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.

[Jedburgh]

GAO, 6 Nov 07: Actions Are Needed to Develop a Planning and Coordination Framework and Establish the Civilian Reserve Corps

The office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS) is developing a framework for planning and coordinating U.S. reconstruction and stabilization operations. The National Security Council (NSC) has adopted two of three primary elements of the framework—the Interagency Management System and procedures for initiating the framework’s use. However, the third element—a guide for planning stabilization and reconstruction operations—is still in progress. We cannot determine how effective the framework will be because it has not been fully applied to any stabilization and reconstruction operation. In addition, guidance on agencies’ roles and responsibilities is unclear and inconsistent, and the lack of an agreed-upon definition for stabilization and reconstruction operations poses an obstacle to interagency collaboration. Moreover, some interagency partners stated that senior officials have shown limited support for the framework and S/CRS. Some partners described the new planning process, as presented in early versions of the planning guide, as cumbersome and too time consuming for the results it has produced. S/CRS has taken steps to strengthen the framework by addressing some interagency concerns and providing training to interagency partners. However, differences in the planning capacities and procedures of civilian agencies and the military pose obstacles to effective coordination.....

Complete 60 page report at the link.

[MountainRunner]

I had an interesting one on one (well, plus PAO) w/ Amb. John Herbst, the head of S/CRS, last Monday. Details to come now that I've recovered from a hard drive crash... Yes, this was a tease. On the GAO report, note the letters from CRS and DOD etc describing the report as out of date and describing a Dec '06 CRS.

[Xenophon]

I for one think this a great idea. Just because the details are difficult to work does not mean the concept should be scrapped. It should be worked until a viable model can be proposed.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I have had civilians on my TDA before but not in an MTOE unit. Lets suppose we actually wanted to imbed a team like this into a DIV or BDE level CMOC. Make them an actual part of the MTOE so that we (the Army) could pay and equip them. They could either be "loaners" from thier parent department or they could be civilians we hire specifically for the task. My question is, is there a way to do that within the current regulations?

[selil]

If I sign up do I get a gun!!!!! <- Marines everywhere will get the reference

[Ron Humphrey]

If I sign up do I get a gun!!!!! <- Marines everywhere will get the reference

But I think I get it too

[Ken White]

If I sign up do I get a gun!!!!! <- Marines everywhere will get the reference

For fun...

[MountainRunner]

CRC isn't mil, it's civ. In all, there are three levels to this concept, CRC actually being the lowest tier. Some details:

First is the ARC: Active Response Corps. Small, QRF (<48hrs), 100% of force (today: 10 people, target: 250)deployable up to 1yr, of USG civil servants that includes engineers, rule of law-types (lawyers, police, judges, etc), economists, public admin, health, ports, city planners, agronomists, etc. Heavily integrated with military, but civilian. Constant training when not deployed.

Second is the SRC: Standby Reserve Corps. Larger, ~2000, only 10-25% deployable, train a few weeks out of the year. Civil servants, FSOs, etc.

Third is the CRC: Civil Response Corps. ~500 'prototype' in near future, to be much larger. Civil service and private individiuals. Modeled after military reserve system but without the legal protections (i.e. no guarantee of a job to return to). 25% deployable at any one time, up to 1yr deployment, 4yr "enlistment", Presidential decision req'd for deployment. Trained as civilian teams to work alongside the military.

[selil]

So MountainRunner the ARC and SRC are current government employees I get that and it makes since. Hoever, the CRC are deployable for upt to a year on demand (at any time), have no legal protections (or soldier sailor act), are being deployed likely to hostile combat zones, and they would sign up for this why?

[MountainRunner]

Yes, there's the rub. I wish I posted on this last week, perhaps tonight if I get the chance. Why indeed. That's the question I asked after getting my answer if the CRC members would be covered by the same laws as NG etc. CRC will be the "peace corps with clout". The idea is to tap the "adventurous spirits" that want "to change the world for the better."

BTW- DoD is prepping for their version if the CRC falls through.

Aside: AFRICOM is looked as the big opp for S/CRS, and by extension CRC. The money has finally been allocated, now they need auth to spend it. SOUTHCOM is interested in a greater CRS presence. BTW, the entire (overt) American presence in Darfur is CRS.

[TheCurmudgeon]

: ...
BTW- DoD is prepping for their version if the CRC falls through.

Aside: AFRICOM is looked as the big opp for S/CRS, and by extension CRC. The money has finally been allocated, now they need auth to spend it. SOUTHCOM is interested in a greater CRS presence. BTW, the entire (overt) American presence in Darfur is CRS.

I guess I am a cynic. The only way I see this working is if DoD runs it. Even better if these teams are available to the military during planning and while units train. Best scenario in my mind is that that at least some of them are organic to certain units.

[Penta]

There is, IMHO, no way in hell such a setup as is posited here (especially the setup posited by MountainRunner) could work -without- a USERRA equivalent.

Nobody in their right -mind- would consider joining up for such a thing -unless- they had a guarantee (with teeth) that they would be able to return to what they were doing before being called up.

This is particularly acute for any position requring specialized training - why the hell would you bother?

If you don't focus on experience, just warm bodies with training, in my mind you edge in the Peace Corps's niche. So why have the Peace Corps? (And, real-world: Why the hell would a peace corps type sign up for something that sends them into hellholes? Or did none of the staffers who wrote that part up notice that PCVs are among the first people we pull out of a country?)

And this only extends the problems of C2...Who controls these folks? What legal system are they under? Local (which may not exist)? UCMJ (Somehow, I do not see that flying if they don't get at least similar conditions as active military personnel, just a hunch)? Something entirely different?

Edit: Oh, yeah. How do they fall under the Geneva Conventions?

[Norfolk]

Edit: Oh, yeah. How do they fall under the Geneva Conventions?

Now that could be very interesting, and a real problem in the event of their capture. This is not an entirely workable proposition, at least not as it is presently composed. And the political and diplomatic fallout that would follow from CRC types being captured, and that in turn being used against the US Government (and American public) might range from damaging to devastating.

[Ron Humphrey]

Now that could be very interesting, and a real problem in the event of their capture. This is not an entirely workable proposition, at least not as it is presently composed. And the political and diplomatic fallout that would follow from CRC types being captured, and that in turn being used against the US Government (and American public) might range from damaging to devastating.

I asked several attendees at the recent COIN conf what they thought about the possibility of Reserve and NG being given the opportunity to be government employees civilian side as their fulltime jobs, thus allowing them to be deployed for mil service but also to go as civilians in the off time.

On the benefit side you would be able to maintain longer term consistency in ops awareness, and they would still be accruing time towards fed retirement.

There would be the problem of pay differential though and I guess along those lines is where we would find most the issues with something like that.

Most of those I talked to didn't think it would fly.