After several years, the U.S government finally unveiled a new personnel cadre – the Civilian Response Corps of the United States of America – who will deploy, alongside the U.S military, into post-conflict theatres. Readers will recall that Prime Minister Brown promised a British version when he launched the UK’s National Security Strategy (although nothing seems to have happened since).
Once the hoopla dies down, the Civilian Response Corps is actually a quite modest version of what was originally in President Bush’ 2007 State of the Union Address. Then he said he wanted to “establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps”, which would
function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them.
The Address came after several years of trying to establish the State Department’s post-conflict office, but was probably motivated by the-then arrival of General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker in Baghdad, both of whom wanted not only a surge of troops, but of civilians too.
However, the Civilian Response Corps consists of federal employees, not volunteers from the private sector, state and local governments. It is, in effect, bureaucratic fat built into the system so that the U.S government has the necessary in-house capacity to draw-on. This, of course, is good. But it is hardly an amazing breakthrough. The 250 posts it funds cannot even fill 300 Iraq jobs that are due to come up next year.
Verdict: A good move. One that should encourage others – like the Europeans – to set-up a civilian reserve, as I wrote here. But far from what is needed and what should be expected after several years of work.
