Why using the National Guard to guard airports is wrong

2banana ^ | not yet | 2banana

[2banana]

Dear Editor,

Over the past several weeks, a huge number of National Guard troops have been "called up" to be used as "Homeland Defense" through out America. What Homeland defense means is that these troops will be mostly guarding economic targets (airports, train stations, oil refineries, etc.) for up to two years.

This is a wrong policy for several reasons:

1. This is not what they volunteered to do. The men and women who have volunteered to join the National Guard understand that they may be called up in times of war or national/state crisis. The infantry expected to called up to fight as infantry. The armor expect to be called up to fight in tanks. No one joined to be called up as a long term glorified security guard.

2. This is not what they have been trained to do. Using troops who have been trained to kill and destroy the enemy to protect an airport may lead to unintentional consequences. Yes, they may be "retrained" but this in not why they volunteered nor why they joined particular units.

2. Pay. Most National Guard troops make a significant higher salary in their civilian jobs than in their National Guard jobs. Most soldiers will take a large pay cut in this call up (50-70% being the average). Add on top of this, many will lose their excellent company health plans and replace it the terrible military health care system. Guard soldiers understand that in times of war they would need to sacrifice, but in a few months we are going to have many soldiers and their families losing their houses and literally being forced on welfare and food stamps in order to protect what is essentially private property.

3. Using these soldiers to fight this war "on the cheap". All of these economic targets that the Guard is protecting could hire their own comparable civilian security in a relatively short time. However, this would cost money. Civilian guards and police get benefits like decent pay, overtime, 401k plans, time off to see their family, etc. Active and Guard soldiers get none of this plus the taxpayer is picking up the tab. Is there anything wrong with having the airlines, airports and the people who fly pay for their own security?

4. The lose of discipline. All these factors will destroy the discipline of many units. A private (E-3) makes about $1,800 a month in pay (with family dependents). The cop and security guard right next to him (doing the same job) are making double this salary with better benefits (plus they get to see their family every night). Now imagine this soldier puts up with this for a year, losing his house, not seeing his family (now in a cheap apartment in a bad section of town), wondering if his daughter didn't suffer much in the two hour drive and three hour wait to see an army doctor for her medical treatments. Do you think he may be tempted to go AWOL, take bribes, steal, turn to alcohol, etc? Would you?

We should use the National Guard for its intended purpose. Guarding private property is not that purpose. This should be a short term mission until civilian security is brought up to speed.

Regards,

[2banana]

Comments?

[Rodney King]

I agree, I don't mind having used them for a few weeks, but they should not be used permenantly. It will only undermine the NG system in the long run.

[2banana]

See this:

Feinstein wants security role for National Guard

[ppaul]

We should use the National Guard for its intended purpose. Guarding private property is not that purpose.

Essentially, whenever troops are placed in harms way, aren't they guarding private property? Think about it.

[2banana]

I thought about it: Trenton? Shiloh? D-Day? Inchon? Not much guarding going on there...

[order_of_reason]

Feinstein wants security role for National Guard
That comment ALONE makes me agree with the author of the letter. Regardless of Bab's view, I do agree that for a temporary position, this is allright, but a more permanent solution than Feinstein's < shudder> needs to be found.

[CIB-173RDABN]

No disrespect for the members of these National Guard units, but I agree, this should be a very short term solution.

[maestro]

Right!! Why not just 'federalize' the Taliban. That would solve the immediate problem.
Why not 'federalize' every person on the planet? That would solve all problems.

[Double Tap]

3. Using these soldiers to fight this war "on the cheap". All of these economic targets that the Guard is protecting could hire their own comparable civilian security in a relatively short time. However, this would cost money. Civilian guards and police get benefits like decent pay, overtime, 401k plans, time off to see their family, etc. Active and Guard soldiers get none of this plus the taxpayer is picking up the tab. Is there anything wrong with having the airlines, airports and the people who fly pay for their own security?

That's the best point of the article. The National Guard should not be used on private property. The airports/airlines need to foot the bill for real security.

[ppaul]

We fight to preserve Life, Liberty, and Property.

[silverdog]

Comments? Yes, two. First: all the info I have seen about use of NG troops to guard airports indicated VERY clearly that this WAS a temporary measure; a matter of weeks/months until the FAA (or this 'Homeland Security' branch of govt) could take over the job. Second: When you raised your hand and took the oath, especially that 'all enemies domestic and foreign' part, did you think they were kidding?

[2banana]

Nope, not even close. We do take an oath to protect the US Constitution

[MoJo2001]

Feinstein wants a lot of things, huh? However, what I'd like to know is how the People's Republic of California can put up with her Communist loving, big government, and support for women of the Well Drying association can sit in the Senate??

As for the National Guard, they are there to make us feel safer. Yet, we'd all feel safer if the AIRLINES and AIRPORT would hire legally and non-criminal people to handle the baggage, screening, and maintenance. Perhaps, it's just me.

[2banana]

That would be temporary like in the temporary rent control plan of NYC (WWII) or the temporary fed tax on phones to pay for the Spanish American War or the temporary toll booths that will be taken down as soon as the highway is paid for?

Big difference in the oath and being used as a cheap security guard. Maybe we should be like the Soviets and use the military to help in the spring planting and like the Chinese and help run factories too?

[RussianBear716]

The job of the National Guard is to do what they are ordered to do either by the Governor of their state or the President. Since when do they get a vote on which mission they will perform? Ok yeah I'll go help out the flood victims, but no I don't want to provide airport security, cause thats too demeaning? I don't think it works that way. I agree with you that this shouldn't be a long term mission for the National Guard units to perform and President Bush has indicated that it temporary stop gap measure until other mechanisms can be put into place. Finally, no one forces anyone to join the National Guard, its voluntary last time I heard. People do it for their own reasons but no one kicked their door down and forcibly made them join. Talking with my co-workers here who are members of the NG, they felt considering the current situation, that no member of their units would feel it was degrading to the Guard to be asked to provide airport security for whatever length of time.

[ppaul]

And the U.S. Constitution was written to ensure what?

[ppaul]

Maybe we should be like the Soviets.....

The Soviets did't go to war to protect private property.
They did not recognize private property as an unalienable right.
Thank God our founding fathers did.

[Protagoras]

The men and women who have volunteered to join the National Guard understand that they may be called up in times of war or national/state crisis. The infantry expected to called up to fight as infantry. The armor expect to be called up to fight in tanks. No one joined to be called up as a long term glorified security guard.

Soldiers are soldiers first. That's why they go through basic training before advanced individual training.

The point was made in a line from a recent movie. ( of all places) When informed by one of his men that an attack on a machine gun nest was not their mission, the captain informed him that their mission was to win the war. Just a line from "Saving Private Ryan", but true nonetheless.

The mission of our Military is to defend us from all enemies, foreign or domestic. This qualifies.

If the mission changes to providing private security on a long term basis, that would be a different question. I'll bet you anything you want to bet that this will not be the case.

[2banana]

1. So if the president decides to round up the jews I guess they don't have a choice.

2. Pretty good bait and switch, volunteer to be a tanker and then guard an airport for two years. Maybe they should help with the fall harvest too. Hey, they volunteered so we can make them do anything!