Obama, Biden and the National Guard: Right Idea, Wrong Direction...
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
September 23, 2008 1:27am CST
Backing Obama's "Blueprint for Change", Sen. Biden called for a stronger voice at the federal level for the National Guard. I think that its great that the Democrats want to address problems the Guard has faced, almost being the Red-Headed Step Child of the US Armed Forces.
Until the 90s, the National Guard was considered a state asset that could be federalized if needed. Prs. Clinton changed that with his version of the "drawdown". After he was done, 50% of our Army's Infantry and 75% of our Army's Artillery was National Guard. In other words, it was given a major role in our nation's defense. The plan was dubbed "Whole Army".
The Commanding General of the Alaska Army National Guard said that Gov. Palin really had nothing to do with the command and control of the National Guard. Sadly, that is true... but it wasn't always.
What Obama's plan will do is complete the federalization of the Army and Air National Guards... something that was never supposed to happen, and shouldn't now.
The National Guards of each state should be put completely under the command and control of their states, where it belongs. Training and Equipping can still be done at the federal level because each NG unit still would have a role in our national defense.
The problem is, The National Guard units taken from the state aren't treated as equals once they are federalized, even though they do the exact same job their Active and Reserve counterparts do. Yes, the Obama plan could serve to equalize the NG in the eyes of the Regular Army brass, but at what cost?
The cost would be what we have witnessed since the 90s... that is, from the outside looking in, there is no difference between the Army Reserves and the Army National Guard.
The entire concept of the NG is that we are state assets, with responsibilities to the people of the state and the state itself. The federal government's gain will be (and has been) the states' loss.
It is just another example of the Federal Government trying to strengthen itself and weaken the states.
1 person likes this
4 responses
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
23 Sep 08
I felt a definite chill when I read this..
Thanks for posting it!
Thanks for posting it! @newtondak (3946)
• United States
23 Sep 08
I totally agree - the National Guard should be left under the supervision/regulation of the state in which they reside and their first responsibility should be to that state. While it is important that our Armed Forces be adequately staffed, it is also important that we have forces that are stationed locally and are immediately available.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
23 Sep 08
Excellent topic, ParaTed!
I couldn't agree more! These no longer veiled attempts to strip the States of their regional autonomy blatantly contradict the edicts of our Founding Father's Federalist view of our nation.
Geesh, giving consideration to the purvasive departmental power grabs, the Department of Education, the Dept. of Labor, the EPA, the FDA, etc... and the expansion of the powers of the interstate commerce laws, the State's had very little regional autonomy left at all. The most obvious perview of regional autonomy was the State's regulated militia, or its National Guard. If the NG's are fully centralized then there is no defending body to stand up to a corrupted federal government. Hmmm, doesn't this represent a glaring defiance of the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment???
If I may be so bold, this is more than a little scary. And, it ought make every American more than a little nervous!!!





