Roundtable on Proposed Civilian Reserve Corps

[Beelzebubalicious]

Thought this report would be of interest to forum readers. Note that the CRC would "consist of experts from state and local government, as well as the NGO community and the private sector, who have skills lacking in sufficient numbers in the USG - from police trainers to city managers." CRC members would receive several weeks of orientation and training....which one roundtable member disagreed with, saying CRCers would require extensive training...

In Roundtable on Proposed Civilian Reserve Corps, CSIS Senior Associate Dane Smith highlights the challenges for the U.S. government in building a civilian reserve corps to manage future stabilization and reconstruction operations. The paper summarizes the discussion from an experts’ roundtable held at CSIS on July 18, 2007.

http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/...dtable_crc.pdf

[Abu Suleyman]

The problem I see with this is the same as the one the military reserve and the current "active" civil service has. No one wants to be 'ordered' to a long term deployment. I personally know of many people who would gladly take a 'Busmans holiday' as it were, of several months.

The problem is that the government has totally destroyed its credibility in this arena by sending people on 3 month, (or in the case of some pitiable Naval Reservists I have met 2 week) deployments that turn into 15 month deployments! The situation now is that people believe that if they sign any contract that is deployable for the government they have to be willing to deploy the entire length of their contract or go to jail. Who is going to sign up for such a thing, on the civil side, since they have already passed on the military option. State department flunkies are already telling Sec'y Rice to pound sand as far as a deployment to Iraq. Even if we had such an organization, who would join it?

This may be why companies like Blackwater are having no problem with recruiting, even though it is for the same job. It is a job that people know that they can leave at any time.

[120mm]

The problem I see with this is the same as the one the military reserve and the current "active" civil service has. No one wants to be 'ordered' to a long term deployment. I personally know of many people who would gladly take a 'Busmans holiday' as it were, of several months.

The problem is that the government has totally destroyed its credibility in this arena by sending people on 3 month, (or in the case of some pitiable Naval Reservists I have met 2 week) deployments that turn into 15 month deployments!

My Reserve unit deployed to Iraq in 2003 on Annual Training Orders. And served 13 months.

That screws over the family in ways one can barely imagine.

[goesh]

I think it would be a whole lot simpler and easier to up the Defense budget - I'm not partial to civilians mixing and mingling and meddling too much in military/fighting business in this manner. The Guard and Reserves are military attachments and different than this concept. Many city managers and the like are political hacks who would sell their mothers for a vote and have no business rubbing shoulders with professional fighting men on an equal basis with and for input and direction, essentially Command functions. That's my civilian .02 worth anyway.

[Kerguelen]

... but what about in other parts of the government that are deployable? I'm thinking specifically about intel agencies. Perhaps this is beyond the realm of discussion here, but we haven't seen anything in the press about forced deployments or extensions of our analytical intelligence staffs overseas.

Have they found a rotation model that could be applied to a civilian response corps?

For civilian involvement on overseas missions what is the necessary model?

Is longer term (1 year plus) engagement necessary to build the relationships, know the culture, have an impact, or are shorter rotations in country possible?

Can the development/coin/stability issues be worked from Washington (or wherever else) as well as on the ground a la intel analysis?

[TheCurmudgeon]

Interesting idea but I don’t see it as viable as described. First, it will be biased. I had a commander in Afghanistan whose mantra was “Don’t try to solve Afghan problems with American solutions.” That is what you will have here. Second, it relies on one-year deployments. This means that each individual will learn the lay of the land, who to trust, how to work, etc. for the first six months of the time they are there. Just as they are getting good they are out the door replaced by someone else who has to learn it all over again. Finally, to be truely effective they need to be on the ground right behind the combat forces. The article claimed that was "a bridge too far" but I don't think so if you choose the right people and you tie them in correctly.

How about this: Create a professional corps who are educated "officers" (foriegn service, military, or otherwise) who receive additional training via the UN and/or other countries who have done nation building operations. Tie them into the military from day one of planning. Have them “virtually deploy” by communications links so they are apprised of the situation on the ground from the start and as the security situation gets better they can come out for visits to meet with the locals. Keep them on the same project for the long run, no retraining a new team every ten months. This way there is no learning curve, relationships get built, and the locals get the feeling that they matter and that they know someone who can help. Augment them with part time specialists if you need to but don't depend on part time help to get the job done.

Either way I see the concept as critical to our managing the future world political environment. Might as well invest in doing it right rather than trying to do it “on the cheap”.

Besides, the Army already has something like this. It is called Civil Affairs, which is staffed primarily with Reservists.

[Beelzebubalicious]

New article on the CRC in the Washington Post today. Not much new in it, but I did find a link to the real S/CRS web site with a lot of good information on CRC, etc.

It's at: http://www.crs.state.gov/

[selil]

New article on the CRC in the Washington Post today. Not much new in it, but I did find a link to the real S/CRS web site with a lot of good information on CRC, etc.

It's at: http://www.crs.state.gov/

I had an uh oh moment when I read the following:

There's a job for you at the Civilian Response Corps, the State Department unit designed to deploy with or shortly after U.S. troops in world hot spots. The corps is designed to be a kind of international Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. officials said, an agency that would take charge of entities including local police, courts, the banking system and airports after states collapse or governments are defeated. President Bush's fiscal 2009 budget proposal allocates funds to expand what until now has been little more than a pilot project.

FEMA? Currently FEMA is run over by military law enforcement types rather than emergency managers and response types. If FEMA can't figure out the difference between fire hoses and bullets what do you think the chance an International version is going to do better?

"We must focus our energies beyond the guns and steel of the military," Gates said in a November speech. "Based on my experience serving seven presidents, as a former director of CIA and now as secretary of defense, I am here to make the case for strengthening our capacity to use 'soft power' and for better integrating it with 'hard power.' "

Unfortunately while they talk about "soft power" versus "guns and steel" they are implementing it as a form of military response.

Egads. As the NRF is moving it's way through the halls of inadequacy I'm amazed that what appeared to be a good idea is already being squished before it is born. I like the idea of a civilian response corps... Where are the civilians?

[PRT interest]

All,

I tagged this with the PRT discussion, but this work is evolving into an argument for a more robust PRT effort (more funding and more manpower) and supported by a Civilian Reserve Corps that is established within USAID, once USAID has been removed from the Department of State and actually given some teeth to do reconstruction / nation building in cooperation with DOD and DOS. Here's a quick run down:

I enlisted in the Army Reservists last year and have not looked back since. I am approaching my first deployment to Iraq and am aiming to finish this paper on the aspects of a Civilian Reserve Corps in support of the PRTs "underfunded and undermanned" effort within the next few weeks. I'm basing this on my observation that there are thousands of Americans (40,000 apply to the State Department every year for foreign service or civil service positions, but only 20% get picked up) who also want to do their part for their country in a non-military, non-peace corps, nation building capacity.

This is a long and ardous paper, but if anyone has any recommendations, I would greatly appreciate them!

Best,

PRT interest

[PRT interest]

Well, for better or for worse, the paper is done. Here are the conclusions I reach:

1. H.R. 1084 and S. 613 do much in beginning the framework for a CRC; however, stronger legislation is needed to insure that C/CRS has the coordination capabilities across 18 USG agencies

2. Funding, the fact that the administration requested about $240 million (up from $7 million in '07) suggests that they're taking a hard look at this, but...

3. More funding is necessary (as always). The Congressional Budget Office and Gary Russell (C/CRS) suggest that approximately $600 million is needed, with an appropriated $75 million per year after that based off a 4,250 Readiness Response Corps (ARC, SRC, and CRC).

4. I favor a more robust, stratified CRC. The currently legislation calls for 500 within a year following the passage of the law with an eventual goal of 2,000 private sector individuals who would sign up for 4 years and deploy for at least 1. I am trying to make the argument that there is a population of Americans out there who want to serve their country in a non-military capacity in Iraq or Afghanistan to assist in nation building. Using just those who apply to DOS every year: that's between 20,000-40,000.

5. As a former intern (DOS '05, who's already been cleared), it baffles me that there is no mechanism, similar to the Peace Corps, to engage a younger demographic, train and develop them for a future life of civil service. Again, modeled on a Peace Corps contract, but in augmentation of the PRT efforts, I have found numerous college degree holdoing, 22 - 50 yr old professionals who want to get involved, but just don't know how.

6. Therefore, I advocate double the number of the CRC to 4,000 with 1,000 slots reserved for training and developing the next generation of civil servants. I estimate (still working on this) that it would cost a couple hundred million more for a grand total of: $750 - 800 million.

7. This should take the strain off DOD, DOD civilians, and give the PRTs a recruiting pool to replace the 800 folks doing a hell of a job over there with qualified/experienced professionals.

8. There are many training venues: NDU, Navy Post Graduate School, FSI, and even the MCAC (3 week Civil Affairs course for mobilized reservists at Ft. Bragg). Even though the consensus is that a 20 week CA AIT is superior to a 3 week crash course, a more robust curriculum using these 4 sites can be established over the course of 4-5 months.

9. 1 year deployment + 5 months training

10. The CRC CANNOT be a function of the DOD. Even though the DOD has significant resources, the essense (Plato throwback) of the CRC is not military. It is soft power and therefore a function of the State Department. The prejudice against the DOD from NGO's both national and international is palpable.

11. Thus, there is a niche for a fully funded CRC in DOS under the C/CRS for long term and short term policy measures.

Thoughts?

[Beelzebubalicious]

Hey PRT interest,

Interesting conclusions. Thanks.

Nothing that more money or people can't fix, eh? I'm being a bit snide, but would be interested in seeing more attention played to inter-agency coordination issues. I know they're thorny, but they're real. Policy change helps, but it's more than that.

question - what happened with the USAID angle you mentioned in a previous post? Has that been deep-sixed?

Regarding number 5, I posted earlier about volunteers for peace. I wasn't aware it was so large and I don't know anything more than I posted, but it does seem like an attempt to mirror or replace the Peace Corps.

Regarding 10, has the CRC been recently proposed to be part of the DOD? I thought that was settled awhile ago.

[Ken White]

...It is soft power and therefore a function of the State Department. The prejudice against the DOD from NGO's both national and international is palpable.

not only the NGOs...

That's a serious comment by me, BTW. That really needs work -- and yes, I know DoD is a big part of any solution to that disconnect.

Also seriously; good points in your post. I'm not conversant enough with the details of the effort to make intelligent comments but the points you raise make sense to me.

[MountainRunner]

PRT Interest,
If possible, could you share your paper? I'm interested in your discussion on the topic having spent some digital ink in the area myself.

A couple of quick comments on your conclusions.

First, soft power isn't the exclusive domain of the State Department. Soft Power, as it was envisioned sixty years ago before the "soft power", or "public diplomacy" for matter, was coined, was the domain of USG and was outside of the State Department's control. Your comment is common and endemic but also damaging and self-limiting. The belief that it's State's role is a manifestation of the last couple of decades.

Second, you mention ARC and SRC, but your conclusions focus on CRC. CRS is, by design and necessarily, a whole of USG coordinating body that provides a hub for mobilizing and tasking experienced and very capable professionals already on the USG payroll across the USG. Was this an oversight in your summary or do you intentionally focus more on the "temp help"?

Third, requirements today an into the forseeable future means personnel system changes and USG-wide departmental support for joint activities are required. This means a Goldwater-Nichols-style change to require cross-polination if you will, to the betterment of USG not only in foreign response but arguably domestic response as well. Have you looked at that?

Fourth, despite CRS objections to the Peace Corps analogy, I understand your concept despite its connotations. I suggest, as would CRS, using a descriptive model based on the National Guard instead. Regardless, you don't mention, which may be in your paper but absent from your summary, job and other protections NG personnel enjoy but haven't been worked out for CRC. Perhaps this is why you used the Peace Corps as an example, but many more qualified individuals will have jobs and families they need to think about and require knowing they'll have a job when they return from their deployment. NG has Soldier Sailor Relief Act / Servicemembers Relief Act. Do you propose anything for CRC?

Just my $0.05 (inflation and fuel surcharge).

-Matt

[PRT interest]

Again, this is a work in progress, so thank you so much for your feedback.

For this paper, I wanted to see if there was a "niche" capacity for a private sector (non-USG employee) CRC. Apparently, the ARC and SRC are only for USG interagency employees. Having studied the "evolution" of the IC and the NSC, I can see where much more needs to be done in terms of inter-agency coordination, command and control, etc... For now, that is a management issue that I don't even want to touch. Here I am concentrating on a concrete argument on behalf of a more robust, stratified CRC.

Regarding the DOD issue: apparently the only thing that is holding up S. 613 in the Senate is one Senator put a hold on it, which is a rule of the Senate that gives Senators the ability to delay debate of the issue on the floor. From mentions posted on this thread and from conversations with staffers in some of the committees relevant to this issue, that Senator believes a CRC is a function of the DOD, namely because DOD has the resources... However, the Congressional Budget Office seems to be confident that this legislation WILL pass by the end of the fiscal year. It probably will be snuck into the Defense spending bill so it will go through, but the big concern that it will be a poorly funded attempt and will ultimately flop...

Regarding the Peace Corps analogy, many others brought up the NG idea. The issue I have with it (again, I'm 24, so think young professionals) is that my generation loves to call the shots. They'll go, but on their terms, like a Peace Corps contract (2 years). But they have to be able to be deployed like the NG, so I guess, ya you're right, this needs to be more of a hybrid approach.

Unlike the PC, which throws you out in the middle of nowhere, members of the CRC could hypothetically add to a more robust PRT effort since it is "underfunded and understaffed" (HASC report). But where do you find them?

For starters, I'd go through the old DOS and DOD interns... These folks (yep, I'm one of them) have already been cleared and have obviously expressed some interest in serving their country. It just seems odd to me that the USG has spent time recruting, screening, selecting, clearing, training, and placing interns at high levels of government and then says "thanks." Or worse yet..."dear sir or madam either you don't have a master's degree or are not a US citizen" so you can't serve in the civil or foreign service. It is absolutely frustrating, and I wonder how many people have been turned off by that approach. Just getting a rejection letter from iraqjobs.gov or usajobs.gov takes at least 6 months and there is no clear indication why you are not selected for a position so you can improve the next time around. Now I fully understand that you don't want to throw novices at a serious situation like what the PRTs are facing; however, who is going to take the place of the 800working in Iraq now? They can't be there forever and it seems like the USG is scrambling to find "suitable" candidates.

So I am hoping that the idea of a more robust, stratified CRC will win over some thinkers. Instead of just 2,000 private sector members (first responders, city managers, etc...), I'd like to double that number to provide the PRTs with flexibility. This doubled number would include 1,000 mid-senior level private sector personnel and 1,000 entry-level slots. So there would be 3,000 mid-senior level private sector experienced members and 1,000 entry level to augment the 2,000 SRC (USG employees) and 250 ARC (USG employees) for a grand total of 6,250 members in a READINESS RESPONSE CORPS, which hopefully, can augment the PROVINCIAL RECONSTRUCTION TEAMS in the future...

Gotta run, but I'll address the other comments in my next post. Please by all means chew this logic apart. Thank you again for all your feedback.

Lastly, I'll figure out a way to make the paper available through the admin or whomever.

Best!