota has made an accommodation with the coca producers. It is no wonder conspiracy buffs claim our leaders are working more for the high profit drug traffickers than for ordinary citizens. It does make you wonder.

The current practice of hiring “civilian contractors” is so expensive for the US taxpayers, we are about to go bankrupt. Soldiers who could speak Arabic - not many - were persuaded to get released from the Army an join defense contractors who then supplied the same persons back to the Army, but this time, raising their pay from $3,000 a month as a soldier to $15,000 a month as a private contract employee, and billing the US taxpayers $30,000 per month for each Arabic speaking translator. We cannot continue to wage this struggle against violence on the terms Bush43 set forth. We cannot afford it. We must stop flighting dumb and learn to fight smart.

After the grand disillusionment of the public with the management of the conscript Armed Forces in the Vietnam War (1960-1975), we gave up on any effort to solve those problems and settled instead on a novelty for the United States: Maintaining a large and permanent hired army which in other times were called “mercenaries” - men who fight for pay - but which they thought it better to call a “volunteer” or “all volunteer” Armed Forces. Mercenary is not a four letter word but it is much more difficult to arouse public support for an army of hired gunslingers than to do so for an army of patriotic citizen soldiers going off to die for country and flag.

The Civilian Reserve Corps is DOA - dead on arrival!


[edit on 1/26/2007 by donwhite]

I can appreciate Don's point of view. Even so, I am concerned about what the Civilian Reserve Corpse could become...if it gains the support of the powers that be. throughout history, all unitary regimes have had their own cadres of loyal and cared for rank and file 'members.'

Don is correct to point out that the CCC had more altruistic motives, but htat was then and this is now. You can see the difference in the name. Civilian Conservation Corps. While it may be true that the Federal government has become the employer of the unemployable, we've still got to look out for the national future by questioning the start of something that could one day turn malignant.

If the trend I've predicted remains unopposed, the next U.S. President...whoever that is...will NOT give back any of the unitary powers that Mr. Bush has gone out of his way to assume. It's a matter of known fact that most ATS members can atest to that the U.S. government has rescended fewer than one percent of the laws and programs it has enacted. This is why I worry.

posted by Justin Oldham

Civilian Reserve Corps: Threat or Fantasy?

President Bush on January 23 gave his 2007 State of the Union address. As expected, he called for an increase in the size of the U.S. military.
Tonight I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years.

Oops, Posted by Mistake



[edit on 3/7/2007 by donwhite]

Hello, Don. I think what you're looking for is down the hall and to the right.

I brought this matter of a CRC up for discussion because it's just one more possible chapter in our looming dark future. I'd be happy if it never came to pass. Nobody wants to be wrong about all this "stuff" more than I do.

posted by Justin Oldham

I brought this matter of a CRC up for discussion because it's just one more possible chapter in our looming dark future. I'd be happy if it never came to pass. Nobody wants to be wrong about all this "stuff" more than I do.

OK. You were right and timely to bring it up as most of us skimped over the insides of the S of the U speech. We go there with a pillow handy. A timer set for 30 seconds sends a jolt of low voltage electricity into my arm and I shout and clap 21 times, then return to snooze land. Waiting for the next jolt. Or my fellow traveler to tell me “It’s all over. We did not declare World War Three.”

The SA. Sturmabteilung. German for Storm troops. The Brown Shirts, as compared with Mussolini’s Black Shirts which served roughly the same purpose - to put one man into total power. Led by Ernst Rhom as Chief of Staff, he was a man who had his own ambitions. Hitler got there first!

The CCC. Civilian Conservation Corps. I believe they wore green uniforms so could have been called Green Shirts. I never heard that, so I’m merely offering it as an unfounded hypothesis. The CCC was ended before its time in part because of the bad reputation the quasi military organization of young men around the world were gaining. Silver shirts in America, and Blue Shirts in Ireland. It was not a good time to be known by the color of your shirt.

[edit on 3/9/2007 by donwhite]

Thanks very much for the imput. Seems that more and more people are deciding that to take a look at my stuff. I'll admit that becuase i haven't been able to spark a disucssion on this topic, I was loath to make the comparison that you just did. Thanks for being the one who did it.

The "bureaucratic tradition" exists in our government to create a loyal following as Don pointed out. The examples he used seem like they happened so long ago, but we are talking about hateful groups that marched less than a century ago. today's government might put its own spin on such recruitments, but the fact is that today's ambitious politicians will be hard pressed to avoid use of this tool as the U.S. economy unravels.

The Civilian Conservation Corps was mandated to put the unemployed to work in an effort to head off possible militancy. It's worth noting that SA leadership in the 1920's realized similar benefits. It's not unreasonable to sugges that we need to be on guard. Today's mass employment strategy can result in tomorrows "cadre." If we don't talk about this now, we may not be able to talk about later...unless...you're behind the wire with me.

posted by Justin Oldham

Thanks very much for the input. Today's government might put its own spin on similar recruitments, but the fact is today's ambitious politicians will be hard pressed to avoid use of this tool as the U.S. economy unravels.

The Civilian Conservation Corps was mandated to put the unemployed to work in an effort to head off possible militancy. It's worth noting that SA leadership in the 1920's realized similar benefits. It's not unreasonable to suggest that we need to be on guard. Today's mass employment strategy can result in tomorrow’s "cadre." If we don't talk about this now, we may not be able to talk about later . . unless . . you're behind the wire with me. [Edited by Don W]

I was a small child when the CCC came into existence. I have one older cousin who was in the CCC. He turned out to be a very great guy, was the highest racked member of my extended family to serve in WW2, reaching E7. Oh, and he was the only one to be a Conscientious Objector. CO as they stamped his 201 file. In 1 inch tall bold black letters. Yes, it is a free country. But you sometimes pay a penalty for exercising that freedom. Like so many CO’s, he was a medic, who served in Operation Overlord.

I have been to one CCC camp which is still preserved and used by the Harrison County Forest Service near Corydon, Indiana, 30 miles outside Louisville, Ky. It had three buildings; an administrative building with one office and a small room for the person in charge. Another building large enough for 10 men to sleep in an open bay, with a toilet at one end. The 3rd building was about the same size, and had a kitchen and tables to eat around.

The CCC cleaned out the undergrowth and removed the dead branches, leaves and cut down dead trees. The built trails or paths through the forest. They built a half dozen stone barbecue grills in a flat area overlooking a gentle bend in the Ohio River, along with a shelter house for groups. They installed wooden privy’s, and ran water to the shelter. They built a nice road into the forest from the main highway. Well, I could go on. We sure could use a CCC today.

In the mid-1930s, was there any potential provocation by America’s unemployed youth that pushed through the CCC idea? I don’t know. I never heard that but it surely could be true. Recall the riots of the 1960s?

[edit on 3/9/2007 by donwhite]

To the best of my knowledge, none of the labor disputes that occurred during the Second World War--or in its immediate aftermath--was of a scope, scale, or magnitutde to provoke a radical youth movement. It's true that there was a lot of strike busting, but no real social backlash came from those incidents.

I'm not sure that very many political leaders of the period fully appreciated or understood what kind of political fulcrum they had at their disposal. I don't think they "got it" until the post war period. then, as they dissected what went on in Germany and inside Soviet Russia, they began to see the power of the cadres. Anti-Communist films from the 1950's suggest to me that then and only then was the American political establishment aware of the power of cadres.

It's quite possible that some organizers during the 1960's came to understand the power that could be at their disposal through their experience with Peace Corps projects. Te 'chance' to being implementing the idea once more didn't resurface until the 1990's and the start of Americcorps during the Clinton administration. It may very well be that the success of his small-scale program allowed poliitcal elites inside the government to once more see the potential leverage value of a modern cadre. Funding issues may still be causing them to move slowly.

Those modern State sponsored cadres that still exist grant their governments and bureaucracies cosndier pwoer over the populations of their respective countires. That's because they represent a loyalist voting block that will almost always be guaranteed to steer the official vote tallies in whatever direction the elites most desire. As Federal power continues to centralize, I have few doubts that U.S. leaders will rethink their use of cadres.