It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by deessell
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.
Originally posted by Justin Oldham
...“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.” ...
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. The 'chance' to be 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 political 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.
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 magnitude 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.
Those modern State sponsored cadres that still exist grant their governments and bureaucracies considerable power over the populations of their respective countries. 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.
I really am glad to see that there is some life left in this old thread. I'll grant you that this is a problem we won't actually have to face until late in the next decade, but I do still think it’s a real threat to the citizenry of this country. It's not always fun to be ahead of your time.
Originally posted by donwhite
Any hope for a general uprising in America to protest or push back an excessive grab for executive power rests in the LEAST admired group in America, its long suffering and always loyal BLACKS! Maybe we (whites) should take a person of color to dinner this Sunday?