GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Details lacking on White House proposal for civilian reserve corps

• 64173
  

  i agree with the creation of the civilian reserve forces since their counterpart participated all their life in fighting and peace keeping mission while this reserve should focus on civil affairs such as literacy, first aid, environmental education, shelter building;medical mission and other similar affair. however i suggest that the civilian reserve will compose of women while the men will take charge of military functions. during the ww II almost all women cater the needs of the men in uniform such making clothes for then, taking care of the sick, social welfare function for the war orphans and the like. it would be of best interest if the men will be be in the combat zone while their counter part will take cahrge of the needs of the headquarters. in this manner abuses will be lessen if so happen that they will caught by the enemy as pow,just like what had happen in irag.

  antonio antonio Posted December 3, 2008 11:17 PM
• 20896
  

  Now I've seen everything. As they say, "And the wheel goes 'round and 'round."

  "Pardons for Service Corp" -- isn't that another name for "McNamara's Ten Thousand"?

  And just how well did that initiative work? While not a charter member, I was a volunteer during the same time and, well to be honest, several of my friends and fellow soldiers did qualify. I remember "Goose," a strapping young fellow offered three months in Cook County or three years in the Army. He gladly raised his hand and was very effective, even if you had to keep an eye on him like any other private.

  Heck, some of those "crooks" weren't all that bad. At least they knew they could have had it worse, and they were even a bunch of fair-to-middling efficiency experts. If you needed something done, they found a way. I know several who went on to retire, even becoming be Sergeant Majors.

  Still, in a time when the establishment says we're making our enlistment goals but quietly lowering education standards, raising enlistment age limits, and preventing the release of soldiers who've completed their national service obligation, I doubt if such a hark back to the good ole days would fly.

  Tip off.

  GovExec.com reader Posted January 31, 2007 12:39 PM
• 20821
  

  If our leaders are this serious about wanting to conduct the fight in Iraq and other places on the cheap, because contractors are costing them a load and they do not want to pay Federal civilian like they pay contractors or military, then why not establish the "Pardons for Service Corp" and recruit from penal facilities? They could probably obtain nearly the same breath of experience they are seeking from retirees and likely could save on the amount paid out because far Labor Standards and practices would likely not apply. Oh, and the prisoners are very unlikely to go on strike!

  GovExec.com reader Posted January 25, 2007 11:15 PM
• 20796
  

  This is another slap at the civil service. We have had two draft-dodging presidents and a VP who had "other priorities."

  I suggest that they all invent a time machine and go back and do their own "service."

  The federal work force has always produced plenty of unsung volunteers for work in or near combat zones. We live in a "flat" world where administrative work can be performed any place.

  GovExec.com reader Posted January 25, 2007 7:58 AM
• 20791
  

  Of course the President is a little light on the details. Why should staffing civilian support differ in details than the war itself?

  But hey, maybe his next idea will be a voluntary Civilian Fund the Deficit Corp. These groups could be made up of wealthy former military and DoD officials turned profiteer and they could donate towards erasing the national debt.

  I'm just sure they will sign up in droves. Maybe the real solution is to just let the Vice President take them all on a hunting trip.

  Mark Gibson Posted January 24, 2007 8:50 PM