What is the proper role of the National Guard? (Congress, Iraq, Mexican)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The National Guard has played an indispensable role in recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. These operations would not be sustainable without the Guard. But is it proper to send the Guard to foreign conflicts when Congress has not declared war? This is a new development -- the Guard was not deployed in Vietnam or Korea (someone please correct me if I'm wrong about this).
Our constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, not the president, but presidents have been encroaching on this power for decades. If there were legal restrictions on how the Guard could be used -- specifically, a law or amendment preventing the deployment of the Guard outside the US in the absence of a formal congressional declaration of war -- presidents might either be less likely to resort to military interventions before other options were tried, or would secure the unequivocal support of Congress and the public for those interventions instead of mere "use of force" authorizations.
the Guard was not deployed in Vietnam or Korea (someone please correct me if I'm wrong about this).
You are wrong. The Kansas Army National Guard has been involved in the nation’s conflicts since the state’s inception as a territory. The Kansas Guard actively participated in the Civil War, 1861–1865; 6 Indian Wars, 1864–1870; Spanish-American War, 1898–1899; Mexican Border, 1916; World War I, 1917–1919; World War II, 1940–1946; Korean War, 1950–1952; Vietnam War, 1966–1969; Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm, 1990–1991; Operations Northern and Southern Watch in Southwest Asia, 1992–2002; Operation Restore Hope in Somalia, 1992–1993; Operations Joint Endeavor, Deny Flight and Joint Guardian in Bosnia-Herzegovina, 1995–2003; Operations Phoenix Scorpion, Phoenix Scorpion III and Desert Fox in Southwest Asia, 1997 and 1998; Operation Allied Force in Kosovo, 1999–present; the Global War on Terrorism (Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Noble Eagle), 2001–present; and Operation Iraqi Freedom, 2003–present, CJTF-HOA (Horn of Africa)2010-2011.
Last edited by Poncho_NM; 11-12-2012 at 04:04 PM..
I stand corrected on Vietnam and Korea. I knew it was deployed in those earlier conflicts, but those were all *declared* wars or on US territory or both.
My thinking is that a major intervention like Desert Storm would be impossible without the Guard, and that the President alone should not be able to involve us in a conflict like that without a declaration of war. We have seen that Congress might weasel out of its responsibility to declare war or not. Keeping the Guard at home in the absence of a declaration of war might be a firewall against presidential adventurism while still allowing the President to respond to smaller emergencies that required ground troops.
I stand corrected on Vietnam and Korea. I knew it was deployed in those earlier conflicts, but those were all *declared* wars or on US territory or both.
My thinking is that a major intervention like Desert Storm would be impossible without the Guard, and that the President alone should not be able to involve us in a conflict like that without a declaration of war. We have seen that Congress might weasel out of its responsibility to declare war or not. Keeping the Guard at home in the absence of a declaration of war might be a firewall against presidential adventurism while still allowing the President to respond to smaller emergencies that required ground troops.
This would appear (to me anyway) to be a discussion meant for the Political forum.
Leaving politics aside, I think their increased use in foreigh conflicts has more to do with that we no longer have a draft and have made the decision to maintain a smaller and more professional regular army.It's a more efficient and effective approach to dealing with episodic conflicts than continuously bringing regular force levels up and drawing them down. It likely also makes the Guard more effective when called upon to deal with domestic emergencies.
There was a time when the Air National Guard had mostly hand-me-down equipment. Same could be said of the Army Guard. In the 80s the ANG started getting front-line equipment; The South Carolina ANG, for example, received F-16CJs (Block 52s) right from the factory (in the 90s). Slightly used Block 40 and 42 F-16CGs were sent to Iowa, Oklahoma, Ohia, New Mexico and Arizona ANG units in the 90s. A-10s, C-17s, C-130Js, all are/were being delivered to ANG units with little or no use on them. I now work with Air Support Operations Squadrons, which provide air controllers for ground units, and they have all the latest tools to get the mission accomplished. Why did this happen? The two previous posts nailed it. Mostly, in order to be relevant, and not a bunch of "weekend warriors" (a term I dislike), the Guard had to be able to mesh with the active duty. On my last combat tour we had the most capable F-16s in theater. Leaving them back in the US puts undue strain on already overextended active forces, makes the Guard's value dubious, and denies the Guard the opportunity to maintain a high level of readiness.
In my opinion the National Guard should be limited for use in the 50 states ONLY. Not being shipped all over hell for these different conflicts. If you want to fight in Afghanistan or Iraq or Kuwait or where ever.....join or transfer to the reserves or active duty.
In my opinion the National Guard should be limited for use in the 50 states ONLY. Not being shipped all over hell for these different conflicts. If you want to fight in Afghanistan or Iraq or Kuwait or where ever.....join or transfer to the reserves or active duty.
The National Guard is comprised, mostly, of combat arms units--- armor, infantry, artillery. They are trained to fight. The Army does not provide institutional training on flood response, woodland firefighting, hurricane response, etc. You're certainly entitled to your opinion but I recommend you do some research on why the National Guard exists and what their mission sets are comprised of.
The National Guard has played an indispensable role in recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. These operations would not be sustainable without the Guard. But is it proper to send the Guard to foreign conflicts when Congress has not declared war? This is a new development -- the Guard was not deployed in Vietnam or Korea (someone please correct me if I'm wrong about this).
Our constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, not the president, but presidents have been encroaching on this power for decades. If there were legal restrictions on how the Guard could be used -- specifically, a law or amendment preventing the deployment of the Guard outside the US in the absence of a formal congressional declaration of war -- presidents might either be less likely to resort to military interventions before other options were tried, or would secure the unequivocal support of Congress and the public for those interventions instead of mere "use of force" authorizations.
Your thoughts?
About the National Guard
The National Guard, the oldest component of the Armed Forces of the United States and one of the nation's longest-enduring institutions, celebrated its 370th birthday on December 13, 2006. The National Guard traces its history back to the earliest English colonies in North America. Responsible for their own defense, the colonists drew on English military tradition and organized their able-bodied male citizens into militias.
The colonial militias protected their fellow citizens from Indian attack, foreign invaders, and later helped to win the Revolutionary War. Following independence, the authors of the Constitution empowered Congress to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia." However, recognizing the militia's state role, the Founding Fathers reserved the appointment of officers and training of the militia to the states. Today's National Guard still remains a dual state-Federal force.
Throughout the 19th century the size of the Regular Army was small, and the militia provided the bulk of the troops during the Mexican War, the early months of the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War. In 1903, important national defense legislation increased the role of the National Guard (as the militia was now called) as a Reserve force for the U.S. Army. In World War I, which the U.S. entered in 1917, the National Guard made up 40% of the U.S. combat divisions in France; in World War II, National Guard units were among the first to deploy overseas and the first to fight.
Following World War II, National Guard aviation units, some of them dating back to World War I, became the Air National Guard, the nation's newest Reserve component. The Guard stood on the frontiers of freedom during the Cold War, sending soldiers and airmen to fight in Korea and to reinforce NATO during the Berlin crisis of 1961-1962. During the Vietnam war, almost 23,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called up for a year of active duty; some 8,700 were deployed to Vietnam. Over 75,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called upon to help bring a swift end to Desert Storm in 1991.
Since that time, the National Guard has seen the nature of its Federal mission change, with more frequent call ups in response to crises in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and the skies over Iraq. Most recently, following the attacks of September 11, 2001, more than 50,000 Guardmembers were called up by both their States and the Federal government to provide security at home and combat terrorism abroad. In the largest and swiftest response to a domestic disaster in history, the Guard deployed more than 50,000 troops in support of the Gulf States following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Today, tens of thousands of Guardmembers are serving in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, as the National Guard continues its historic dual mission, providing to the states units trained and equipped to protect life and property, while providing to the nation units trained, equipped and ready to defend the United States and its interests, all over the globe.
Moderator: please move this thread if I've posted it in the wrong area.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
