This isn't a surprising pattern: The DC-hires are (?) qualified for the wrong mission, giving us more Abu Ghraib- and Guantanamo-like disasters, creating foreseeable (but mismanaged) problems, compounded by a flawed solution.

This time, it's with the "bailout," which the GAO audited:

TPMM on the bailout bungle: "Treasury Department had hired staff with the specific attributes needed to carry out its original plan for the bailout -- buying banks' bad assets -- only to then decide that it would change its approach by directly injecting capital."

They (stupidly) changed (midstream) the goal, but did not (as they should have) adjust the plan. Nevermind the cattle wranglers they hired knew a different river and had a useless map.

These lessons are relevant to deploying 20,000 troops on American soil.

We saw the same in Afghanistan, Iraq, and with Katrina: The problem-understanding deepened, but the same crew uses the same, ill-fitting mucky boots to clean up a different sewage problem.  US conventonal military forces were mismatched against terrorism (?), and unavailable in Louisana -- as they were in 1990s for Florida -- for domestic disaster relief. [Key word: "Domestic"]

[snark] Thankfully, the Congressional oversight smokescreen has changed. [/snark] 

Going forward

The  lesson applies to a slightly different Congressional oversight area. This President-elect says "OK" to domestic-civilian security forces.

Obama: "We've got to have a civilian national security force"

The same security forces used in Iraq (Abu Ghraib) will likely be the "best qualified" to deploy stateside. 

Oversight is needed. Americans destroyed the local-state school segregation-model through Federal oversight. Similarly, we need a federal plan to challenge the foreseeable abuses of a civilian national security force against Americans not in the security force. 

Let's not make the same mistake the Congress did when it drafted the 14th Amendment: It failed to expressly give (non-exhaustive) examples -- like school segregation -- which the US government must challenge.

The current law-enforcement-oversight model is broken because of local-level stonewalling, and lack of meaningful, timely federal-level consequences. Indeed, despite civilan oversight boards, law enforcement unions are exected to resist (a) needed outside oversight; and (b) legal compliance audits for the proposed civilian national security forces. 

The GOP and DNC -- by way of inaction on impeachment and impeachable offenses -- show disregard for the Bush assault on the Constituion. It is disingenous to raise concerns about an Obama dictatorship. It might happen, but why aren't they concerned abut the (real) Bush dictator?

Obama must confront this lazy, poorly performing Congress. The Congressional resistance to overseeing national security issues will continue unless Congress is confronted and things really change.

The wrong answer is to wait until the disaster arrives, then watch the local-civilian security forces and their unions slow-roll, if not obstruct, the needed oversight. The game plan to conduct credible, ongoing oversight must be part of the initial discussions in Congress.. We can monitor whether the legislation to deloy the security forces is or is not comprehensive, or starting with a broken leg before it takes its first step across the river.

Then we can discuss whether the civilian security forces are or are not serious about the Constitution and national security, or their discretion to abuse power.

America's responses to natural and man-made disasters has been wanting. The crime was the abuse of power abroad. Despite the bungling abroad, the greater crime would be to not glean these lessons and repeat the mistakes at home with more civil rights violations.

We must to explore and confront what got in the way of Congerss enforcing FISA; then applying those lessons to modernize the federal oversight system for the civilian security forces.

We must ensure the proposed solutions address the real problem; and that the contractors are not defining the problem narrowly in their interests. Otherwise, they'll be chasing the wrong goals, but defining "whatever happens" as success.  That's not oversight, but more contractor-driven self-"governance". Wall Street and Abu Ghraib shows us that doesn't work.

The lessons of the failed financial regulations must be applied to the new regulations. The leadership and management over these security forces cannot be allowed to pretend that they are there to "help," but then betray their mandate by, while standing on their positions of trust, pointing the finger of accountability at the American public -- those they are (supposedly) defending, but (illegally) abusing.

As a solution, we must nationally confront the local resistance to the civilian oversight boards over law enforcement; and confront the stone-walling, obstructionist law enforcement unions.  Then we can discuss whether the hired civilian security force-managers will or will not meet their legal obligations; or require increased ovesight, training, or guidance.

We must apply the lessons of abusive US forces in Iraq to the improved oversight of forces in the US:

• Personnel Screening

Ensure those who voluteer to assist are not given a free ride. Some who present themselves as "hoping to help," cannot use their positions  of "trust" to sidestep oversight, and abuse those they've agreed to help.

• Performance Audit Plans

Deploy an independent oversight system that will (a) review the complaints, (b) encourage the public to know what is or is not acceptable conduct, and (c) ensure there are independent boards that will challenge abusive domestic forces.