GovernmentExecutive.com

I'm a DoD CC employee and I volunteered and completed six months in Afghanistan. I would go back in a heart beat. I participated in convoys, helo trips to many bad places. I'm an American! Retired Military and damn proud to serve my country!!!

mike  | Monday, July 21, 2008 |  12:01 PM

---

"Civilians haven't had the capacity to lead"??? What kind of backhanded slap in the face is that? Now you want me to volunteer, so the military can extricate themselves from the quagmire you created? I have an idea...how about calling up all the "civilians" who are retired military first. Especially the ones who created their cushy civil service jobs when they were still on active duty.

Insulted  | Monday, July 21, 2008 |  09:35 AM

---

My belief is that the one thing that curtails greater numbers of Federal Civilians from volunteering is an income issue. The benefits and extra income is great, however, along with al the frills comes higher income taxes. The so called Federal Civilian volunteers are the only personnel being taxed. Active Military tax free, Contractors limited to something like 80K non-taxed income, however, it’s still a greater benefit that is not enjoyed by the civilian.

On Station  | Friday, July 18, 2008 |  05:59 AM

---

You need to read the article that is highlighted in the second sentence of the Gov.Exec blurb. These aren't volunteers in the sense that they don't work (or get paid) by the USG. They are current USG employees who have stated up front that they will deploy so that their skill sets are available.

Gov Employee  | Thursday, July 17, 2008 |  09:56 PM

---

Second bite please. What about medical care if injured in a hot zone? Even the green zone gets shelled.

If the government gives me a fair price for my house I would go at the drop of a hat. I would drop the hat myself.

I have a few good years before the jerry chair gets me.

Wise Old Owl  | Thursday, July 17, 2008 |  03:25 PM

---

Federal employees have always volunteered when needed and asked. I worked in the Army Depot System during Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Thousands of blue and white collar people went, even when all expected a major fight.

If I were younger I would volunteer. Then I would have crossed both oceans for Uncle. Go to the hot spots to make your bones.

Remember that we feds are ordinary people with heart problems, dependants, homes etc that they can not lightly walk away from.

I served abroad while the last two presidents stayed home.

Wise Old Owl  | Thursday, July 17, 2008 |  01:37 PM

---

really this is a silly idea, congress needs to expand the military and let them handle this. Try to get land crabs to perform this mission would be like herding cats

dan ketter  | Thursday, July 17, 2008 |  12:56 PM

---

Sounds great...but..but..the proud and positive statements about the use of "volunteers" masks, in my view, some critical and unpleasant facts and conditions, and is an unintended demonstation of an Administration defeat.
So...I'll play the bad cop here, perhaps other readers can set me straight...or expand on the issue:
The issue: why does the US need "volunteers" to accomplish what appears to be vital mission and further, why are "volunteers" needed from the workforce of existing federal employees in order to staff the operations to accomplish such a vital mission?
My answer: 1)Budget/Resources --Administration does not want to hire (i.e. increase payroll costs) for more civil servants or more military -- best to leverage the existing payroll costs with multiple assignment workers.
2)Legal barriers -- Current federal civil service law and regulation contains significant barriers to the directed (i.e. forced) reassignment of civil employees from a work station in the US to an overseas work station which is "dangerous" or within a declared war zone, including those cushy jobs on "stabilization and reconstruction missions" (e.g. the Green Zone of Baghdad? US Embassy in Sudan?). The barriers (let a lawyer reader comment) range from (depending on the court case) absolute prohibitions based on federal appropriation laws (Congress specifically authorizes pay for work at specific agencies, then, feds have to pay for such work, they can't just ask citizens to do work gratis, or worse, pay employees from other agencies to do their work -- i.e. have Agriculture doing State work), to murky but legally troubling opinions based on administrative law precedents (fed regs on hiring, performance, "standing".)
3)Political/Historical - check the immediate Post-9/11 initiatives of Dod, and specifically, Dod Secretary Rumsfeld - and the launch of the new Dod Civiian Personnel System - the press release talk, if not the regs, stressed the need to relive military personnel from tasks (including "in theatre" missions) better performed by civilians. At the time, in the heat of the immediate post 9/11 and the all-for-one-nation political climate, Dod sought the new personnel system as one way to minimize military payroll/benefits (costs) and leverage civilian payroll. For example, civilians could fill billets otherwise staffed by "Civil Affairs" officers - e.g. the experts who try to rebuild the Iraq civil service. Since the new Dod civilian personnel system is effectively dead as a means to easily re-assign civilians to overseas military slots, a "volunteer" Corps needs be the next best thing--even better that Dod is not on the list of participating agencies (let's check the funding sources carefully news-hounds, there may be some Dod resources at work here -- e.g. heavy lift aircraft for transport?)
4)Political/Historical -- recall also the State Department flap circa post-Iraq invasion, when commissioned State Dept Officers were refusing assignments to the Green Zone, and other clearly dangerous Middle East venues. The flap raised larger political questions about Administration claims to the "safety" of Baghdad, and the character of the U.S. "victory." So, problem solved, at least partially, via the new "volunteer" Corps - in the future, any SOs from the Corps in a danger-zone will be present as "volunteers" (will they gain extra points for promotion?).
I note the Sec of State quote places the role of the Corps as "rebuilding...after conflicts" -- o.k., but, I wonder just how "safe" will be the "after" standard (Baghdad - after the U.S. departs the Green Zone? "safe" by the actuarial standards for, say, Chicago, LA and NYC?).
Conclusion -- from the above we conclude..in the waning days of the Administration.. a new "volunteer" force is announced...an unintended admission that the civilians for military Dod objective was defeated, that civil service barriers were not adjusted or surmounted for reassignments to "danger zones", and broadly that the politics of financing higher workforce levels are too severe to meet the operational needs of post-conflict expertise – therefore: "volunteers" is the only acceptable means. A final curiosity = what do the union reps at the civilian agencies think of the new Corps? (will negotiations precede deployments?) what additional compensation if any (combat zone pay? enhanced life insurance-premiums free?) ...oh the list of potential costs is really very long, and the opportunities for journalistic exploration rich and deep. Look to the next Administration to damp down this really bad idea, and quietly submerge the Corp into
some minor coordination office deep in the State bureaucracy. But I run on....sorry that I can't see the bright side, or more significantly, the operational or economic gains to US for such "volunteer" service, but, alas my decades in federal HR and program analysis work makes me too much the wonky skeptic. Please readers, correct my negativity, say (and show how) it ain't so.

Concerned Retiree  | Thursday, July 17, 2008 |  12:34 PM

---