Bush’s War Has Gutted The National Guard

Published on May 13th, 2007

Governors say war has gutted Guard

As wildfires, floods and tornadoes batter the nation, the readiness of the National Guard to deal with those disasters, as well as potential terrorist assaults, is so depleted by deployments to foreign wars and equipment shortfalls that Congress is considering moves to curtail the president’s powers over the Guard and require the Defense Department to analyze how prepared the country is for domestic emergencies.

The debate over the state of the National Guard has been intensifying for several years, but a powerful tornado in Kansas early this month has spun the topic back into the spotlight.

[...] Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius was direct in her explanation for why the response had not been faster: The policies of the federal government, she said, had left the Kansas National Guard understaffed and underequipped.

Her comments infuriated the Bush administration, which countered that the vast majority of her state’s Guard members were available to be called up and that she would be provided any equipment she lacked as soon as she requested it.

The other hot-button issue between the governors and the president regarding the National Guard involves the Insurrection Act, the law that governs when the National Guard can be “federalized” for domestic law enforcement without the consent of a governor. A 2006 revision to the act expanded the president’s power to assume control of the Guard during domestic events, something that governors say threatens to derail state disaster planning and response.

18 users responded in " Bush’s War Has Gutted The National Guard "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 SafetyMan said, on May 13th, 2007 at 6:40 am

Yep – they’re guarding somebody’s nation, somewhere. It would be nice if that nation would send us some free oil for the free security service (and wonderful target practice) we’re providing them. On the other hand, most of that nation doesn’t want the US there, so what’s the deal? Isn’t imperialism a little dated by now, I mean look at what happened to Emporer Palpatine!

# 2 Vinny said, on May 13th, 2007 at 6:50 am

Uncle Dave, do you even read the news at all?

She’s already gone back on her comments.

Come on man, pay attention.

About the same time, Sebelius was doing her own backpedal from across the country.

Her spokeswoman, Nicole Corcoran, said the governor didn’t mean to imply that the state was ill-equipped to deal with this storm. Sebelius’ comments about National Guard equipment were, instead, meant as a warning about the state’s inability to handle additional disasters, such as another tornado or severe flooding, she said.

“We are doing absolutely fine right now,” Corcoran said. “What the governor is talking about is down the road.”

Down the road. Maybe.

Not now.

Read. Research. Then blog.

# 3 smartalix said, on May 13th, 2007 at 7:50 am

So where are the National Guard troops in Kansas, then?

# 4 Uncle Dave said, on May 13th, 2007 at 7:53 am

Yes, she did eventually backpedal, but why? Perhaps down the road is more accurate for Kansas. Or perhaps it could it be that her original comments don’t reflect well on the job she’s doing if she says the state is unprepared for things like tornadoes which not exactly a rare occurrence in her state.

Which scenario is more accurate doesn’t lessen the effect the war has had on the Guard in her state and across the nation. What her comments did was bring to the forefront what other governors of other states have been saying for some time which is what the article is really about.

# 5 GigG said, on May 13th, 2007 at 8:11 am

If the National Guard is expected only to be used for helping out after tornadoes, why spend the money to train them how to drive tanks and fly planes?

The states get to use them for this kind of stuff but their primary job is to act as a reserve for the standing military.

This is one reason why the anti-gun folks look so silly when they say the NG is what the founding fathers meant when they used the word militia in the constitution.

# 6 DogWings said, on May 13th, 2007 at 8:35 am

#2 Uncle Dave seems to have an agenda, which is probably why he presented only one part of the information.

I’m not saying I don’t agree with his agenda in this case, but it’s good that you called attention to the rest of the story.

# 7 moss said, on May 13th, 2007 at 10:30 am

Horse hockey – agenda!

Do any of the Bush League apologists honestly think the National Guard is in any shape to deal with any disaster affecting the American nation? Baloney.

You’re only interested in adding some plausible deniability to a crappy situation brought into existence by greedy grasping thugs – who you admire.

# 8 Brian said, on May 13th, 2007 at 10:56 am

#2-let me guess, you’re in the 25% who approves of the job bush is doing, aren’t ya?

And the wacko rightwing neocons continue to back bush no matter what the facts say otherwise.

# 9 TJGeezer said, on May 13th, 2007 at 11:40 am

Since all 50 governors signed the letter to Bush, it’s hard to see how breaking with the Guard’s domestic service tradition can be viewed in any light but as fundamentally changing the Guard’s mission and interfering with state readiness in times of disaster.

The governor’s office backing off makes me wonder what pressure was brought to bear on the governor. But the point is, the aide retreated from the position, so all the rest of the governors must be wrong. Or whining Democrats. Or something. Right?

Funny that Bush joined the National Guard and even bothered to show up for awhile in order to avoid service in a different foreign invasion. But let’s not dwell on that irony. Right.

# 10 tikiloungelizard said, on May 13th, 2007 at 1:26 pm

In this case, “insurrection” means “anyone who disagrees with us”. How many people signing up for the national guard figured that they might be out pointing rifles at their neighbors? (Kent State, union-busting, etc.)

# 11 smartalix said, on May 13th, 2007 at 4:43 pm

The Guard is trained as an Army for DOMESTIC SECURITY. The Guard is not inteded to be deployed overseas to reinforce the Regular Army in foreign wars, just ask Lt. Bush of the Texas Air National Guard. The irony would be humorous if this was some other country’s leader.

# 12 gregallan said, on May 13th, 2007 at 8:05 pm

Misusing the National Guard is part of a larger GLARING FLAW in Bush’s war strategy.

Why is Bush running this war on the cheap — with borrowed money, “emergency” off budget funding bills, guards and reserves, private contractors, low troop levels, etc, etc. — when he claims this is an existential stuggle comparable WWII?

Can any Bush apologist explain this to me? I could see some of those measure during the initial months of invasion but why now, four years later?

Is that any way to fight the (supposedly) stuggle for our very existence? His actions clearly indicate that even he doesn’t believe his own rhetoric.

# 13 Mike said, on May 14th, 2007 at 4:25 am

#11, 40% of the US forces sent to France during WWI were from the National Guard. While I disagree with it too, the National Guard was created as an augment to the United States Army, and it has always been used as such. There is a reason why Virginia, and almost two dozen other states still maintain their own organized militia forces.

# 14 Vinny said, on May 14th, 2007 at 4:29 am

I’m hardly one of the 25 percent.

See the little blue thing with my name? It’s called a hyperlink. It takes you to my page where you can see, in my sidebar, a nice big promo for Hillary Clinton whose campaign I contribute regularly to.

What you morons who think that because I corrected the dumbass from Kansas don’t realize is that you don’t have to support Bush to call someone who comes out against Bush wrong.

Imagine that.

# 15 Joe said, on May 14th, 2007 at 6:23 am

it’s already been reported that the Kansas governor was told to make these statements by Dean, the DNC president. She was also instructed not to accept help from the federal government to “play up” the lie. She later called and apologized for the remarks, knowing they weren’t true and that she “had to do what she was told” to “make the current administration” look bad

# 16 Mr. Fusion said, on May 14th, 2007 at 7:12 am

#13, Mike,

Aahh, not quite. The National Guard is the outgrowth of the individual militias each state had originally. Pure volunteer organizations, they were usually referred to as militias. (Please note the 2nd Amendment) They predate the formation of the Continental Army which is the precursor to our now standing Federal Army.

The standing army was pushed by Congress and the several Presidents as the state militias were undependable in personnel, equipment, and training. This was most notable during all the 19th century conflicts. It wasn’t until 1903, under Teddy Roosevelt, that the Guard was reformed into more of a support role to the regular army.

#15, Joe,

Aahh, in case you didn’t get the memo, Rush Limbaugh IS A BIG FAT LIAR. The only ones who take orders from Dean are the office staff of the DNC. But, accusations like this is why the right wing nuts have no credibility.

***

My own take is Gov. Sebelius spoke a little quick. She does have a point about equipment, but she should have called upon FEMA first. I’m guessing, but she might have had fears of another New Orleans.

# 17 OhForTheLoveOf said, on May 14th, 2007 at 8:52 am

#10 – In this case, “insurrection” means “anyone who disagrees with us”. How many people signing up for the national guard figured that they might be out pointing rifles at their neighbors? (Kent State, union-busting, etc.)

Comment by tikiloungelizard — 5/13/2007 @ 1:26 pm

When it comes to talking about a police state, my hat is made out of tin-foil just like yours is. But hard as it is to believe, we do learn lessons from history, at least from time to time. When was the last time, since Kent, that the National Guard has been put into the position of drawing weapons on American citizens?

The Bush administration is the most corrupt in history… But even they haven’t crossed that line yet.

# 18 smartalix said, on May 14th, 2007 at 6:02 pm

13,

Yeah, WWI precedents are canon.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!