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.