by Sixstrings » Fri 11 Dec 2009, 03:04:03
Had a brief peak at that PDF, couple items of interest:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t would be even more difficult and resourceintensive
to mount stability operations in larger countries such as Iran,
Pakistan, the Philippines, Nigeria, and Venezuela. Efforts of this size
would require a national commitment beyond what is considered in
this report. However, the maximum-size SPF considered in this report
is based on assumptions about what is affordable. If a larger force was
deemed desirable, some elements of this analysis might change.
Um.. Venezuela, eh? Now why on earth would the US need a Stability Police Force to keep order in Venezuela???
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he MP Corps has the opposite problem: it has the capacity to
take on the task, and arguably it has the skills due to its efforts in Iraq
and Afghanistan. However, its ability to maintain these skills during
periods when it is not engaged in large-scale stability operations
is constrained
by the limits placed on its ability to perform civilian policing
functions by the Posse Comitatus Act. Without relief from this constraint,
it could not take advantage of the opportunities provided by
the hybrid staffing option to develop and maintain the needed skills.
Hm. So what is this then, an effort to circumvent the Posse Comitatus Act? Interestingly, the desire to use the Stability Police in the US doesn't appear to be grounded in any necessity for it, but their main concern is just a way to keep their training up in between foreign deployments! They want to use the Stability Police in the US just so they stay sharp with their training.
Basically, what we're seeing here is the birth of a new branch of the armed forces -- potentially, an entirely new military in addition to our conventional forces. From the little bit I read, it appears they want to figure out a way to position this force legally so it can be a "hybrid" for use in the Homeland and abroad.