Proposal would give Guard muscle to protect itself in Pentagon

[Robbien]

With the National Guard making up more than 30 percent of America's total military force, it's time to put Blum and his Guard colleagues in the huddle, said Sen. Kit Bond, a Missouri Republican, and Sen. Pat Leahy, a Vermont Democrat. The two introduced a bill Wednesday designed to give the National Guard the bureaucratic muscle to protect itself in the often perilous halls of the Pentagon. The bill would:

Make the head of the National Guard Bureau a four-star general (currently, it's a three-star position) and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Give the bureau more power to research and procure its own equipment.

Require that the No. 2 position in the U.S. Northern Command be a member of the National Guard.

Formalize the Guard's relationship with the secretary of defense.

"We have seen too many times that the Congress has to come to the rescue of the Guard because the recommendations of the Pentagon made by active-duty typically downplays or disregards the role of the National Guard, even shuts them out of some of the critical decisions," Bond said. "We are continually undoing bad decisions made in the Pentagon because the National Guard ... cannot make their voices heard."

Particularly irritating to Bond: Last year's Base Realignment and Closure process, in which several Air National Guard units, including a St. Louis-based fighter wing, were slated for cuts. The Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, released this year, called for a reduction of 45,000 National Guard and reserve personnel.

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/politics/14436579.htm

[Hekate]

1. K&R. The NG has suffered unforgivably under Rummy

Here's hoping this helps.

Hekate

[OregonBlue]

2. Is this a double edged sword? Does this put NG into the war

planning picture instead of a state protection picture? Just asking.

[htuttle]

3. They're already in the war planning picture

They just currently have no say in it.

[OregonBlue]

6. I understand that they are already there but, do we really want

them to become part of the "establishment". Don't we want them to remain primarily a resource for the states. This war will hopefully not last forever and then where will we be with the Guard as part of the military instead of state entity. Isn't this what the Repugs wanted all along? If the President declares Martial law and Guard is part of the military, can they really still be answerable to the states?

I just hope everyone is thinking this through long term, not just for this particular conflict.

[htuttle]

7. My understanding is that they are already IN the establishment, too

I think that sometime since Vietnam, the National Guard has been considered a first line option for deployment. They don't just call on them to go overseas when they are 'out' of regular army troops anymore.

Some Guard units have specialties that aren't well represented in the regular army, for example. If they need units with those capabilities, they'll choose them from the Guard over a less specialized Army unit.

The guard hasn't really been under the control of the Governors for some time. They can call on them for things in their states, but as I understand current US military doctrine and Federal/State relationships, the federal military gets precedence over any requests that Governors make (this was quite clear during the aftermath of Katrina, for example). Perhaps a governor will try to challenge this power relationship regarding the Guard in the courts at some point, but none ever have, to the best of my knowledge.

[OregonBlue]

9. Any governors that would be likely candidates that we could contact?

[rodeodance]

4. seems to me they are already IN (but without any clout)

[sojourner]

5. many troops fighting in Iraq are reserves (NG) and national guard...

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20083/ -- and they are being "stop-lossed" meaning they cannot just go home when their duty is over, instead they are re-deployed. When the war first began, this was called a "back-door draft" because these people signed up to be stateside, "week-end warriors", available for national emergencies. Remember that in Vietnam, getting into the Guard was a way to serve without being sent into the war zone.

Edited to add: I apologize if any of the terms used above are offensive. They are not intended to be - my ex went into the NG instead of going to 'Nam. I learned the term "week-end warrior" from him. It's fitting in a way because the guardsmen are assigned to meet one weekend a month, and go to summer "camp" (two-week military exercises and training) each year.

[OregonBlue]

8. Yes, but doesn't this put them under the president's control if he

were to declare martial law?

[sojourner]

10. i think so..... and that's why having some "muscle" in the pentagon

might be a good thing for them, mebbe? btw, martial law would put all the military under his control, and make us all subject to military action? sort of what happened in NOLA, only much larger?

i may not have understood so well, but have a look here for more info... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard

[OregonBlue]

11. Read it. You're right.