A volunteer civilian reserve component??

[DNall]

I don't know about Coast Guard aux's in other locations, but here the aux are retired coasties and they do not have a youth program.

Most of them big picture are not prior service. We're referring here to the way n which they directly augment CG personnel, stand watches, the whole bit - nothing to do with cadets. On conversation going in other threads to to move CAP up to a point somewhere between that example & the model used by SDFs to augment their state's national guard. Part of that ncludes CAP personnel training for positions, another part is being the holding support structure thru which professionally degreed folks (doctors, lawyers, chaplains, engineers, IT professionals, etc) can deliver services that reduce contractors & free up military resources - obviously that goes beyond using the people we have in house now & involves recruiting many such people to the work. In short, we've already been talking for months about the idea mentioned in the state of the union. As well as some others that latch on beside it. We just need to put it in front of faces.

I don't really have time to lobby right now. CAP leadership needs to get with the prorgram & work out the plan details. Selling Congress wouldn't be too hard - you're offering them something for nothing, the Pres & a whacky dem congressman asked for it, DoD has asked for another part of it specifically mentioning us as the model... it's all wraped up in a nice pretty box. All you have to do is deliver it, which ain't hard.

[DogCollar]

Agreed, Our commander needs to be in Washington...however, Id think CC/ CAP-USAF needs to hold his hand. Considering how we got the CAC-like id card cancelled and how we dont have a vision statment and all. We need less Corporate and FULL COURT PRESS AUXILIARY shoot, can our wing legislative liasions do anything to help this situation too?

According to a story on NPR yesterday afternoon, this was an idea that was sponsored by the State Department in 2004.  Proposed legislation was shot down last year in Congress, establishing this Civilian Reserve Corp, that had a budget line of $25 million.  This "Corp" was to be made up of people with specific nation building skills, such as police, police trainers, lawyers to establish a judiciary system, engineers to design and build infrastructure, etc...

According to the former State Department official interviewed, who took credit for the idea, this force would have NO military mission, whatsoever.  It's main purpose would be to relieve the military from being nation builders, which they are not trained to do.  It received support from the Pentagon, but was shot down in the appropriations process.  The likelihood of it passing this year, because of being in the Presidents speech is slim to non.

[Earhart1971]

The going rate for "Police" trainers in Iraq is about $160K per year tax free, not likely that you are going to get people to "volunteer for free" for that any time soon. 

[DNall]

Yeah that's not what they're talking about. That particular plan calls for a CAP-like org based off the State Dept that trains Civil Affairs & Reconstruction teams. Here at hom in training it would be volunteer, then when called up to deploy you'd get paid a standard rate as a govt employee. It's exactly how Red Cross, FEMA or DMAT works. I don't think you'd be getting 160k though, and any thought by state that they can go about their work w/o being targeted cause they aren't the military is nieve at best. Just like thinking people will do the same work for half the money. It's MUCH more realistic to think you could execute this concept to deploy those people domestically, while having the full-time employees trained up to go overseas. If they don't want to carry the excess capacity specialists, then that's where you dump out recruiting bonuses or use contractors.

The big thing with this is the shift in doctorine from Sec Rumsfeld who had the military dominating state building cause they had the capacity, to now state reemerging & trying to find the capacity.

Point being though, CAP can take those statements & pivot off to offer plans that have enough high level current events backing to get some real notice. Take advantage of opportunities!!!!

[DogCollar]

Yeah that's not what they're talking about. That particular plan calls for a CAP-like org based off the State Dept that trains Civil Affairs & Reconstruction teams. Here at hom in training it would be volunteer, then when called up to deploy you'd get paid a standard rate as a govt employee. It's exactly how Red Cross, FEMA or DMAT works. I don't think you'd be getting 160k though, and any thought by state that they can go about their work w/o being targeted cause they aren't the military is nieve at best. Just like thinking people will do the same work for half the money. It's MUCH more realistic to think you could execute this concept to deploy those people domestically, while having the full-time employees trained up to go overseas. If they don't want to carry the excess capacity specialists, then that's where you dump out recruiting bonuses or use contractors.

The big thing with this is the shift in doctorine from Sec Rumsfeld who had the military dominating state building cause they had the capacity, to now state reemerging & trying to find the capacity.

Point being though, CAP can take those statements & pivot off to offer plans that have enough high level current events backing to get some real notice. Take advantage of opportunities!!!!

Ooops...let's try this again!
Your account of pay for deployment only is how I understood the "former State Department official" in yesterday's NPR interview.  However, he went on to say that this "corps" would not have either a military or domestic role (other than to train to go overseas).  He also said that this idea is likely to go down again in the budgeting process.

[Dragoon]

The concept of using volunteers at home to free up govt civilians to go overseas neglects an important issue.

Most government civilians don't want to go overseas, and can't be made to do so.  Unless they have a "deployability clause" in their employment, they have to volunteer.  (I believe even many DoD employees don't have this clause)

In my time over there, there was a lot of talk about the lack of government civilian nation builders outside of the Dept of State because of a lack of volunteers.

My guess (and it's just a guess) is that this is a way to get volunteer translators, doctors, civil engineers etc that

Are willing to go.
Are cheaper than contractors
We have more legal control over than contractors.

But it's just a guess.  If CAP can get a piece of the action, great.  But if this is a DOS vs. DoD thing, our USAF affiliation will hurt us big time.

[DogCollar]

The concept of using volunteers at home to free up govt civilians to go overseas neglects an important issue.

Most government civilians don't want to go overseas, and can't be made to do so.  Unless they have a "deployability clause" in their employment, they have to volunteer.  (I believe even many DoD employees don't have this clause)

In my time over there, there was a lot of talk about the lack of government civilian nation builders outside of the Dept of State because of a lack of volunteers.

My guess (and it's just a guess) is that this is a way to get volunteer translators, doctors, civil engineers etc that

Are willing to go.
Are cheaper than contractors
We have more legal control over than contractors.

But it's just a guess.  If CAP can get a piece of the action, great.  But if this is a DOS vs. DoD thing, our USAF affiliation will hurt us big time.

Plus, I don't think we have anything to really gain by getting into the middle of intredepartmenta squabbles...especially if the program has little or no chance for funding!

[Pylon]

What about this national Citizen Corps agency?

[Major Carrales]

What about this national Citizen Corps agency?

When I heard about this a while back I said..."hey CAP could benefit from that" and my then Commander toasted it as such.  Never came to fruition!!!

[SAR-EMT1]

The going rate for "Police" trainers in Iraq is about $160K per year tax free, not likely that you are going to get people to "volunteer for free" for that any time soon. 

Yeah... the rate for EMS - not just Iraq but the entire Mid East - is on par with that as well. I would actually go over in a heart beat if I wasnt still in limbo with AFROTC. 

But to flip my own statement 180 degrees: I DEPLORE the fact that civilians are over there making that much when a uniformed military Police Officer makes about 20 grand. - as an example

For the record I think that the entire idea of civie "contractors" for any purpose home or abroad should be done away with. If that means a huge increase in the military size or budget fine. But get the civilians OUT!

[Earhart1971]

The going rate for "Police" trainers in Iraq is about $160K per year tax free, not likely that you are going to get people to "volunteer for free" for that any time soon. 

Yeah... the rate for EMS - not just Iraq but the entire Mid East - is on par with that as well. I would actually go over in a heart beat if I wasnt still in limbo with AFROTC. 

But to flip my own statement 180 degrees: I DEPLORE the fact that civilians are over there making that much when a uniformed military Police Officer makes about 20 grand. - as an example

For the record I think that the entire idea of civie "contractors" for any purpose home or abroad should be done away with. If that means a huge increase in the military size or budget fine. But get the civilians OUT!

160K is not that much, if you don't live to spend it.

[DNall]

The concept of using volunteers at home to free up govt civilians to go overseas neglects an important issue.

Most government civilians don't want to go overseas, and can't be made to do so.  Unless they have a "deployability clause" in their employment, they have to volunteer.  (I believe even many DoD employees don't have this clause)

In my time over there, there was a lot of talk about the lack of government civilian nation builders outside of the Dept of State because of a lack of volunteers.

My guess (and it's just a guess) is that this is a way to get volunteer translators, doctors, civil engineers etc that

Are willing to go.
Are cheaper than contractors
We have more legal control over than contractors.

But it's just a guess.  If CAP can get a piece of the action, great.  But if this is a DOS vs. DoD thing, our USAF affiliation will hurt us big time.

I'm not saying CAP has any part in this particular State Dept program, and certainly we should NOT get between state & defense or any other such thing. That's not the point/ It's a basic concept from which we can pivot & spring forth a similiar idea, citing the President as inspiration.

In our case, we can recruit, train, & manage the necessary specialists & qualified members to augment AF so as to reduce the number of contractors & free up military resources. Slide an employment protection, govt pay rate or reasonable per diem, & contract lcause for forced domestic deployment & you can surge those personnel in during critical periods. That's exactly how an SDF works with the national guard, and I can see very little complaint the AF can take with it, just so long as the quality of people being put up are legit.

[DogCollar]

The concept of using volunteers at home to free up govt civilians to go overseas neglects an important issue.

Most government civilians don't want to go overseas, and can't be made to do so.  Unless they have a "deployability clause" in their employment, they have to volunteer.  (I believe even many DoD employees don't have this clause)

In my time over there, there was a lot of talk about the lack of government civilian nation builders outside of the Dept of State because of a lack of volunteers.

My guess (and it's just a guess) is that this is a way to get volunteer translators, doctors, civil engineers etc that

Are willing to go.
Are cheaper than contractors
We have more legal control over than contractors.

But it's just a guess.  If CAP can get a piece of the action, great.  But if this is a DOS vs. DoD thing, our USAF affiliation will hurt us big time.

I'm not saying CAP has any part in this particular State Dept program, and certainly we should NOT get between state & defense or any other such thing. That's not the point/ It's a basic concept from which we can pivot & spring forth a similiar idea, citing the President as inspiration.

In our case, we can recruit, train, & manage the necessary specialists & qualified members to augment AF so as to reduce the number of contractors & free up military resources. Slide an employment protection, govt pay rate or reasonable per diem, & contract lcause for forced domestic deployment & you can surge those personnel in during critical periods. That's exactly how an SDF works with the national guard, and I can see very little complaint the AF can take with it, just so long as the quality of people being put up are legit.

Okay...(boy, I may be opening a big ol' can of worms!!) After recruiting and training these deployable specialists, should they be fast-tracked through the grades to higher rank, leap-frogging the member who is doing all that is required, and following the TIG for promotion?  Or am I throwing in a needless monkey wrench into the works?

[DNall]

^ needless monkey. I'm highly against all honorary promotions. There's purpose to why the military gives advanced promotions & it has nothing to do with pay or recruiting. We needlessly abuse this system to the great detriment of our membership.

No, we're talking about two parts of a program. One is just like we do with chaplains, extending that to other professioally degreed individuals who may or maynot serve in uniform (at least maybe not the AF-style uniform). The other part is taking people who want to work long & hard on volunteer time to meet the same standards as are required of a short list of positions, then coming up to help with those. This would all be voluntary augmentation on a normal basis, but then when they get desperate & need people they can call you to extended duty with pay, probably at that GS9 level they cover us on for insurance, but who knows. It doesn't particularly have a lot to do with grade, but has a whole lot to do with competency. If anything, I'd say we need to shift our grade system back into line w/ reality. Which would make the guy augmenting closer to the grade, experience, PD level, education, & quality/capablity of the person they are filling for. IE not a LtCol filling a SSgt slot. So NO, no reason to promote anyone.

[DogCollar]

^ needless monkey. I'm highly against all honorary promotions. There's purpose to why the military gives advanced promotions & it has nothing to do with pay or recruiting. We needlessly abuse this system to the great detriment of our membership.

No, we're talking about two parts of a program. One is just like we do with chaplains, extending that to other professioally degreed individuals who may or maynot serve in uniform (at least maybe not the AF-style uniform). The other part is taking people who want to work long & hard on volunteer time to meet the same standards as are required of a short list of positions, then coming up to help with those. This would all be voluntary augmentation on a normal basis, but then when they get desperate & need people they can call you to extended duty with pay, probably at that GS9 level they cover us on for insurance, but who knows. It doesn't particularly have a lot to do with grade, but has a whole lot to do with competency. If anything, I'd say we need to shift our grade system back into line w/ reality. Which would make the guy augmenting closer to the grade, experience, PD level, education, & quality/capablity of the person they are filling for. IE not a LtCol filling a SSgt slot. So NO, no reason to promote anyone.

Actually, I agree with you 100%.  I DO think we probably need to recruit people with "special" skill sets that would serve the organization well as CAP looks at new mission opportunities.  It seems to me that if our organization can project it's services proactively, rather than reactively, it would help.  If we could go to "decision makers" in the government at whatever level is appropriate, and be able to say, these are the skill sets our members have, and this is how we can make a difference for our nation, we would be healthier, and more appreciated, IMHO than always letting "outside" forces define who CAP is!  It's called forward thinking strategic planning.

[DNall]

Ultimately, because they are the decision makers, they will do the defining. However, that doesn't mean we should be waiting around for them to get to it. They have more important things to do & no time or expertise to think outside the box on us. It's up to us to do that for them & bring them ideas they hadn't thought of that build on our historical roles & successes. There's lots of ways to do that, from the direct route to writing articles for the many AF related publications to hoonestly what we're doing right here gets trickled back a bit.

[ddelaney103]

There's an article in today's Boston Globe about Bush's call for service (I saw it in the Early Bird but there is a free registration required to see it at the Globe website).

The short form is they have no details on this and it will probably end up on the junk heap like the other calls for service that weren't backed up with details and funding.

[DNall]

That's the concensus, which makes for the perfect setup to walk in as CAP w/ a low/no cost pivot of a program similiar in concept but designed specifically to help the AF in this time of war when money is being shifted from AF to Army. Not that hard, just take current events & twist them into what can CAP do for the AF or others, which excites decision makers & expands our role.

[SAR-EMT1]

Allow me to Sidetrack the conversation, you just reminded me of something I held dear in ROTC.
As a cadet I received copies of the Early Bird.
Any way CAP is/ could become eligible to receive it?

OK, back on track: anyone want to propose a "generic" letter to our Congressional leadership regarding increasing CAPs use to the country?

I actually would do it, except I'm 21 and not prior service, and I reckon the older prior service folks would be able to say it a "heckuva" lot better then I.    ... though I could be wrong.

[shorning]

Any way CAP is/ could become eligible to receive it?

Linky