Open Thread – Which US DoD Dinosaurs Would You Slay?

[Ken White]

First a request -- try to avoid posting lengthy quotes, to avoid copyright issue and to conserve bandwidth, it's better to provide a link if at all possible,

Also the National Guard exists as one of the last vestiges of The Sovereign State, which edifice of history the post Lincolnian, post Dick Act Federal Government remedied by eliminating their officers in 1933. Today all NG Os are actually AR Os assigned to NG units which seems to mean that during peacetime deployments (ref: US Constitution, The "wartime" clause) they have a different Commander-in-chief from the Soldiers they lead.

I'm not sure that's totally correct. As you know, they are Officers of the Army of the United States (AUS); one of the Armies (plural) the Constitution says that Congress may raise and fund. The AUS as opposed to the USA (as in US Army, the regular army that Congress has also raised and funded) consists of the ArNG (for Federal purposes), the USAR and the USA.

The issue of a 'declared' war is IMO a false one. Forces committed to combat operations constitute a war and if the Congress funds it, they have declared it a war; if, as is true for the current fights, Congress has passed a Resolution authorizing force then they effectively declared war. Thus, ArNG troops federalized for deployments have the same CinC as their Officers; the President.

Very significant however is the fact that every Governor disagrees with every President on who controls the National Guard. Yes; including Clinton & GW Bush disagreeing with themselves on they day they moved from the Governor's Mansion to The White House.

It is a fact though we disagree on its significance. The Governors are entitled to their opinions and political preferences but my suspicion is that as long as the US Government pays in excess of 80% of the costs of the ArNG, Congress and the Courts will not be sympathetic. Membership in the ArNG is totally voluntary; anyone who was in the Guard in early 2003 should have been able to see what was going to occur as sholud anyone who joined the Guard since 2003. The Governors have no case -- political pleading, yes; legitimate complaint, no.

That said, it is my opinion that the Guard has been misused to an extent in all this; that many Guardsmen and reservists have suffered due unexpected short notice and lengthy deployments and that the Guard has done a great job.

The State Control has been a big issue in OIF, although mostly in smoky back rooms. I assert that the Governor's collectively refusing "combat" assignments for their respective forces led Pres. GW Bush to begin de-escalation & Iraqification here, among other variables.

I strongly doubt that but do not know.

The name "National Guard" is at once an homage to our French co-liberators of 1783 & a rather deceptive indicator of non-ownership.

Let me remind you that the Constitution requires Congress:

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Seems to me that clearly states that Congress is to pay for a Militia -- and that said payment allows them to specify when the Militia may be called up for Federal duties AND that Congress may prescribe the training regimen. I'll remind you that the National Guard wanted to be the "Militia" and lobbied hard for the Dick Act; Dick himself being a MG in the Ohio Guard. That may be an example of "be careful what you want, you may get it."

Governor v. President arguments usually happen like this:
. . .
Gov: Well then if that's how it is why don't you finance them ?

Pres: I'm sorry I'm late for a.......meeting. Say hello to your family for me.

I think you should do a great deal of research into what share of your peacetime support is paid by your State (not counting add-ons like free College and other benefits that the State Guard got through the legislators) and what is paid by the Federal government. That guy at your State Headquarters is, after all, the 'US Property and Fiscal Officer,' not the ____P&FO

I feel this controversey was at work in the GW Bush administration's odd decision to defrock the US global military zone commander's of the title Commander-in-chief in favor of Combatant Commander which isn't even accurate or logical.

That wasn't the Administration, that was the then SecDef; his idea -- I ignored him, I still call them CinCs as did and do a great number of people.

To those who keep saying there's only 1 C-in-c now might I be so bold as to say actually 58 ?

Sarah Palin agrees with you. I agree with you -- until the guard is Federalized; then there's one Cinc at the top and the Joint Command Cincs a little lower.

In previous wars (again we could discuss whether we're at "war" per se Tm: Now) the Guardsmen were not federalized, not deployed, not op-conned, not called forth, not called up but "Drafted" into The National Army, WWI, or The Army of The United States, WWII, Korea, Viet-Nam; distinct from the United States Army, or regular Army. The Army of The United States is what AUS stands for.

Terminology varies widely and can be confusing. Facts matter. Like it or not, the US is involved in a war that the Congress has funded, it is thus deemed legal by most. You and others may not agree but you're a small minority. ArNGg units have been activated, deployed and done well. If you do not agree with that, it would seem your decision might be to leave the ArNG at the earliest legal opportunity. No sense staying in an organization that you believe is being wronged when it is a voluntary organization.

Seperately, I was highly offended by the statement: "People used to join the Guard for just that reason: to stay out of the regular Army that got shipped overseas and not used to bolster a destroyed dying military the way they are used now in Iraq"

I agree, that's offensive to me on several counts.

The States have lost so much power in the last century; most significantly the power of electing Senators; this is part of what leads to controversies like The Blogojevich Senate Auction & The Kennedy-Schlossberg Campaign for one vote & similar nonsense due to the Constitution being stood on its head in 1917 in order to even further advance Federal Totalitarianism.

Possibly true but that wanders off thread, into political territory and this is not a political board. Political aspects pertaining to war fighting are fair game, general politics should be left outside.

So needless to say the Governor's are in no rush to give up their National Guard Units.

I suspect some senior people in the Regular Army would like to see the ArNG absorbed by the USAR. Others would like to see both disappear and the resources they consume devoted to the Army. Neither of those things is likely to occur so I imagine that regular Army agrees with Governors; lets keep our Guard.