Posted on 09/26/2005 9:27:17 PM PDT by Racehorse
In a letter to the president, Sens. Kit Bond, R-Mo., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., complained that fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has left the Guard with "a perilously low level of equipment." Only 34 percent of the Guard's equipment is available for use in the United States, they said, adding that the president should spend the money to re-equip the Guard.
Better yet, this may be the time for the country to rethink how it uses the Guard, the only military component with dual missions - one serving the governor and the state, the other complimenting the active forces at the whim of the president. It's obvious that Bush's Department of Defense has paid little heed to the needs of the states these past two and a half years.
There will be more Katrina disasters if the Guard isn't used more judiciously. It shouldn't be so easy for a president to federalize the Guard for undeclared wars, yet it should be easier for states to back each other up with their Guard forces in times of emergency.
It's time for a modernized system that would keep the Guard's state missions under the governor, but allow a national military commander of the Guard, an expert in disaster relief, to mobilize specialized units from several states to tackle emergencies like Katrina or now, Rita. And, at the same time, it should take at least a majority of the U.S. Senate to approve sending Guard troops to war, depleting the security of the folks back home.
(Excerpt) Read more at madison.com ...
Texas National Guard Supports Texans, Neighbors
By Capt. Steve Alvarez, USA
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26, 2005 -- As Hurricane Rita gained strength in the Gulf of Mexico, 3,600 Texas National Guard soldiers and airmen were mobilizing and readying to assist Texans in the aftermath of the storm. By Sept. 20, four days before the storm made landfall, guardsmen were already in place along Interstate 35 and moving into the storm as it neared the Texas coast.
A slice of that 3,600-person force, about 1,500 airmen and soldiers, was reassigned from duties in New Orleans. They were refitted with fresh gear and supplies and redeployed to a forward staging area near Beaumont, Texas.
Texas Guard security forces were the first to arrive at the Superdome in New Orleans and start to restore order to the city following Hurricane Katrina, Army Maj. Gen. Charles G. Rodriguez, adjutant general of the Texas National Guard, said.
"We drove in with Texas flags flying on our Humvees, and we were cheered," Rodriguez said. Now, Rodriguez and his troops are cheered as they drive into and fly over the many cities along the Louisiana-Texas border, which was hardest hit by Hurricane Rita Sept. 24 when it came ashore with sustained winds of 120 mph.
"Fortunately, it's not so bad here. And as we recover, we can send resources where they're needed more," Rodriguez said.
Rodriguez leads a force of about 16,000 Army National Guardsmen and 3,000 Air National Guardsmen. They are working in the affected areas providing search and rescue, humanitarian relief, security, transportation, communications, medical assistance and debris removal.
According to officials at Texas Gov. Rick Perry's office, the National Guard has helped provide 167 water trucks containing nearly 8.5 million half-liter bottles of water, 60 ice trucks, and 17 refrigerated trucks are staging in Beaumont have been or are being dispatched to impacted areas. More than 500,000 gallons of fuel have been delivered to impacted areas since Sept. 22, including more than 25,000 gallons dispensed directly to over 5,000 stranded motorists, and 154 generators have been delivered to communities suffering power losses, with a priority given to hospitals and medical facilities.
"When it came time for the hurricane to hit, we were here," Rodriguez said. "We were poised, we were ready."
Rodriguez is clear to point out that the National Guard system is effective because they are an entity accustomed to working regularly with civilian authorities at all levels.
"It's a great relationship. It works. We rehearse and practice periodically together," Rodriguez said. "The Texas National Guard has decades of experience working with the governor's Division of Emergency Management. We take their 'taskers,' and we help them define their needs." And, Rodriguez said, "We know how to say 'Yes, sir' to a county mayor or judge."
The Texas National Guard's philosophy on disaster response is based on one premise: speed.
"You have to be there early, and you have to be there with enough," Rodriguez said. "You have to be there right at the edge of the problem, get in there, get in there strong."
Rodriguez is already looking at ways even good execution can be improved.
"We can always do better," Rodriguez said. "We can always refine it."
No larger evacuation effort has ever been accomplished, Texas officials said. Texas safely evacuated approximately 2.7 million people in 36 hours. By comparison, the Berlin Airlift evacuated 177,000 people and officials evacuated 200,000 and 135,000 respectively following the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl nuclear disasters.
But he said, one thing remains true, "The Army has a role, the Air Force has a role, but the Guard has a lead in this."
Only 34 percent of the Guard's equipment is available for use in the United States, they said, adding that the president should spend the money to re-equip the Guard.
So the National Guard is going to use M-1's and Bradley's to relieve New Orleans?
A Governor Reno would have
Yeah. I spent four years flying F-16's with the Wisconsin ANG based in Madison. With the exception of guiding a 500lb bomb up the hindquarters of a certain mayor and governor, I'm not sure our F-16's would have been that useful in New Orleans.
The fact is that Katrina was so powerful and frightening that many police and rescuers fled faster than Katrina's winds blew. No slam on the many brave souls who did help, and no real slam on those who ran; that's the power of nature over man.
As some people discovered, there is no power equal to nature and men can do nothing to prevent a natural disaster and little to help while it rages. All of which makes me wonder how many people prayed a little extra right before Katrina hit land, as opposed to those who figured Uncle Sam would take care of everything?
Oops, "no power equal to nature", except for God.
I like the idea of attaching a Civil Service Reserve Corps to the National Guard, giving people who sign up the option to become a reserve firefighter, cop, or guard soldier.
This sentence is all we need to see of the Capital Times article.
I understand the point you and sgtyork make. A correct one. Bond and Leahy don't get it.
But for those who may not be familiar with what makes up an air wing, what would have been useful in New Orleans were your tactical clinic, your civil engineers, your supply and logistics personnel, your security forces, your communications personnel, etc., etc., These are the types of Guardsman pulled together for disaster relief.
I like to point this out so folks who don't understand why governor's of states with F-16s fight so tenaciously to hold onto them. Lots of resources to use in an emergency. (okay, so the economic contribution to the local area isn't so bad, either. :-))
But this is why Guard disaster assistance works in Texas:
. . . National Guard system is effective because they are an entity accustomed to working regularly with civilian authorities at all levels.
"It's a great relationship. It works. We rehearse and practice periodically together," Rodriguez said. "The Texas National Guard has decades of experience working with the governor's Division of Emergency Management. We take their 'taskers,' and we help them define their needs." And, Rodriguez said, "We know how to say 'Yes, sir' to a county mayor or judge."
The Texas National Guard's philosophy on disaster response is based on one premise: speed.
Well, you make an excellent and valid point. And it is further reinforced by the quotes at the end of your post. My only response is that this article refers to equipment, and not the professionals that make up an air wing's tactical clinic, security forces etc. But...your point is taken.
You're absolutely correct. That is what the article goes after I hope I didn't in any way imply that you got anything wrong or that I was taking issue with it.
I just saw it as an opportunity to show why Zweifel does not have it right.
The guards should be returned to their pre GHW Bush posture and mission scope. IOW they belong here at home to be used by states for disasters or in event we are attacked within our on borders. True as some say an M-1 may not be helpfull in some places but then again it very well may especially tracks.
A Duce & half, 5 ton, and hummer, are great utility work horses that would be highly usable along with such others things as the water buffalo.
National Guards serve under the orders of their state governor and as such the oath to that fact is included in enlistment. I honestly don't believe too many persons understand the make up of NG units namely Army NG's. At least 50% are prior service vets from either the Navy or Air Force. IOW they have had zero field combat training. A person can be a Staff Sergent or even TOP without having ever served on active duty in the army. They were never intended to be a rotation replacement to foreign deployments but rather one to fill deployed active duty functions inside the CONUS. There are exceptions but what is going on now will ultimately destroy the State National Guard Programs.
Add to this many members of the state NG's are also your local deputies, volunteer firemen. parimedics, rescue squad members as well. Placing them on a one year active duty foreign deployment half way around the world takes that many of such out of the local community. Keeping the NG's stateside makes them more aviable for domestic emergencies which they have by tradition handled.
I think there should be a Naval National Guard as well for coastal states. Think about it. The Navy decommissions such ships as LST's and troop carriers along with it's landing craft. They would have been usable especially in the last two hurricanes.
Now to the Air National Guards. Choppers anyone? Enough said as we have seen what they can do.
Congress and our POTUS seriously needs to address the ongoing End Troop Strength crisis of which is the same number as at the end of Slick Willies first term. This was one of the poorest policies Clinton concieved yet the current GOP Congress and POTUS have failed to do anything about it except use our state National Guards as a stop gap measure. Good well trained guards are going to start leaving the service as their employers will not be able to have their companies futures placed on hold each time they are deployed. Family minded NG's will take care of family first as well. I would say this number may possibly reach up to 50% of the ranks and higher in the officer ranks which usually are college grads and take high cuts in pay on these deployments.
I think 5 years into someones tenure as Sec of Def is long enough to study on the matter and I think congress needs to take action. Yes their is a war going on. But Yes our congress and POTUS have had since 9/11 to make provisions for allowing sufficent full time active duty service members to be recruited and trained. Just think a person joining by November 1, 2001 would have nearly 4 years behind them as of November. They would be seasoned troops. Four years after 9/11 and we still have NG's deployed on foreign soil when they should have had replacements trained three years ago.
The Bush idea of using the active duty military as federal responders is not needed IF they would simply use the National Guards for what used to be their main mission. Also deploying guards and their equipments makes our home front a bit less defenseless.
Here's an advocacy organization that keeps track of State Defense Force doings.
Look even if you call up a unit especially an artillery battery it is going to take months to train these guys. Two weeks a year down at Ft Stewart or wherever just doesn't cut it.
I might even see possibly calling them up for a limited foreign deployment but that is not by any means what is going on. Look at what I wrote the current deployed NG's should have roatated out long ago. BTW for the record my unit had a highly domestic defense mission and a city to defend as we would have been the nearest to it. The city was and still is on the top 5 of first probable hits due to defense assets located in the region. Most of the NG units that were the back ups to defend it are in fact now in Iraq.
The poor planning from 1989 -present is what has created this problem. I'd rather see more defense dollars go into maintaining an active duty ready to deploy without a 6 month work up force than each and every time some third world swamp hole acts up calling up a sizable portion of our National Guards to send there. Some units BTW are on third tours.
Just what do you think NG's do anyway? Sit around at the armory on weekends polishing the brass? In my neck of the woods they are used for search and rescue of both military and civilians from events from lost in the mountains - flooding- yes even severe snow storms.
The Guards especially the Army Guards need to be more under the control of the state governors as the NG's are also a part of many states Civil Defense and Emergency Management Systems. This has been a long standing tradion of usage as well. In the late 60's I saw about every aviable unit in my area searching for a young kid in a National Park. When things like that happen there are not by any means enough civilians trained nor equiped to do a massive and expidited search and rescue effort.
The guards go far beyond units used to operate and maintain planes and tanks that is but a portion of it. WE technically were a combat unit but most all our gear except the 155 howitizer was usable on domestic emergency missions.
This would also de-federalize many emergency reponses as again the governors could activate the troops. Now you tell me down in LA, Mississippi, and Texas, which would you raher see? State troops answerable to the governor of their state assisting in the efforts or active duty units? Personally I'd like to see DHS shut down and FEMA limited in response. Let the states do the job via mutual aid agreements among communities, towns, and even between states. But taking the equipment out of country does no one any good. Think about it we went from a surplus of equipment to troops in Iraq scrounging even for armour. Somebody didn't know where to stop the cuts.
Most Army NG equipment is at least second and third generation equipment with well over half of it's use life behind it. Not really what you want going to the front line especially in places where such needed items as parts may be days out back in the states to be taken off another surplus vehicle. IOW it is usually surplus given to the states. There are exceptions especially in the Air Guards.
If as you say "the air defense portion of our Homeland Security effort is almost exclusively ANG" then we do have a serious problem now don't we? I'm not knocking the Air Guard but having been on a combat ship with full alert capabilities I know the difference in both training and readiness. Alert means pilot suited on site nearby, plane fueled, weapons loaded, and support crew standing by for it. It can go up in a very few minutes to intercept. You tell then if the Air Guard is almost exclusively ANG would that or would that not greatly effect response times in event of wide scale atack?
Effective Homeland defense air power wise is having active duty patrols up in the skies 24/7/365 and should as well have some Flag Officers up in the sky also. Last I heard they still aren't any 0-7's aloft on actual patrol 24-7. We got caught with our guard down once due to a relaxed domestic defense posture.
I know what the National Guard is I also understand that realistically it would likely be easier to train green recruits to a branch service for war time deployment than try and re-train prior service vets some of which are grandfathers who have had no combat experience.
Again here we are not talking about such emergencies as a World War and certainly not third time deployed units in a war with a third world nation.
It's not only dangerous for the NG's it is for the actives they serve with as well when deployed. I would guess if someone took you down to a ships machinery room you would be shall we say culture shocked? I could probably train a green recruit to learn it faster. I left my unit after my obligation was up. It was so kaotic that first day on the range during a fire mission we had a short round fall in a troop zone and were promptly thrown off the range. I wasn't on the gun crew I just drove the ammo truck. But then again to do our actual primary domestic defense mission we likely would have used our M-16's and 50 calibers & not the howitzers anyway.
Your issues concerning equipment, provisioning, recruiting, training and combat readiness, while holding some merit, are also off the mark. Again, time and space requires too much to go after it all in one swoop.
I'd have to say, that as a concise summary, Rokke's reply gives a nicely accurate overview of the historical role of the Guard in foreign wars. I'd only add that the earliest use of State militia in foreign campaigns took place during the War of 1812 with the invasion of Canada and excursions into Spanish Florida.
The history of the National Guard is a fascinating and complicated beast. I'm sure these issues will come up again in other threads. Should I give a reply, but only address a single issue, please be mindful that within the defense and academic worlds volumes have been written and continue to be written about them. See how many words I use just to give this non-reply? :-)
From your posts I can tell you are someone who has a high regard for the Guard and you are proud of your service within it. I recognize the factual basis for many of your concerns. I have been away from Guard affairs for more than ten years, so what I may know about the Guard is not current up to the minute or perhaps not even up to the year. Also, I know the role of the Air National Guard better than I know the Army side of the house. Still, I think I can address a less sweeping catalog of issues with some kind of useful historical perspective.
Just wanted to let you know I read your posts and gave them some thought.
The original idea of the Dick act was simply to give the federal government time to train active duty soldiers. Like everything else our congress gets it's hands own it soon expanded on those powers taking more and more control away from the states. It went from a volunteered deployment in 1898 to what we see now which is mainly mandatory foreign mission deployments. In WW1 it was necessary as it was in WW2. Since that time however there is no reason we could not have maintained a ready standing defense full time active to handle the wars we have been involved in. The words National Guard IMO mean just that {National}.
You might be surprised that even during WW2 it was assumed that our nation could very well be attacked by air or land power even as far away as 500 miles from the ocean by foreign troops.
Actually reading the following article pretty well points out just what I'm saying. Each and every single time someone has had the bright idea of changing the National Guards mission it has led only to using them more and more as active duty soldiers at the expense of maintaining an active duty ready defense posture which is a very different level of readiness.http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/arng-history.htm I think the National Guard should revert back to a more domestic anchored defense mission statement with more control over them given back to the states.
Using the guards as first line deployables with todays advanced weapons systems which is now very well the case is not IMO good national defense policy. IMO operating under Bill Clintons 1996 active duty End Troop Strength numbers is not wise either. But that's my point. Some bean counters in DC are seeing something that looks good on paper but will ultimately if not corrected destroy the Guards as we know it. IF these people wanted to be deployed on active duty missions each and every time a third world nation gets riled they would have remained active duty right?
I think I said this previously but I'll say it again the private sector businesses or for that matter many county governments can not afford having such a now {since GHW Bush} almost never ending disruption to their work force and will start hiring non guard members in the future. The current deployment policies placed on the National Guards is a loose/loose deal for all except for a few politicians who are simply trying to incorporate more federal powers from the states.
I'm highly pro-defense. The best national defense on a world wide scale IMO is the one you have standing ready to go on very short notice which means active duty. However as far as foreign policy goes and deployments upon foreign soil from Korea-present this action should have fell upon the responsibility of the individual active duty branch services. Now take it one step further.
The best Domestic national defense we have in event we are someday attacked by a full scale invasion is having trained troops capable of going to a local armory and drawing arms or better yet having sufficient weapons of their own at home which would in itself discourage such an attack. They can not do this if they are deployed to Camel Rump, Boondocks 5000 miles away. Nor can the respond to any home state emergencies for that matter. Our government believes otherwise even down to taking away or modifying the very rights written in the Second Amendment. I'd rather see the NG's stateside and more focus on strengthing our current full time active duty forces in all branches.
Good points so long as we do not forget that a major cause of the debacle was a failure of political leadership, not of basic organization. The governor had absolutely no understanding of her Guard and we know know that the mayor's police forces was totally inadequate. He had virtual cops instead of real ones, because he was misusing Uncle's nickel.
If the citizens of LA and NO fail to hold the Governor and Mayor personally responsible for their failures then I'm afraid they deserve the leadership they get. Both thought Uncle was gonna do it al and still do so it seems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.