Why Does Obama Say His Civilian Security Force Will Help "Achieve National Security Objectives"?

I have been asking this question for weeks now, waiting to find an answer from someone with more knowledge than me. No answer has come forth, so this morning I decided to try to answer the question for myself.

While many of us on the right seem to think Barack Obama is a Manchurian Candidate, a ringer, an Alinsky-ite Communist, a follower of Bill Ayers, etc. and everything just short of the anti-Christ, and maybe even that as well, Barack Obama's first move as President-elect was to appoint Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff.

Because I believe Israel is a signifigant line of demarcation in determining the relative rationality with which a politician approaches the world's problems, I decided to Google the words, "Rahm Emanuel Israel". 

And, in so doing, I found this article from the far-leftist, anti-American rag, CounterPunch:

Last week in CounterPunch (1), I wrote that the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), Congressman Rahm Emanuel, had worked hard to guarantee that Democratic candidates in key toss-up House races were pro-war. In this he was largely successful, because of the money he commands and the celebrity politicians who reliably respond to his call, ensuring that 20 of the 22 Democratic candidates in these districts are pro-war. So the fix is in for the coming elections.

In 2006, no matter which party controls the House, a majority will be committed to pursuing the war on Iraq--despite the fact that the Democratic rank and file and the general voting public oppose the war by large margins. (I hasten to add that this state of affairs can be reversed even after the sham election between the two War Parties.)

What are Emanuel's views on war and peace? Emanuel has just supplied the answer in the form of a scrawny book co-authored with Bruce Reed, modestly entitled: The Plan: Big Ideas for America. The authors obligingly boil each of the eight parts of "The Plan" down to a single paragraph. The section which embraces all of foreign policy is entitled "A New Strategy to End the War on Terror," a heading revealing in itself since "war on terror" is the way the neocons and the Israeli Lobby currently like to frame the discussion of foreign policy. Here is the book's summary paragraph with my comments in parentheses:

"A New Strategy to Win the War on Terror" 
("War on Terror," as George Soros points out, is a false metaphor used by those who would drag us into military adventures not in our interest or that of humanity.)

"We need to use all the roots of American power to make our country safe. (He begins by playing on fear.)America must lead the world's fight against the spread of evil and totalitarianism, but we must stop trying to win that battle on our own. (Messianic imperialism.) We should reform and strengthen multilateral institutions for the twenty-first century, not walk away from them. We need to fortify the military's "thin green line" around the world by adding to the U.S. Special Forces and the Marines, and by expanding the U.S. army by 100,000 more troops. (An even bigger military for the world's most powerful armed forces, a very militaristic view of the way to handle the conflicts among nations. What uses does Emanuel have in mind for those troops?) We should give our troops a new GI Bill to come home to. (More material incentives to induce the financially strapped to sign up as cannon fodder.)Finally we must protect our homeland and civil liberties by creating a new domestic counterterrorism force like Britain's MI5. (A new domestic spying operation is an obvious threat to our civil liberties; MI5 holds secret files on one in 160 adults in Britain along with files on 53,000 organizations.)

There it is straight from the horse's mouth.(2)

How does Emanuel, the man who has screened and chosen the 2006 Democratic candidates for Congress, feel specifically about the war on Iraq, the number one issue on voters' minds. Emanuel and Reed do not so much as mention Iraq in their book except in terms of the "war on terror." Nor does Emanuel mention Iraq on his web site as among the important issues facing us, quite amazing omission and one shared by Chuck Schumer who is his equivalent of the Senate side, chairing the DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee). However a very recent profile in Fortune (9/25/2006), "Rahm Emanuel, Pitbull Politician," by Washington Bureau chief Nina Easton notes: "On Iraq, Emanuel has steered clear of the withdraw-now crowd, preferring to criticize Bush for military failures since the 2003 invasion. 'The war never had to turn out this way,' he told me at one of his campaign stops. In January 2005, when asked by Meet the Press's Tim Russert whether he would have voted to authorize the war-'knowing that there are no weapons of mass destruction'-Emanuel answered yes. (He didn't take office until after the vote.) 'I still believe that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, okay?' he added."

The war on Iraq benefited Israel by laying waste a country seen to be one of its major adversaries. Emanuel's commitment to Israel (4) and his Congressional service to it are not in doubt. The most recent evidence was his attack on the U.S. puppet Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri al Maliki, because Maliki had labeled Israel's attack on Lebanon as an act of "aggression." Emanuel called on Maliki to cancel his address to Congress; and he was joined by his close friend and DSCC counterpart, Sen. Chuck Schumer, who asked; "Which side is he (Maliki) on when it comes to the war on terror?" In terms of retired Senator Fritz Holling's statement that Congress is Israeli occupied territory, Rahm Emanuel must be considered one of the occupying troops. And he certainly is a major cog in the Israel Lobby as defined by Mearsheimer and Walt. 

So, if Barack Obama is the anti-Christ, or at least his False Prophet, then it is interesting to note that his first appointment is viewed by the far-left as pro-Israel, pro-Iraq war, and is also hated by Walt and Mearsheimer.

But beyond all the speculation about infernal origins, I think it is interesting to note that Emanuel seems to believe we need an armed extension of the FBI working on the streets of America. This could be what Obama means when he says we need to have a "Civilian Security Force" just as large and well-funded as the American military, in order to "achieve national security objectives."

Maybe, maybe not.

We won't know until Obama begins putting his plans into work.