Obamas Security Force
On 2 July 2008 then Senator Obama made a speech in Colorado Springs, CO in which he referenced a civilian national security force. Listen to the You Tube video:
"We can not continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
(bold face is mine).
Using Wikipedia for a definition of National Security, we find:
National security is an undertaking lower in complexity only to the international security. It directly or indirectly encompass much of the national public administration. At its basic, national security can be divided into internal national security and external national security.
Internal national security is concerned with ensuring state legal codes are not transgressed, and prevention of attacks on public infrastructures and their personnel by implementing civil defense and emergency preparedness measures (including anti-terrorism legislation), and ensuring the resilience and redundancy of critical infrastructure. This also includes using counterintelligence services or secret services to protect the nation from internal threats sponsored from the outside. The executive authority for internal national security is the expression of political power, preferably through democratic process of selecting national leaders. Internal national security is also the management of national finances free from economic problems that can lead to large scale public dissatisfaction with the government, and public disorder through protests.
External national security is generally the scope more often associated with national security in democratic states. It encompasses national border security as a means of immigration control, national environment security where the environmental threat originates from sources external to national territory, territorial waters and airspace, and assurance of international trade safety through the state borders. Further removed from the national borders are the external security concerns derived from measures taken by other states or non-state groups to directly or indirectly, through use of economic instruments, interrupt, damage or attack economic systems that would adversely influence national quality of life, resulting in an Economic warfare. If an economic conflict can not be resolved through diplomacy to rally allies and isolate threats, it generally escalates into a larger and more acute military conflict that necessitates maintaining effective national armed forces. It is usual that armed conflicts threaten territorial integrity of states, and require development of a military doctrine as part of the national defense policy that guides armed forces posture, and the concepts, methods and technologies that are to be use in securing the preventing loss of this integrity.
External national security generally requires using intelligence services to detect and defeat or avoid threats and espionage, and to protect classified information.
The range of his community service initiatives was outlined in an earlier American Thinker article. In his campaign document entitled "The Blueprint for Change: Barack Obama's Plan For America,"Obama's "Service" section runs a close second to "Education" in complexity. But, with his Colorado Springs' statement, it grabbed first place in its projected costs to taxpayers. Obama did the cost projection himself.
He plans to double the Peace Corps' budget by 2011, and expand AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, VISTA, YouthBuild Program, and the Senior Corps. Plus, he proposes to form a Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps, Global Energy Corps, and a Green Jobs Corps. Here a corps - there a corps - everywhere a corps corps.
Careys' interpretation does make a lot of sense. On his website Change.gov, Obama lists many of the proposals he had listed in his Blueprint for Change, including those listed in the second paragraph of Careys statements.
Presenting another view, Joseph Farrah, at WorldNetDaily asks, "How is it possible their (Democrat) candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?"
Personally, I find this a perfectly valid question taken in context with his first half of the statement, "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set." In the accepted definition of National Security; what relevance would any of the listed programs have? What are his "National Security Objectives"? Are they like American Thinker imagines, civilian activity on the homefront? Or as Obama says:
"Because the future of our nation depends on the soldier at Fort Carson, but is also depends on the teacher in East LA, the nurse in Appalachia, the after-schoolworker in New Orleans..."
But the words "future of our nation depends" has a whole different connotation than the phrase "rely on our military in order to achieve national security objectives that we've set". Perhaps if some where on his website he had explained just what his "National Security Objectives" were, attempting to decipher his meaning would be easier. Perhaps in his mind there is no distinction between National Security and Domestic Affairs?
How does the term "Civilian National Security Force" equate to a Peace Corps worker or Americorps volunteer? What, in any of his new programs, can be defined using the term National Security? Is this just muddled thinking on his part?
He goes on; "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" The military as of FY2008 had a budget of $583 Billion with 1,436,642 persons on active duty and 848,056 on Reserve duty. (National Guard figures not included) Are we to assume we will have a "civilian security force" of 2,284,698 + individuals added to the federal workforce? And an additional bill to the taxpayers of $583 billion+? To perform what missions? Powerful? In what context is he defining powerful? Compared to our existing military, which is the context in which this statement is made, are we to imagine armor and artillery?
Obama majored in Political Science with a specialization in International Relations at Columbia University, and graduated Magna Cum Laud from Harvard School of Law where he was also President of The Law Review. He taught law at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years. Obama was elected as a US Senator in 2004 and served in that capacity since then. While a Senator he sponsored legislation such as legislation to control conventional weapons, nuclear terrorism, and care of returning American soldiers.
Given his qualifications, we know he is a man trained and capable of critical, logical and precise thought and speech. Used to writing legal briefs he is fully cognizant of the importance of concise writing. No credible person has ever said Obama was not incredibly intelligent. In other words, I believe he meant exactly what he said.
Just as a question of curiosity; What National Security Objectives can possibly exist that our military cannot be relied upon to achieve?
Comments