I'm so mad I have to blog
I couldn't sleep last night. The images of all the flooded houses kept returning to me. I could not get the thought out of my head that there are people there, stuck in their attics as the waters rise. If they didn't put an axe in the attic, they can't get out to the roof. And I think of all the elderly and disabled people who weren't able to get to the attic at all.
A few years ago I participated as a civilian in disaster drills with the California National Guard. One of the scenarios was a flood rescue. The guardsmen practiced rescuing people from rooftops that were floating in a lake.
I can't help but think that lives are being lost because the resources the Gulf states need are in Iraq. I had already thought that it was dangerous to use the National Guard so heavily in an overseas war, in case of disaster at home. We have that disaster now.
If the Guard hadn't been activated to Iraq, does anyone think Gov. Blanco of Louisiana or Gov. Barber of Mississippi would have done anything other than activate every single resource their states' guards had to offer? Don't you think those guardsmen who are in Iraq must be sick about not being able to help their home state, as they were trained to do?
As the Reuters article I linked to previously states:
"The Pentagon has sent about 40 percent of Mississippi's National Guard force to Iraq and 35 percent of Louisiana's -- a combined total of about 6,000 troops."
Saving lives is not the only issue. Controlling looting, clearing rubble, restoring services. The Gulf states have been left to fight this with one hand tied behind their backs.
posted by OKPartisan @ 4:48 AM
3 Comments:
There are 1,012,000 soldiers on active duty, in the Reserves, or in the National Guard.
Of them, 261,000 are deployed overseas in 120 countries.
Iraq accounts for 103,000 soldiers, or 10.2 percent of the Army.
10.2 percent.
Add in Afghanistan (15,000) and the support troops in Kuwait (10,000) you still only have 12.6 percent.
So where are the rest? 751,000 (74.2 percent) are in the U.S. About half are active duty, and half Guard and Reserve.
According to Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, 75 percent of the Army and Air National Guard are available nationwide.
75 percent.
The Moveon.org, New Left propaganda about Iraq diverting resources is not borne out in the hard numbers.
I still think the Guard should primarily be a domestic resource. In this war they represent a large percentage (somewhere around 30 or 40, I think) of our forces in combat. Way more than in previous wars.
What if we have another big domestic disaster? The hurricane season is young. Terrorism is still a threat.
Do we really want our part-time soldiers and airmen doing full-time duty, as many of them are and have been for such a long time?
It bothers me that so few in our country are carrying such a heavy burden. It especially bothers me when the general public doesn't seem engaged in any of it, content to watch American Idol or get a spray-on tan while our weekend volunteer soldiers are doing triple-duty.
If we have an abundance of active duty soldiers, why can't they fight the wars?
The mission of the National Guard: "To provide properly trained and equipped units for prompt mobilization for war, national emergency or as otherwise needed."
That means helping out with Katrina, but also patrolling and peace-keeping in Kosovo (remember that?), a missile defense role, Afghanistan and Iraq. Both the Army and Air NG began with core military missions -- and continue in that mission. They are citizen-soldiers.
We're in a War on Terror that began after 9/11. Thus, the National Guard is engaged in that war. We also stopped slaughter in Kosovo, thus the National Guard is engaged there. We invaded a terrorist state called Iraq, and deposed a brutal regime -- one we thought had weapons of mass destruction it was prepared to use and had shown a willingness to use in the recent past. Thus the National Guard is engaged there. A horrific hurricane has wiped out the Gulf Coast, thus the National Guard is engaged there.
I agree with you that much of the public seems -- and always has seemed -- disengaged from the War on Terror. We need the 21st century equivalent of victory gardens and giving up the pantyhose for the cause, whatever those equivalents might be.
But I'm a little confused as to what that has to do with the core mission of the National Guard? The Guard is not stretched thin, nor is the regular military.
I think you'll find that if you talk to most National Guard or regular military members, they'll tell you they're proud to serve in the military capacity for which they joined.
I talked to a National Guard member recently who ASKED to be deployed to Iraq. He's in his mid-40s with a family, and wants to serve his country. He's smart and eloquent and professionally successful.
With the hard numbers before us, telling us the NG ranks are clearly able to take on the challenges before them, let's defer to the clear mission statement of their proud organization.
Post a Comment
<< Home