It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama: 'Civilian expeditionary force' can aid wearied troops

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Obama: 'Civilian expeditionary force' can aid wearied troops


rawstory.com

US soldiers in combat could use an assist from a civilian workforce while trying to rebuild war-torn nations, President Barack Obama said Wednesday.

Speaking at a town hall in Racine, Wisconsin, Obama called for sending a "civilian expeditionary force" to Afghanistan and Iraq to help overburdened military troops build infrastructure. His remarks were first reported by The Associated Press.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Isn't that why Halliburton and Xe and their ilk are there? I'm not sure exactly where his thought processes are going with this, but it struck me as odd.

Seems to me he's rationalizing it all out in his head the fact that we are already doing this more than saying we need more?

Then again, there's this:


Department of Defense Directive 1404.10, dated January 23, 2009, set up a "Civilian Expeditionary Workforce" that would "be organized, trained, cleared, equipped, and ready to deploy in support of combat operations by the military; contingencies; emergency operations; humanitarian missions; disaster relief; restoration of order; drug interdiction; and stability operations."


so maybe it's a cost-cutting measure. Not sure exactly what to make of this. Sounds a bit like that civilian mandatory service thing to me.





rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Code words for Draft?



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
code words for private contractors. "ie hallaburton and XE "blackwater""



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


now I see your reply. lol


Yea after bush they banned blackwater so they changed there name to XE. Now Obama wants them back out there to some degree.


Since they rather rebuild another country instead of the USA "we have just as many issues as the rest of the world" they should just give our tax dollars to the locals there and have them rebuild wtf bush destroyed.

[edit on 1-7-2010 by robbinsj]

[edit on 1-7-2010 by robbinsj]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by robbinsj
 

That's what I was thinking...either it's rationalization to continue the practice or to continue the practice less expensively with more of the slave variety of labor.

Either way, I'm thinking the former (big dogs already doing this) will stop the latter (conscripted labor). They simply have too much influence.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
The Army Corps. of Engineers is over there and that is one of the missions.
To help with engineering and develop projects. I wouldn't exactly call them "slave labor"



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Everything is getting privatized. Now our military is being privatized. A strange form of socialism that has never been tried. Sending in the non-experts is not a good idea. Imagine if you were drafted to be the president of the United States.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
This is an obamanation.

It's all fine and dandy until this civilian expeditionary force starts to get blown up by IEDS, gets sniped at, get kidnapped and killed. They're going to make juicy targets for the terrorists or the freedom fighters.

Millions are about to have to evacuate the Gulf Coast, and where can they go if they don't have money or family to take them in? They have a choice to either die, go to a fema camp, or go to Iraq or Afghanistan


'The Gulf Oil spill was an accident'

BS



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 

True. Poor choice of words. But they are government workers and I'd bet a lot that they make a heck of a lot less than Halliburton and Xe employees. Their wages are probably more on par with the military's.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadySkadi
The Army Corps. of Engineers is over there and that is one of the missions.
To help with engineering and develop projects. I wouldn't exactly call them "slave labor"


Obama wasn't referring to Military Personnel, he was referring to:


Obama called for sending a "civilian expeditionary force" to Afghanistan and Iraq to help overburdened military troops build infrastructure


CIVILIANS.... Sleeper Agents, and Drones that will provide countermeasures against an onslaught of unconventional warfare as practiced by the Taliban and Al-Quida.

Obama may as well have called for voluntary human shields to provide assistance and other support (such as holding hands and singing cumbaya) to over worked and highly stressed out military personnel

gotta think like a muslim to understand a muslim...



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
Everything is getting privatized. Now our military is being privatized. A strange form of socialism that has never been tried. Sending in the non-experts is not a good idea. Imagine if you were drafted to be the president of the United States.


I'm a little confused. "Sending in the non-experts" what exactly do you mean? Are you talking about private military? or something else. Because again, there are other agencies both gov. and private, besides Haliburton and Xe, doing jobs over there... Many with very good reputations.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by star in a jar
 


Exactly. There have been multiple reported cases where the military is stretched thinner guarding the private contractors over there, and so it seems it's a double-edged sword. And there are still deaths in Iraq. Many. It's still a dangerous place, even inside the green zone.

But I do think it might be cost-cutting might be partially at the heart of it. And I wonder if any of these people would be deployed to support the running of that abomination of a U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and not the "troops."

It just seems odd to me that he would want to send in people who are (I'm assuming) not going to be as well trained as the military to function in what is still a very dangerous area.

Also, this smells more and more like pure colonization to me too. Get more people over there for cross-assimilation. How's that working our for the U.S. and it's interventionalist policies in the Middle East so far. Do we just not get that they don't WANT us there? It's a simple concept.

[edit on 1-7-2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Megiddodiddo
 


1. Corps. of Engineers is staffed civilian.
2. Sleeper agents (and drones) to provide counter measures?
are you serious? I can't decide to laugh or groan at that statement.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 



It just seems odd to me that he would want to send in people who are (I'm assuming) not going to be as well trained as the military to function in what is still a very dangerous area.

Look at it like this - Obama is big on programs like the Peace Corps. and other large scale civilian volunteer agencies. This isn't much different of a concept. The Peace Corps. operates in less than safe environments, as would those sent to help rebuild Iraq/Afghanistan. Presumably, they would be working in areas that are not currently under fire. This [concept] is no different then the tens of thousands of other rebuilding/environment/health and safety/farming and teaching programs going on throughout the world.


Also, this smells more and more like pure colonization to me too. Get more people over there for cross-assimilation. How's that working our for the U.S. and it's interventionalist policies in the Middle East so far. Do we just not get that they don't WANT us there? It's a simple concept.

Possible. But, so far as development goes - do we know the don't want help with that? Better question is, do we not owe them that (should they want it?)
Of course, we all want the military and the fighting to stop.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


The Peace Corps doesn't knowingly or willingly send people to nations where there is war in progress. I understand the concept and the sentiment but think he overstepped himself on this one.

As to whether they want us there, we need only ask. I'm pretty sure they've told us they don't. Many times. In many ways. And a few times to my face. In fact in can be argued that this is why 9/11 happened.

So, yes, it's a double-pronged issue. Send unprepared people into a war zone (though I seem to remember he did allude to people law enforcement volunteers who would donate their time for the good of their nation, I'm sure the vast majority might not be as prepared to be blown up, shot at, hated at any turn.

And I'm not saying that all people of Iran or Afghanistan would be unreceptive or uncivil. But enough are and would be to make this a very big concern. The majority don't appear to want the cultures to class or assimilate. Some might. But I'm just not sure the cost of trying to force this is worth it.

[edit on 1-7-2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
A "civilian expeditionary force" comprised of US citizens building infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Should I skip the wait and add the 2 more stars to the flag now?



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss
Code words for Draft?


Code word for "We need actual skilled professional with years of experience, who weren't hastily trained by the military. Sure, there i s a chance you could get hit by an IED, bombed, or shot, but you'll be getting paid 200,000 a year."



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by RestingInPieces

Code word for "We need actual skilled professional with years of experience, who weren't hastily trained by the military. Sure, there i s a chance you could get hit by an IED, bombed, or shot, but you'll be getting paid 200,000 a year."


Actually, this is probably a more realistic scenario.
More so than the Peace Corps. analogy.

[edit on 1-7-2010 by LadySkadi]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


Yes...that's what I inferred too, partially if not entirely from the statement about law enforcement. Targeted skills...leave of absence from job...all that.

However, for example, we have spent hundreds of billions training both the Iraqi and Afghani militaries and law enforcement already, so how and why are they attempting to justify a need for these skills at this late date?

[edit on 1-7-2010 by ~Lucidity]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join