Ok, what the heck is this?

WASHINGTON, Jan. 27, 2009 – The Defense Department is forming a civilian expeditionary workforce that will be trained and equipped to deploy overseas in support of military missions worldwide, according to department officials.

The intent of the program “is to maximize the use of the civilian workforce to allow military personnel to be fully utilized for operational requirements,” according to a Defense Department statement.

Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England signed Defense Department Directive 1404.10, which outlines and provides guidance about the program, on Jan. 23.

Certain duty positions may be designated by the various Defense Department components to participate in the program. If a position is designated, the employee will be asked to sign an agreement that they will deploy if called upon to do so. If the employee does not wish to deploy, every effort will be made to reassign the employee to a nondeploying position.

The directive emphasizes, however, that volunteers be sought first for any expeditionary requirements, before requiring anyone to serve involuntarily or on short notice. Overseas duty tours shall not exceed two years.

Employees in deployable-designated positions will be trained, equipped and prepared to serve overseas in support of humanitarian, reconstruction and, if absolutely necessary, combat-support missions.


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=52840

WTF!!!

it might become mandatory?? I am confused.

.....Certain duty positions may be designated by the various Defense Department components to participate in the program. If a position is designated, the employee will be asked to sign an agreement that they will deploy if called upon to do so. If the employee does not wish to deploy, every effort will be made to reassign the employee to a nondeploying position.

The directive emphasizes, however, that volunteers be sought first for any expeditionary requirements, before requiring anyone to serve involuntarily or on short notice. Overseas duty tours shall not exceed two years.

Employees in deployable-designated positions will be trained, equipped and prepared to serve overseas in support of humanitarian, reconstruction and, if absolutely necessary, combat-support missions. .............................

into the field for support roles, etc. It might be a strategy to get rid of Blackwater and other such contractors.

I think Blackwater will have to be resolved otherwise. It's got absolutely nothing to do with a draft though. Ack.

I'm sure they would be willing to go. No more paint balls you get hit with the real thing!

Who are no longer allowed in Iraq.

I guess there just aren't enough people in the military to take care of themselves. This is bad, and it has been a burden since W started this whole stupid deal. So, if a military encampment is attacked, not only do the soldiers have to worry about themselves, but they have to worry about the civilians as well.

I suppose it's either this, or a draft. I just hope these people aren't making a ton of money like the Blackwater folk were.

Edited for story and link:

Iraq bars Blackwater from country

By Sinan Salaheddin - The Associated Press
Posted : Friday Jan 30, 2009 6:36:18 EST

BAGHDAD — Iraq said Thursday it will bar Blackwater Worldwide from providing security protection for U.S. diplomats because its contractors used excessive force, sanctioning a company whose image was irrevocably tarnished by the 2007 killings of 17 Iraqi civilians.

The company said it could leave the country within 72 hours but cautioned that such a move would cause more harm to the American diplomats it protects than the company itself. The move will deprive American diplomats of their main protection force in Iraq.

Blackwater founder Erik Prince stressed that Blackwater had yet to receive any indication from the State Department that it would be ordered to evacuate.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/01/ap_blackwater_iraq_012908/

I heard this yesterday.

They've been talking about this for a few days. They are going to reorganize and not use troops for the reconstruction and rebuilding operations. I don't think that has anything to do with Blackwater, it might displace KBR however.

Bush made them non-military so he could give his cronies the business.

See my update... Blackwater was kicked to the curb.

This has to do with creating a unique "expedition" of people who will do the "nation building" missions that we currently have military troops doing - and sometimes KBR.

I've got no idea what they're going to do about Blackwater mercernaries now that they've been kicked out of Iraq, but this article has nothing to do with that.

1. New Civilian Workforce

2. New Directives

3. The employee (in the New Civilian Workforce) will be asked to sin an agreement that they will deploy if called upon to do so.

4. They will ask for volunteers (from the New Civilian Workforce employees) before they require anyone (in the New Civilian Workforce) to deploy overseas.

""If the employee does not wish to deploy, every effort will be made to reassign the employee to a nondeploying position."" and if a "nondeploying" position cannot be found?? terminate??

It's not complicated.

Fuck that!

The DOD has 'deployed' civilians for years. The only difference is the wording - try putting 'assigned' in there, instead.

My mother worked for the civil service in DC during WWII - at the end of the war, they asked for volunteers to go to military facilities in Europe to work in support positions. She was young and single and saw it as a great opportunity - met my dad, who had been reassigned from China to Weisbaden at the end of the war, serving as the public affairs officer (he had been a navigator during the war).

When we lived in Japan, the parent's of half the kids I went to school with were civilians employed in support positions by the DOD. That was during the Vietnam war.

edited for spelling

equipped and prepared to serve overseas in support of humanitarian,(ok with that), reconstruction (ok), and if absolutely necessary, COMBAT-SUPPORT MISSIONS." And, you know that will happen. It is honey on shit imo.

contractors into the DOD infrastructure. Did Rummy push this through?

Edit: It also sounds like they contractors will get free gov'y traing instead of them having to pay for it themselves.

The warprofiteers are looking to keep the cofers of money full.

I think they are trying to create a way for specific kinds of overseas duties to be handled by this entity instead of the Blackwaters and Halliburtons... Bravo.

the way Government worked before Reagan and the contracting push. In house Military Police and DOD Security provided all the security/defense that was needed before this push. They are looking for DOD civilians to fill the void when the contracts go away. The forced reassignments would be used as a last resort within house. This happens when volunteers do not step up. But I can tell you there will be people very willing to service this mission. I saw it after the invasion of Iraq. Many of our civilian DOD employees volunteered for 1 year rotation because of the money they could make.

and it's GI pay, not inflated up the wazoo

They are just putting lipstick on it to make is sound all nice & pretty, new & fresh.

By what you've bolded and the way you've asked your question, it seems you think this is something nefarious. It's not.

This has already been going on for some time really, it just hasn't been official. Even members of the Red Cross are given equipment and (if they want) firearms training if they are going to combat zones.

No one is being drafted. Please note that combat-support missions are not combat missions.

as in if they don't explain what they are doing, it probably will not survive scrutiny in the light of day.

As in whom and what are they going to replace? Why if replacing KBR types to have more control and save money is there no major announcement-such a plan should be highly popular.

My fear is this will be a second tier set of "clerks and jerks"...the old 90% of the military equation of "tooth-to-tail" people who never faced combat. But the fact is that all of them were trained for and liable to get shot at.

So my question is whether "deployable" means as the governments right or as a condition of employment? If you refuse deployment are you fired or jailed? Also I question if this is an attempt to get people to do a job traditionally done by the military without paying the kind of benefits that normally accrue.

I've seen many posts here supporting full benefits for every vet, even those whose military career was brief and peripheral (like mine) and I wonder if this is not a way to cheap out...