It's pathetic to listen to the maneuverings of the politicians, complaining about the deployment of the National Guard leaving them short-handed to manage disasters. The solons act as if the National Guard were some sort of organization primarily tasked with disaster relief.
Trust the vote-panderers to get things arse-end first. Given the desire of so many, mostly Leftist politicians to make points against the President after Hurricane Katrina, I suppose this is to be expected. But the National Guard is a vital component of the US Armed Forces, tasked with defense of the Nation and support of US foreign policy. That is its primary mission, and the Guard assists with disaster relief to the extent it does not prejudice its other missions.
The Democrats view foreign and military policy as yet another branch of social work, so their attitude is understandable, if stupid. Yet another reason, if more were needed, why Democrats are not to be trusted on matters of national importance. It is profoundly disheartening, however, to see Republicans as members of this ill-starred chorus. This is not the mindset that made our country a great power.
The Armed Forces are at war. The rest of us are at the mall.
5 comments:
Jefe -
You are correct, except where you say
>But the National Guard is a vital component of the US Armed Forces, tasked with defense of the Nation and support of US foreign policy. That is its primary mission, and the Guard assists with disaster relief to the extent it does not prejudice its other missions.
Historically that has NOT been the primary mission of the Guard. That changed only after the Vietnam War when the DOD decided they would never again fight a war without broad public support and then they designed the Total Force Concept to ensure that any future war would require call ups. Today the Guard is the Combat Arms Reserve of the Regular Army. I wish it were not the case, but that is the current situation - but it is relatively recent (ok, last 30 years).
The Guard still has a major job of doing civil defense type work and Military Assistance to Civil Authorities. Indeed, that is its ONLY job unless it is federalized.
Otherwise I agree with you about the posturing and the lamness of the comments of the Kansas Gov. - the DOD response to her said there were 80,000+ troops available in adjacent states and over 85% of her own state Guard was still in Kansas.
Historically, you are quite correct, but I was speaking of things as they stand post Vietnam. For all intents and purposes -- it's part of the Reserve component...and the governors know it.
It should not be that way...but it is because we don't have conscription...or, alternatively, we have not shortened our committments to match our means.
What we have is a bunch of politicians using "disaster relief" to take a shot at the war effort.
But you're absolutely right with what you say, and about the Total Force Concept.
I guess I am old school. If you want a job done properly, hire someone full time to focus on that job.
We cut the size of the Regular Army under Bush I and Clinton - our defense needs have obviously not enjoyed the "Peace Dividend" we expected, but only now, 6 years after 9-11, are we talking about a slight increase in the size of the Army and USMC.
We don't need a draft, at least not until we actually, you know, try to recruit a larger force with volunteers - but we haven't even tried that until a couple of months ago, and then it was only a few thousand.
Instead we are telling the Guard they should expect to be called up 2 years out of 5 - unless they work for a civilian agency of the Feds or a Fortune 50 company (maybe) I have no idea how they can have any kind of career if they are not present 40% of the time (I know, we try to give legal job protections, but come on...)
The rest of us at the mall, indeed.
Don't get me wrong, I think we need to have a strong Guard, with adequate funding, and if the Guard is not around who will be around?
In California, the size of the Guard has decreased. We have about 1/2 the number of troops we had during the Rodney King Riots in the early 1990s. It will be much harder for the Guard to respond next time there is that kind of problem, and that is before accounting for the deployments overseas.
/rant off - sorry.
No sorry needed Anon...in general, i'm right there with you. Cutting the Regular Army under Bush I and Clinton was most unwise, and Bush II/Rumsfeld, with the emphasis on "transformation" and gadgets rather than personnel, have not helped.
Yeah, a big effort to expand the Regulars through recruiting must be tried...I expect the Pentagon will fight this to a degree, because the additional benefits and pay needed will cut into budgets for other things. In general, we need more military spending, and the taxes to pay for it.
Really, we need the Army Bush I had for Gulf War I. Even that Army would have trouble running our current two wars and other commitments. We also need new cruisers and destroyers for the Navy, and probably a new carrier or three. All that is a ton of $$$. But it's needed.
Amen.
(and sorry, that Anon comment was mine - hit the wrong button).
Post a Comment