What type of military status is cap?

[heliodoc]

WOW aveighter

You think we folks who have already served in the military wouldn't do it again?? Do I Have to stay in the RM and grow old in it?

Do you think the rotorheads and other folks are just waiting our turns to go out in our C182 for glory, again??

Are we 35 to 60 yr olds all soft??  I commend my compadres in far away lands doing the WORK that CAP members all dream of doing with all their 24 and 72 hr gear to take on ALL the insurgents of the world...

It was pretty glorious in the day when a liitle yellow CAP bird took on a sub...YOU think NOC and 1AF would let us do that now??? RIIIIIGHT

Mine and others military service may not rate up there with MR K's but I assure you YOU are out of line to be accusatory to the rest of us who are currently working the wildland fire, ICS, Emergency Service / LE PD / Fire 

We folks serving in these capacities see stuff and practice stuff the average CAP'er can still attain thru study and application

We have just had more of a dose of reality  CONTINUING AFTER military service.  To think that we have not served because we don't drink ALL the CAP Kombat Kool aid is pretty silly in my book.... Get on over to your Congressman and tell him you want CAP at the next rotation of troops in and out of theater.

I fully realize that Mr K is a Viet nam vet.....  why is not still in the military??  Is the only sourcee this forum has for all things RM?? Don't think so.

I am sure that the most of us in the REAL EM  world live outside of comfort zone every day EVEN after real military service

[RiverAux]

Gee, all this hoopla over some comments that there are some practical potential uses of CAP by the AF in a potential scenario that isn't at all likely to happen.

[Flying Pig]

overfed soft back...reporting for forward observer school....SIR>

[PORed]

overfed soft back...reporting for forward observer school....SIR>

lol 

[BillB]

Somewhere in the bowels of 105 Hansell St. is a USAF letter outlining the "Wartime Missions for Civil Air Patrol". I read it a few years ago, but honestly I don't remember much. I di remember that none of the missions might be considered combat missions. More like the original missions for CAP during WW II,  courier service, forstry patrol whatever.
In one post a writer said that the WWII Cadet program was to interest youths into aviation. Bull-oney. You're forgetting that every able male was drafted into the military. The Cadet program was designed to lead the 17 and 18 year old into the USAAC. Look at the study materials for that period. Do you see any mention of commercial aviation? No, the cadet program was a pre-primary Air Corp training program. A recruiting tool if you must. And until the 1990's the CAP cadet program was still a USAF recruiting tool.

[Rotorhead]

Somewhere in the bowels of 105 Hansell St. is a USAF letter outlining the "Wartime Missions for Civil Air Patrol". I read it a few years ago, but honestly I don't remember much. I di remember that none of the missions might be considered combat missions. More like the original missions for CAP during WW II,  courier service, forstry patrol whatever.

What, they didn't plan to have us dropping bombs on nuclear submarines from C182's  ?

[ol'fido]

We'll come in low out of the rising sun and about a mile out we'll put on the music.

Music?

Yeah! We play Wagner. It scares the [heck] out [them].......

[JohnKachenmeister]

Well, if you are all done having fun making absurd comments...

CAP, even according to our Charter, is not and has never been a "Civilian SAR organization."  The SAR we perform is that SAR which the Air Force is directed by Congress to perform.  The Air Force, realizing the cost vs. benefit of maintaining an inland SAR force, has determined that its Auxiliary is the best asset to use in carrying out this mission.

Then, in accordance with our Charter, the Air Force directed CAP to perform inland SAR as one of the "Non-combat missions and programs" of the Air Force that Congress chartered us to perform.

"Non-combat missions and programs," as written by Congress and as carried out by the Secretary of the Air Force, includes combat support tasks.  Our wartime support missions include (as I have listed) light airlift, personnel movement, aerial recon for movement of military convoys, and communications support.  We have accepted recently some other combat support tasks as a result of the VSAF program.

Because we DO perform combat support tasks for the Air Force, we cannot be considered to be "Non-Combatants" under the Geneva Convention.  In this sense, since the definitions of "Non-combat" in our Charter are different than as defined in the Conventions, making any comparison between the two is "Apples and oranges" arguement.

As I stated (even though such statements are ignored in the zeal to appear witty with "Combat Skyhawk" comments) the chances of CAP being transformed into a combat asset are so rare as to be theoretical.  It would only happen as a result of an invasion of the United States by a foreign power, or an action equally catastrophic.

But, as a uniformed force that performs missions for the Air Force, to include combat support missions, we are not purely "Civilian."  Nor are we "Military."

That then, brings me back to the orignal comment I posted in this thread, that CAP is a unique blend of civilian and military that cannot be compared to any other force in any country that I am aware of.  To define us as "Civilian" is inaccurate, and it is clear that we do not meet the customary definition of "Military."

And, thank you aveighter, for a reasoned pause in the hilarity of ignoring a reasoned, if theoretical, debate.   

[Rotorhead]

And, thank you aveighter, for a reasoned pause in the hilarity of ignoring a reasoned, if theoretical, debate.   

Was that "reasoned" part the part where he called anyone who dares to disagree with you (and him) "overfed soft backs"?

Or was the "reasoned" part the part where he concluded that if we didn't agree our  "understanding of history [was] virtually non-existent "?

Or maybe it was where he suggested that not seeing thing your way meant that we felt "embarrassment and constant minimization" toward wearing a uniform?

"Reasoned"? No.  Emotional? Absolutely.

[lordmonar]

No more so then your reasoned response that we are some sort of hero wanna-be's because we happen to have an academic discussion about our status in they eyes of the UCMJ and International Laws.

We are civilians in uniform doing combat support missions.  That makes us combantants....subject to the Laws of Armed Conflict.  In the event of WAR or CONTIGENCY operations we could come under the UCMJ if we accompany military forces in the field.

I don't want that to happen.  I don't think it will ever happen.  But the laws of our land and international protocols have anticipated that it could happen and therefore we do have a certain military status......IN THAT CONTEXT.

[Gunner C]

But, as a uniformed force that performs missions for the Air Force, to include combat support missions, we are not purely "Civilian."  Nor are we "Military."

That then, brings me back to the orignal comment I posted in this thread, that CAP is a unique blend of civilian and military that cannot be compared to any other force in any country that I am aware of.  To define us as "Civilian" is inaccurate, and it is clear that we do not meet the customary definition of "Military."

John

Every one of your points throughout this discussion have been on the mark.  Those who don't understand LOLW won't understand the nuances of them.  You are correct - if the US were invaded and were were fighting on the borders, CAP would be there flying support missions.  Probably not the WW2 types, but those that would be needed to free up our limited combat assets.  If we were shot down by bad guys in friendly territory, we would be combatants (of course, they wouldn't follow the LOLW - they'd just shoot us).

I'm disturbed by those who say if called upon, they'd quit.  Those folks need to find another organization that wears their golf shirts once a week.  Disturbing at best.

Gunner

[Rotorhead]

[
I'm disturbed by those who say if called upon, they'd quit.  Those folks need to find another organization that wears their golf shirts once a week.  Disturbing at best.

Gunner

I'm disturbed by the idea that there are people in this organization who contemplate a time when CAP could achieve glory in battle.

The organization I joined doesn't include that kind of philosophy in its charter. I joined to promote the goals listed therein.

Just because I don't agree with the arguments made in this thread does not diminish my ability to help Civil Air Patrol meet those goals. 

[PhoenixRisen]

I'm disturbed by the idea that there are people in this organization who contemplate a time when CAP could achieve glory in battle.

Up-armor our fleet of 15-pax vans, tear off the rear doors and mount M249s there, and you'd have a sweet set-up - at least in my opinion.  Then there's that 'stinger on the Cessna' idea....

We'd be our own self-sufficient fighting force.  Think about it:  We've got our mech infantry (vans), we've got our aviation...  Now all we need is a Naval element (despite our name / mission being the "air" -- just to be "complete").  We could even see the return of the CAP Airborne Rangers:




Now, lets wait and see who the first person to think I'm actually serious and criticize me about this.

[Short Field]

Why does everyone keep ignoring the wording of our charter and trying to make us into something else?  We are the "civilian auxiliary to the USAF" - not the USAF Auxiliary.  There is a difference. 

Don't get hung up on being able to wear a uniform that looks similar to what the RM wears.  When I was deployed to the sandbox, the GTE civilians wore BDUs without service identifiers or rank.  Just their name.  They were GTE employees - pure 100% civilians with no relationship to the military outside of working on the phone lines.

[Timbo]

Why does everyone keep ignoring the wording of our charter and trying to make us into something else?  We are the "civilian auxiliary to the USAF" - not the USAF Auxiliary.  There is a difference. 

Don't get hung up on being able to wear a uniform that looks similar to what the RM wears.  When I was deployed to the sandbox, the GTE civilians wore BDUs without service identifiers or rank.  Just their name.  They were GTE employees - pure 100% civilians with no relationship to the military outside of working on the phone lines.

Many militias in the middle 1700's were Auxiliaries of the British Army.  They went from an Auxiliary into regulars very quickly during the French and Indian War.  Before the war, the most they did was carrier duty (carrying messages) between the Colonial Governors and other Nations or Colonies.  George Washington stated out in the Virginia Militia as a Major carrying such correspondence as an Officer of the Auxiliary. 

Don't construe the wording of "noncombatant" to mean completely out of harms way, or safe from danger. 

The United States Air Force Auxiliary flew the first aerial reconnaissance over the site in New York after 11 September.  Technically that was a combat area.     

During the late 1950's and early 1960's Florida CAP planes flew over-water patrols checking for Cuban traffic.  When Cuba decided to accept support from the USSR, those planes could have been intercepted if the Russians or Cubans wanted to.

We walk around the issues here.  We are operating under the illusion that we will not put our members at risk, hence the "noncombatant" mission status.  In reality, every time a CAP plane ferries AF generals, material and equipment, we are supporting the defense of the United States.  No.....we don't have guns, and we don't go hunting bad guys, but we operate to defend our Country. 

All it takes to go from one status (noncombatant) to another status (combatant) is an emergency declaration, either by way of an executive order, or a congressional vote.  Honestly, if we were to start combatant missions, they would be very similar to what we already do.  Reconnaissance, radio communications, ferrying and administrative duties (like VSAF).  I would image the Cadet Program may morph into what it was during the 1940's also. 

The days of strapping bombs to the underside of a single engine are long gone.  We would be used as a technical, logistical and personnel relief force for the AF, or what ever agency we would be ordered to support.       

As for those that say "I would leave....", well what are you doing here to begin with?  You may not be performing combat duties, but by way of your service, you are most likely freeing up a military member to perform those duties.  We search for missing aircraft/ people when someone calls the Air Force to do it, so the Air Force can go fight our wars.  Every one of us (CAP Members) that are now serving since 9/11 are serving in an organization that flies aerial reconnaissance of our nations ports/ railways /highways and airspace in search of bad guys.  Today those bad guys are terrorists, tomorrow they may be Chinese.  You are supporting combat and defense missions, EVEN IF YOU DON'T KNOW IT     

[Stonewall]

I'm purely shocked this discussion hasn't been shut down.   

[JAFO78]

I don't know about cadet Williams but I'm so dizzy my head is spinning.




I think I heard this in a song once.

[wuzafuzz]

[
I'm disturbed by those who say if called upon, they'd quit.  Those folks need to find another organization that wears their golf shirts once a week.  Disturbing at best.

Gunner

I'm disturbed by the idea that there are people in this organization who contemplate a time when CAP could achieve glory in battle.

The organization I joined doesn't include that kind of philosophy in its charter. I joined to promote the goals listed therein.

Just because I don't agree with the arguments made in this thread does not diminish my ability to help Civil Air Patrol meet those goals. 

Rather than contemplating the possibility of CAP earning further glory in battle, most of the comments I read discussed the intricacies of international law that could be applied to us no matter what our own laws say.  While the possibility is remote in the extreme, insisting the truth isn't the truth doesn't make it so.

By no stretch of the imagination do I suspect we would be armed and sent out to visit violence upon others.  I don't expect it to happen and I don't want it to happen. 

No need to lock the thread so long as an academic discussion can be had without throwing stones.  My 2 cents worth.

If there is ever a time of need (major earthquake, wildfires, Cylon attack, whatever) I certainly hope all of us, not just CAP members, would rise to the occasion and volunteer to the best of our abilities.  We don't need to become something we aren't, just do something to contribute to the cause instead of sitting on our duffs and waiting for someone else to make it all better.

[Stonewall]

Kind of like the movie Independence Day (1996)?  No doubt in my mind America, as a whole, would stand up and fight.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Why does everyone keep ignoring the wording of our charter and trying to make us into something else?  We are the "civilian auxiliary to the USAF" - not the USAF Auxiliary.  There is a difference. 

Don't get hung up on being able to wear a uniform that looks similar to what the RM wears.  When I was deployed to the sandbox, the GTE civilians wore BDUs without service identifiers or rank.  Just their name.  They were GTE employees - pure 100% civilians with no relationship to the military outside of working on the phone lines.

No relationship to the military?

They are civilians accompanying an armed force in the field.  They are subject to the UCMJ.  They are considered to be legitimate targets by the Geneva Convention, and they are entitled to treatment as prisoners of war if captured.

So... how do you get "No relation?"