NG Border AT then off to Iraq?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
3,213
Location
Amerikan Twilight Zone
Mmmm, having cake and eating it, too......

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0518rumsfeld0518.html

Much of the hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee's Defense subcommittee focused on Bush's decision earlier this week to place 6,000 National Guard soldiers on the U.S.-Mexican border. "It is not going to be a stress on the National Guard to do that function," Rumsfeld insisted. To the contrary, he said, "It will be beneficial to the Guard because they'll be doing the very same things they would be doing if they were training their two weeks on an exercise basis as opposed to doing something that the country really needs."

And, that two-week border AT in the Summer will prepare NG members for
their deployment to Iraq. Monty Burns says "Excellent!"

Army Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, who also appeared, emphasized that the new border mission will use only about 2 percent of the 445,000 troops in the Guard. "We have sufficient soldiers to do the overseas war fight, prepare for the upcoming hurricane season (TBL - like last year?), (and) still have the forces that we need to respond for terrorism in this country or a WMD event," Blum said.

Did he list the NG's mission above in order of most importance? The
"overseas war fight" comes first for the NG? I guess he won't be able to
discuss this directly with Rumsfeld for clarification:

On a related issue, Rumsfeld said he opposes giving the Guard a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which has six members: the chairman, the vice chairman, and the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force. Many lawmakers support an expansion, but Rumsfeld said that "the way we look at it is that the Army includes the total Army, and the Air Force the total Air Force, and that to begin to segment them inside the Joint Chiefs of Staff is not a good idea."

Translation: "I don't need to hear directly from the NG at the JCS."

LOL, we can start new humongous federal agencies every other month in
DC, but no one can find a FOLDING CHAIR for a NG General to sit down in
the same room with the rest of the JCS?! This is what we call "being out
of the loop." :(
 
Didn't ya know? When Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison wrote the Constitution they envisioned the federal military being sent 7200 miles across the ocean to Baghdad to topple governments, not to defend the territory of the 13 colonies. :rolleyes:

In other words. Sending Americans to die in foreign lands = good. Putting Americans on our own borders to protect US territory and US citizens = bad.

We're living in some kind of bizarro world and I for one will not be wasting my time voting come November. The republicans are just lightweight Democrats.
 
I don't think it's right either, but reality is reality and National Guard soldiers understand that. Nobody has joined the National Guard since 9/11/01 without accepting the possibility of going overseas; if they didn't then the drill sergeants reminded them of it every day for the next three months. Most soldiers like me desire to serve wherever we're sent, anywhere in the world.

I was in the Massachusetts State Guard for five years before joining the federal service. It seems to me that the natural response for any governor who resents his Guardsmen being federalized would be to start pouring resources into his state guard. If Arizona had an active and effective state guard then the Minutemen might not even exist right now.

Perhaps someday the National Guard's primary mission will be domestic. I think the active duty Army should be large enough to fill any mission abroad, but I don't have a problem with the National Guard providing limited backfilling overseas if there is a desperate need.
 
I think the active duty Army should be large enough to fill any mission abroad, but I don't have a problem with the National Guard providing limited backfilling overseas if there is a desperate need.

I agree 100%. However, I've seen a lot of AD (except the 3ID and some
Airb) sit stateside while Reservists and NG went overseas more than once.
And, once the NG get to Iraq, then tend to get assigned to the cr@piest
FOBs on earth.....seen this myself as I traveled around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top