NationStates Jolt Archive

Guard Gutted and Hung Out To Dry
September 21, 2006: Potential disasters are developing in American National Guard units. Too many units are sending their vehicles and other equipment to Iraq, and not getting it back when the troops return. This is serious because, in effect, the National Guard is the local militia for the individual states. When the federal government is not using National Guard troops (which is most of the time), the troops answer to their state governor. The only time the governors call on the National Guard is when there is some kind of major emergency, usually a natural disaster. That's when the troops need their trucks, hummers, radios and what not.

But for the last three years, most National Guard units have gone to Iraq, and taken most of their gear with them. When the troops come home, the weapons and equipment usually stays behind, either to be used by the unit replacing them, or to replace stuff destroyed, or worn out, during operations. While this makes sense from a logistical point-of-view, it doesn't really work if the troops don't get replacement equipment after they return home. Many units have not. Some have been disbanded as a result, but most are told to wait, and make do with whatever bits and pieces they were able to scrape together. While billions of dollars has been spent on replacing the equipment, many units are still short.

The troops are not happy with all this, and are ready to use some of their personal equipment (including their own cars and trucks) to fill the gap if there is a natural disaster. But that sort of thing will also be a publicity disaster for the U.S. Army, which has the ultimate power over what kind of weapons and equipment National Guard units have.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htpara/articles/20060921.aspx

So Mr. Bush's Iraqi adventure has wrecked all the US reserve forces - both the Gaurd and the Reserves (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2005/usar_memo-20dec2004.htm)...

:(

We did the same thing during the 1991 Gulf War.

It doesn't represent a change in policy.

I distinctly remember Guard units that showed up for the 1991 Gulf War, with vehicles and weapons in such bad repair that they were abandoned in the desert ON ARRIVAL. The units then had to be issued new equipment and vehicles, which they had to turn in when they left the theater.

Arriving home with no trucks or weapons.

We did the same thing during the 1991 Gulf War.

It doesn't represent a change in policy.

I distinctly remember Guard units that showed up for the 1991 Gulf War, with vehicles and weapons in such bad repair that they were abandoned in the desert ON ARRIVAL. The units then had to be issued new equipment and vehicles, which they had to turn in when they left the theater.

Arriving home with no trucks or weapons.

I wouldn't call it a change in policy. More of policy changes elsewhere impacting the status quo in a negative manner.

And yeah, the NG's pretty much always gotten the short end of the stick - behind the USMC - and that's saying something!

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htpara/articles/20060921.aspx

So Mr. Bush's Iraqi adventure has wrecked all the US reserve forces - both the Gaurd and the Reserves (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2005/usar_memo-20dec2004.htm)...

:(

Golly, this could present a problem if we have a major natural disaster...oh say a massive hurricane or something. :cool:

Golly, this could present a problem if we have a major natural disaster...oh say a massive hurricane or something. :cool:

But that almost never happens in the western coats uf the USA, right?

Golly, this could present a problem if we have a major natural disaster...oh say a massive hurricane or something. :cool:

Golly, it's not a new policy - we did the same thing in 1991.

Golly, the National Guard is NOT the state militia - by Federal law it is a Federal organization.

Golly, the states don't buy the Guard's equipment - not their vehicles, not their weapons, uniforms, food, fuel, or helicopters.

Golly, the Senators don't vote for the Guard to get new equipment over the years, so when they report to a combat zone, they have only old, out of date, non-functional shit that has to be shitcanned on arrival and replaced out of active duty stocks.

Golly. Not Bush's fault.

Golly, it's not a new policy - we did the same thing in 1991.

Golly, the National Guard is NOT the state militia - by Federal law it is a Federal organization.

Golly, the states don't buy the Guard's equipment - not their vehicles, not their weapons, uniforms, food, fuel, or helicopters.

Golly, the Senators don't vote for the Guard to get new equipment over the years, so when they report to a combat zone, they have only old, out of date, non-functional shit that has to be shitcanned on arrival and replaced out of active duty stocks.

Golly. Not Bush's fault.

I certainly don't disagree on any particular point. It's just another in a long line of examples of politicians fucking up when it comes to handling military matters.

I certainly don't disagree on any particular point. It's just another in a long line of examples of politicians fucking up when it comes to handling military matters.

I was in the Il NG pre-Bush. It was a FUBAR then. Half the equipment didn't work. Our radios weren't compatible w/ Active Army, ancient A1's, worn out TA-50 gear, etc.

There's a Maintenance Company near where live. Their motor pool is pretty sad. Most of the stuff looks Vietnam era, (Even still in Jungle green). Their parking lots are weed filled, the place looks more like an abandoned Military storage yard than a national guard facility. Except for paychecks I'm suprised if they don't get any funding aside from the very basics.

The NG has always gotten the short end of the stick. I've heard horror stories from the people that used to serve.

Besides, I've never like the idea of the de facto state militia being "federalized". The whole point of a state militia is to defend the state, not go off on the sitting presidents wild military adventures.

I doubt that we are this far ahead of the rest of the country, but we'll see. The State of Georgia has a state defense force that performs all those things that we are worried about the National Guard being unable to do.

http://www.gasdf.com/about-gsdf.htm

I doubt that we are this far ahead of the rest of the country, but we'll see. The State of Georgia has a state defense force that performs all those things that we are worried about the National Guard being unable to do.

http://www.gasdf.com/about-gsdf.htm
This is (At least semi) independent of the Georgia National Guard?

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htpara/articles/20060921.aspx

So Mr. Bush's Iraqi adventure has wrecked all the US reserve forces - both the Gaurd and the Reserves (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2005/usar_memo-20dec2004.htm)...

:(
The more I see of this stuff, the more that I shake my head.

I guess it gives a whole new meaning to "Support Our Troops"?

I doubt that we are this far ahead of the rest of the country, but we'll see. The State of Georgia has a state defense force that performs all those things that we are worried about the National Guard being unable to do.

http://www.gasdf.com/about-gsdf.htm

Here in Michigan we have the Michigan Volunteer Defense Force (http://www.michigan.gov/dmva/0,1607,7-126-36614---,00.html) which was only recently reactivated.

This is (At least semi) independent of the Georgia National Guard?

State defence forces fall under the state DoD and Governor, and are often part of the greater "state military establishment" as my state calls it. The state military establishment is comprised of the Army Guard, the Air Guard, and the state defence force. If I weren't going to go spend 4 months in France I was considering joining, since I'm prior service. Perhaps when I get back.

This is (At least semi) independent of the Georgia National Guard?

This is completely independent of the GaNG.