Do you think CAP is part of the military and why

[JK657]

For those who think CAP is military does that mean ROTC and JROTC are real military as well? What does CAP do that would make it military that those two other groups don't?

[Eclipse]

For those who think CAP is military does that mean ROTC and JROTC are real military as well? What does CAP do that would make it military that those two other groups don't?

Whether or not some other organization is "military" or not is irrelevant to CAP.

[spacecommand]

I think of CAP as the CIVILIAN Auxiliary. If we were military than we would be subject to the UCMJ. If we were military then we would probably have some issues with 12 year old cadets. We act as PART of the military at some points (during a SAR mission) but we are only an auxiliary. I think of it as the Police Explorer program. As an Explorer are you a police officer? No, but you might dress in the same uniform, carry some of the same gear, ride in a patrol car, etc. The phrase "civilian auxiliary" sums us up well. My 2 cents anyway. 

I don't think anyone is trying to say we ARE the Military, but like I said depends on what the OP means or how you define "PART OF" the military.  Being "part of" can mean many things.

I agree with Major Carrales, it is ambiguous on how you phrase it. 

Also just because you are a civilian doesn't mean you cannot be "part of" the military.

In regards to your case about Police Explorers, certainly police explorers or even meter maids, crossing guards, civilian crime scene technicians, etc, are not Police Officers,  however are they not "part of" the Police Department they serve?

[billford1]

I have heard more than on AF Officer tell me that the AF considers CAP as having a place in their Total Force Structure.

[spacecommand]

For those who think CAP is military does that mean ROTC and JROTC are real military as well? What does CAP do that would make it military that those two other groups don't?

I don't think anyone is trying to argue "CAP IS THE MILITARY" , the question has more to do with "part of the military", however it depends on how you define "part of the military". 

I certainly don't think of myself as a military officer.  I do think of myself as a civilian volunteer with the Civil Air Patrol and I'm proud to assist in any way I can in Cadet Programs, Emergency Services and Aerospace Education. 

[ZigZag911]

CAP is part of the Air Force.

It is the civilian auxiliary of the USAF (please let's not bog down in discussing MARS!)

That doesn't make the organization or its members military personnel as such.

Perhaps one could say that CAP is affiliated with the Air Force.

[Major Carrales]

For those who think CAP is military does that mean ROTC and JROTC are real military as well? What does CAP do that would make it military that those two other groups don't?

Whether or not some other organization is "military" or not is irrelevant to CAP.

Well said, Eclipse, the constant specious comparisons to other organizations is a common fallacy that many CAPTALKERS fall into.  What happens in the Armed Forces (unless directly related to CAP), JROTC/ROTC, Coast Guard Auxiliary, the Boy Scout or the Knights of Columbus (the list could go on) is more to be "contrasted" than "compared" when it comes to CAP.

Those organizations are fundamentally different in purpose, intent, history and organization.  When we try to make those structures fit into CAP or vice versa, there is the potential for incompatibility and, in CAPTALK at least, undo argument.

I think the premise behind this thread has been a bit divisive with little substance.

 

[RiverAux]

We can learn from any organization and how it does things.  Just because they are different from CAP does not mean that they don't have anything to teach us or that we could teach them. 

However, you are correct that their legal status has no bearing on CAP's. 

[JC004]

We can learn from any organization and how it does things.  Just because they are different from CAP does not mean that they don't have anything to teach us or that we could teach them. 
...

Can you get that message to those who are way behind on things like marketing and technology?

[Major Carrales]

We can learn from any organization and how it does things.  Just because they are different from CAP does not mean that they don't have anything to teach us or that we could teach them. 

However, you are correct that their legal status has no bearing on CAP's.

As with all things, we can learn...but we are held by or regulations, traditions and the realities of the organization.  I cannot, however, support efforts that would restructure the whole of the National CAP because people want it to somehow morph into a clone of some other organization.

I find no fault with your second point.

[FW]

Sparky, everything can change.  Regulations change every time the NEC and NB meet.  Traditions change with the passing of time.  And, realities change with the winds.  Even public law changes from time to time. 

IMHO, what matters is that we, as an organization and collective membership, need to be successful.  Our association with the Air Force fills part of that need.  However, there is much more to the equation than that.  And, the continued threads on uniforms, missions and, governance mirror our continued fight for betterment. I see no problem with this.  In fact, I think it shows how dedicated we are to CAP and, our Air Force relationship. 

[Major Carrales]

Sparky, everything can change.  Regulations change every time the NEC and NB meet.  Traditions change with the passing of time.  And, realities change with the winds.  Even public law changes from time to time. 

IMHO, what matters is that we, as an organization and collective membership, need to be successful.  Our association with the Air Force fills part of that need.  However, there is much more to the equation than that.  And, the continued threads on uniforms, missions and, governance mirror our continued fight for betterment. I see no problem with this.  In fact, I think it shows how dedicated we are to CAP and, our Air Force relationship.

Again, I don't mind natural change as per the passing of time to meet the needs of 1) the changing mission, 2) organization needs to accomplish the missions and 3)  the membership, who insure the organization operates to accomplish the missions.

Change for change sake, wasteful "pet project" or "organization envy" are not proactive motivators of change for CAP.  If that were the case, then the Army should change to be more like the Air Force because 1) there needs to be CHANGE in the Army, 2) the new Secretary of the Army likes the "cut of the USAF JIB" and 3) it works quite well for the Air Force, why not change the Army to reflect that success?  See, how ridiculous such thinking can be?

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Considering the answer is both "yes" and "no', an individual's way of responding is probably more important than their answer.

Anyone who answers in one word doesn't know enough about the evolving situation to have an informed opinion.

Those people who assert too forcefully that CAP is part of the military don't "get it".

Those people who assert too forcefully that CAP isn't  part of the military don't "get it".

Better than anything I could come up with.

[FW]

Change for change sake, wasteful "pet project" or "organization envy" are not proactive motivators of change for CAP.  If that were the case, then the Army should change to be more like the Air Force because 1) there needs to be CHANGE in the Army, 2) the new Secretary of the Army likes the "cut of the USAF JIB" and 3) it works quite well for the Air Force, why not change the Army to reflect that success?  See, how ridiculous such thinking can be?

Of course, change without purpose or vision is basically chaos.  However, there is a developing opinion among the senior leadership of CAP we need to change the way we administer ourselves.  Our "relationship" with the Air Force is strong and binding however, there is growing confusion on how we do business, who is in charge and, how we govern.  It may be a reason the OP started the thread. 

In my opinion, I think we will see more significant change in the near future.  Think of it as natural evolution due to our continued confusion of who we are and how we operate. 

[flyboy53]

Change for change sake, wasteful "pet project" or "organization envy" are not proactive motivators of change for CAP.  If that were the case, then the Army should change to be more like the Air Force because 1) there needs to be CHANGE in the Army, 2) the new Secretary of the Army likes the "cut of the USAF JIB" and 3) it works quite well for the Air Force, why not change the Army to reflect that success?  See, how ridiculous such thinking can be?

Of course, change without purpose or vision is basically chaos.  However, there is a developing opinion among the senior leadership of CAP we need to change the way we administer ourselves.  Our "relationship" with the Air Force is strong and binding however, there is growing confusion on how we do business, who is in charge and, how we govern.  It may be a reason the OP started the thread. 

In my opinion, I think we will see more significant change in the near future.  Think of it as natural evolution due to our continued confusion of who we are and how we operate.

Agreed.

Part of the confusion in our organization has been in the search for missions or as is referred to as our "customers."

Performance of some of those missions fundimentally changed how we function and perceive ourselves as an organization. For example, you saw little changes that effected a degree of rumors like the third evolution of the command patch. I didn't realize it until I read it in some Air Force guidance, that it was the Air Force that directed the removal of "Air Force Auxiliary" from the tails of the airplanes and the command crest because those aircraft and uniforms would be used in the performance of counter drug missions.

So our organization may evolve as missions change and that evolution may be further complicated with changes in defense spending or budgets.

But even the Air Force has changed dramatically over the past two decades. Whole commands were inacttivated and others were restructured as missions and assets changed. Who would have thought three decades ago that there would be things like a ccyber warfare command?

[ol'fido]

IMHO, CAP is a CIVILIAN auxialiary that is "ASSOCIATED" with a military service.

Uniforms, regulations, D & C, C & C, etc. do not by themselves make one "MILITARY".

CAP IS NOT ARMED. Any member of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or Coast Guard when push comes to shove can have someone shove a rifle in their hands and tell them to "GO FIGHT!".That is what what makes the difference between military and civilians. The UCMJ, US Code, Geneva Convention, regs and manuals are imperfect instruments. That's why they have JAG lawyers to interpret and argue them. But anyone who joins the "ARMED" services should not be surprised if they are told to go to war and fight. That includes medics, chaplains, bandsmen and anyone of the 90% of the military whose jobs do not include direct combat. You've heard the saying, "Every Marine a rifleman." Well, include soldiers, sailors, airman, and coasties.

CAP is not military.

[Flying Pig]

My answer...No.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

That includes medics, chaplains, bandsmen and anyone of the 90% of the military whose jobs do not include direct combat.

Non-concur.

Bandsmen, yes.  At need they can be ordered to put down the trumpet and pick up an M-16.

Chaplains are not combat personnel under the Geneva Conventions. (Protocol I, 8 June 1977, Art 43.2)  Captured chaplains are not considered Prisoners of War (Third Convention, 12 August 1949, Chapter IV Art 33) and must be returned to their home nation unless retained to minister to prisoners of war.  The United States does not require Army, Navy (who minister also to Marine and Coast Guard personnel) or Air Force chaplains to bear arms.

However, Chaplain's Assistants can be required to bear arms.

Combat medics, like Navy Corpsmen, can and do bear weapons.

Physicians can be issued weapons for defensive purposes only.

[HGjunkie]

Combat medics, like Navy Corpsmen, can and do bear weapons.

Do PJs fall under that classification?

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Combat medics, like Navy Corpsmen, can and do bear weapons.

Do PJs fall under that classification?

I would say so.