December 7, 2009

Think the Armed Forces Might Save the Republic? Think Twice

MG819.jpgHere's a cheery little document that looks at the costs and benefits of a national police force. Sound familiar?

A Stability Police Force for the United States: Justification and Options for Creating U.S. Capabilities "Security requires a mix of military and police forces to deal with a range of threats from insurgents to criminal organizations. This research examines the creation of a high-end police force, which the authors call a Stability Police Force (SPF). The study considers what size force is necessary, how responsive it needs to be, where in the government it might be located, what capabilities it should have, how it could be staffed, and its cost. This monograph also considers several options for locating this force within the U.S. government, including the U.S. Marshals Service, the U.S. Secret Service, the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) in the Department of State, and the U.S. Army's Military Police. The authors conclude that an SPF containing 6,000 people — created in the U.S. Marshals Service and staffed by a “hybrid option,” in which SPF members are federal police officers seconded to federal, state, and local police agencies when not deployed — would be the most effective of the options considered. The SPF would be able to deploy in 30 days. The cost for this option would be $637.3 million annually, in FY2007 dollars."
A free PDF is available at RAND | Monographs | A Stability Police Force for the United States: Justification and Options for Creating U.S. Capabilities

Isn't it heartwarming to know that your government is looking at the means for keeping any untoward eruption among the population under control?

UPDATE: Sherlock in the comments observes,

According to the Rand site, it is dated "2009". So, want to bet there won't be boo about this in the media? Now do a thought experiment: what if it had been dated "2008".

Posted by Vanderleun at December 7, 2009 11:00 PM
Bookmark and Share

Comments:

HOME

"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.

It can't happen here. Wanna bet! The 800 pound gorilla in the room is how many people would roll over and surrender their sovereignty in the event of a Reichstag fire....er I mean crisis.

Posted by: bill at December 8, 2009 8:08 AM

According to the Rand site, it is dated "2009". So, want to bet there won't be boo about this in the media?

Now do a thought experiment: what if it had been dated "2008"?

Posted by: sherlock at December 8, 2009 8:31 AM

"...to deal with a range of threats from insurgents to criminal organizations.

Yeah, right. Hide your bibles, folks.

Thought-police for the New Era.

Posted by: Robert at December 8, 2009 9:23 AM

The Obots do have a vexing problem: how can cowards control people who are not? They are working on it.

Posted by: james wilson at December 8, 2009 10:24 AM

Don't underestimate the socialist, communist, or any other zealot. History is replete with this evidence. Once they realize their heads are at stake, they'd have no problem getting others to do their "dirty work". And those others are growing larger in population each day.

Posted by: JD at December 8, 2009 2:52 PM

The pertinent question is; are members of the Armed Services really going to go the institutional way of the Wehrmacht (as apparently planned) or will they hold to their oaths to defend the Constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic?

The blitzkrieg rate with which the Statists are openly immanentizing the eschaton at all structural levels of our Republic speaks to their desire for a Fort Sumter moment they can exploit.

The tell will be related to whether individuals remain steadfast in honoring their allegiance to the Constitution rather than to some post-patriotic reinterpretation of their oaths by neo-aristocrat vanguards who feel backed into a corner by some [manufactured] crisis that threatens their power.

Posted by: monkeyfan at December 8, 2009 3:29 PM

monkeyfan...
"The pertinent question is; are members of the Armed Services really going to go the institutional way of the Wehrmacht (as apparently planned) or will they hold to their oaths to defend the Constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic?..."

I think it is more basic than that: Rather than rely on enough of the military to oppose this threat to our Constitution, what are we as individuals going to do about it?

This is going to require each of us to come up with answers to very difficult questions. Nevermind how much of the military/fed.gov are tied up with these new Brownshirts, at what point do you join the Resistance?

Posted by: azlibertarian at December 8, 2009 3:52 PM

Some others are also worried:


http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

Posted by: JD at December 8, 2009 5:32 PM

WTF???

Posted by: Barnabus at December 8, 2009 6:07 PM

To my mind, 2010 is one decision line and 2012 is another. What we as individuals are prepared to do when our personal line is crossed is up to each of us.

If it really comes down to it, I pray our Republic's institutions still possess the integrity of resistance that Honduras has recently displayed, otherwise it's going to get messier than it needs be.

The Statist calculation seems to be that most Americans will tolerate being bought, boiled, dismembered, and consumed while some "Stability Police Force" can deal piecemeal with the few recalcitrant frogs who've prepared to jump out of the stew-pot and/or choose to resist being boiled alive by upending said stew-pot. Personally I think there are enough American Patriots out there who dwell within the Statist OODA loop to disrupt their plans.

"Many intelligence reports in war are contradictory; even more are false, and most are uncertain."
- Karl Von Clausewitz

The Leviathan is uncertain.

In the meantime I'm prepping my community gulch.
The neo-aristocrats can eat their God-damned glistening web of 'laws'.

Posted by: monkeyfan at December 8, 2009 6:17 PM

On July 2, 2008, Obama gave a speech in Colorado Springs, CO, which included the following, "We cannot 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." http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obamas_civilian_national_secur.html

Exactly who would serve in such a force? Perhaps the New Black Panthers, that wonderful group of civic minded patriots who 'guarded' that polling place in Philadelphia last year, and were let off the hook by Eric Holder's Justice Department? There are also anecdotal reports that U.S. gang graffiti has been turning up in Iraq & Afghanistan, are gang members joining the military to get the training & experience they could then use here at home against the rest of us?

Posted by: Boots at December 9, 2009 11:20 PM

Has anyone here actually downloaded and read the document? I've only skimmed it but it seems that the goal is stability operations in *other* countries (Bosnia and Kosovo are provided as examples) where a full-blown military force is no longer the right tool for the mission. Although there is some mention of using it, the document seems to indicate that it's not likely or even the intent...

"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."

Posted by: zonker at December 10, 2009 11:26 PM

USMS = US Marshall's Service.

The paper discusses using them as the root organization for stability operations within the United States.

FROM THE REPORT:
"An MP SPF could not achieve the same benefit, without relief from the Posse Comitatus Act. Soldiers could not serve in civilian policing capacity to the same extent, and so could not maximize an MP SPF’s tactical suitability rating through the experience to be gained by the hybrid option. If relief from Posse Comitatus were forthcoming, then the MPs could benefit from the advantages offered by this staffing option as well.”

Emphasis mine...

Posted by: monkeyfan at December 11, 2009 11:53 AM
Post a comment:

"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated to combat spam and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.










Remember personal info?