A Stability Police Force for the United States

I read most of the responses on the first page and some members are asking why this is being "adviced", the thing is that you can find at least some of the answers in the report itself, such as..

Our analysis clearly indicates that the United States needs an SPF or some other way to accomplish the SPF mission. Stability operations have become an inescapable reality of U.S. foreign policy. Establishing security with soldiers and police is critical because it is difficult to achieve other objectives—such as rebuilding political and economic systems—without it.

They are talking about the need for such a force INSIDE THE U.S....so why would they need to "rebuild the political and economic system" of the U.S.?...and why do they advice such a new force to be used INSIDE the U.S..?

They mention that such a force has been used with success in countries like Bosnia, and Kosovo.... but they are apparently talking about using the same tactics that were used there by the Russians, and the U.S. under Clinton to "stop the rabble"....

Reading more you can find the following...

i apologize for the long excerpt but this is extremely important, and it is certainly more important than some news which can be found in BAN such as "beauty queen goes on seal hunting"..... i have to wonder why some people post those articles in BAN.... Anyway..

The cost of not fixing this gap is significant. The United States will continue to experience major challenges in stability operations if it does not have this policing capacity. These challenges include creating the ability to establish basic law and order, as well as defeat or deter criminal organizations, terrorists, and insurgents. In some cases, allied countries may be able to fill this gap. Allies did this effectively in Bosnia and Kosovo, both of which were successful in establishing security. In other cases, the United States may not be able to count on allied support. The United States should not depend on allies to supply these capabilities, because doing so would limit U.S. freedom of action on the international stage. Consequently, the United States should seriously consider building a high-end police capacity.]

The report recommends that these police would not only have a role in foreign lands but also in the United States:

The ability of SPF personnel to act in a law –– enforcement capacity while in the United States. One important aspect of the return on investment from an SPF option is what SPF personnel do when not deployed. Given that an SPF will be deployed one out of every three years at most for active duty options and one out of six for reserve options, whether its members can perform law enforcement functions and so contribute to domestic tranquility and homeland defense when not deployed will have a major impact on whether an option is cost-effective. Two categories of options—military units and contractors—cannot do so under current statutes and regulations.

In particular, for the MP option to be as cost-effective as possible, relief from the Posse Comitatus Act [which forbids the US Army from being used in law enforcement in the United States] would be required to permit its members to perform domestic law enforcement functions. The issue of contractors performing law enforcement functions is moot (our only contracting option does not consider a standing contract force, but rather one hired as needed) and would probably be insurmountable if it was not. Furthermore, as noted in our DOTMLPF discussion, working as police officers would greatly contribute to the state of training and readiness of SPF personnel. MPs can do this on military installations, but contract personnel would not so act at all.

The report goes on to say that this Stability Police Force should be placed under the US Marshal Service because that will make it easier for it to have domestic US responsiblities.

Given that it is unlikely that MPs would be permitted to perform civilian policing tasks in the United States, the USMS, despite its capacity and management shortfalls, is the agency best suited to take on the SPF mission under the assumptions of this study. Placing the SPF in the USMS would place it where its members can develop the needed skills under the hybrid staffing option. Furthermore, the USMS has the broadest law enforcement mandate of any U.S. law enforcement agency and many of the required skills, though it would need to increase its capacity significantly. Furthermore,the Department of Justice stands at the center of the rule-of-law effort, with lead roles in policing, judiciary, and corrections efforts.

yidwithlid.blogspot.com...

Phew...so they have discussed this many times as noted on the report, and like Obama and Emmanuel Rham have said they have wanted to make such a security force also from civilians....

So we know that they have in mind to change the politics, and economics of the U.S., this apparently would incite many Americans to revolt, which they call insurgents, and these people want to increase the military/police option so that they can quell any rebellion by U.S. citizens....

Don't you love this?... (sarcastic)

The people who wrote this, and were part of these reports should be at the least put in jail and branded as traitors to the U.S..... thats if those who made this report are from the U.S.,. because they are also thinking about asking for help from allies to stop such a citizen rebellion....so it is not unthinkable that they also have advisers from other countries.

What the hell are our Senators doing?....



[edit on 13-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]