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.
They didn't quite volunteer in the way I think you're thinking. :-)
Through the Secretary of War, President McKinley sent a levy to the States to provide troops for national service. First on the State levy list were units of the organized militia. If States could not meet the levy with organized militia, they induced citizens to enlist by offering bounties or with threats of conscription. However the States met their levies with State militia, the units and the men serving in them were called Volunteers. Indeed, from the 1870s to about 1903 the organized militia was generally called the Volunteer Guard. Here in Texas, the official name for the organized militia from 1874 to 1903 was the Texas Volunteer Guard.
U.S. Volunteers, on the other hand, were men and units raised directly by the federal government without going through the State bureaucracies. Teddy Roosevelt and his cowboy rough riders were U.S. Volunteers. Specialized U.S. Volunteer regiments were the direct precursors for what later became the U.S. Army Reserves.
. . . the following article pretty well points out just what I'm saying . . . http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/arng-history
Thanks for the link. It is a nice summary and it assures me we have a common frame of reference, even as we come to different opinions about the history.
Even with the Guards Federalization under the Dick Act the Federalization was limited to 9 months. In short the original intent since before the nations actual founding was STATE & NATIONAL missions. However every year since the Dick Act was put in place congress has chipped away at that idea and has taken from the idea of a state militia to a stronger federal ran service. [. . .] The original idea of the Dick act was simply to give the federal government time to train active duty soldiers. [. . .] It went from a volunteered deployment in 1898 to what we see now which is mainly mandatory foreign mission deployments.
What the Global Security article acknowledged but does not emphasize emphatically was the Dick Act was the love child of the National Guard Association, not the War Department. It was not something forced upon the States by the Feds. Quite the opposite. Surprisingly so, since diehard State Rights advocates did not so much as raise a peep about the bill. The question becomes, why?
Understanding how States and territories organize their militia helps. Here in Texas, State military forces are divided into the organized militia [National Guard (Army and Air National Guards) and the State Guard] and the reserve militia.
Most people in Texas would be stunned to learn that they are obligated by law to obey a summons for militia duty by the county sheriff (in obedience to an order from the governor) during a time of declared emergency. I don't even know the current age range for the reserve militia, something like all able-bodied men and women between ages 18 and 55 (though I think there is a slightly different age span for men and women).
Now, all the military services you want the National Guard to perform exclusively for a State can be done by the State Guard without much interference from the federal government or the regular armed forces. The problem is the State has to pay for it all--wages, equipment, arms, armories, training, the works. There's your solution. Give up the National Guard and rely solely on the State Guard. For Hurricane Rita, Texas called more than 500 State Guard soldiers into state service.
That's the choice the States and the National Guard Association pretty much faced in 1902. The regular Army would have been tickled pink to see the Guard disappear. They preferred their own infant reserve force over which they would exercise complete control and with which they were not compelled to perform duty within the States were the federal reserves were located. And this is an idea some of the regulars still have not given up. From time to time, you'll hear rumors of movement or proposals to consolidate the Guard and the Reserves into a single national reserve force.
The Dick Act did much more than give training assurances and authority to the regular Army. It forced the Army to acknowledge the Volunteer Guard as the primary ready reserve, thus putting it on a par with the regular Army when it was not in federal service. Rather than a federalization of the Guard, the Dick Act nationalized it by setting standards to be met by the States in order to receive money, equipment and training. Its what made the National Guard national. (And, for a little while, it kept the threat of a federal militia independent of State control off the table. But, it did give the Army their own reserve force.)
In 1912 came the first fruit from the repeal of the Militia Act of 1792 by the Dick Act and its 1908 amendment. (The amendment dropped the 9 month limitation on federal Guard service and restrictions on deploying the Guard outside the United States.) On a small scale in comparison to today's military exercises, the Army and the Guard held joint maneuvers. They were a success. BG Tasker Bliss noted that the regular and Guard soldiers performed equally well. The only distinction he made was the Guard was prone to pilfering and were more apt to destroy property. I suppose he couldn't resist getting a dig in at the Guard . . . :-)