AS IMPLIED by its seal, the National Guard is the descendant of the Minutemen who fought at Lexington and Concord at the beginning of the American Revolution. The Guard is the “well regulated militia” envisioned in the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
In its modern form, the Guard has two jobs: to provide trained troops so the federal government can back up the regular military in times of war or national emergency and to provide an organized, disciplined group of people ready to help in states in times of disaster or emergency.
According to Guard officials and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, the demands of the first mission — represented now by the long war in Iraq — are making it increasingly difficult for the Guard to reliably carry out its second mission.
The problem is that Guard units that are sent to Iraq must take their equipment — Humvees, trucks, helicopters, earth-moving equipment — with them. But when the units return home, much of that equipment is left behind for other troops to use.
That would be fine, if National Guard troops were returning home to shiny new replacement equipment provided by the Pentagon. But that is not happening. Units that are expected to be ready to deal with state emergencies find themselves equipped with inadequate equipment — worn-out vehicles and old communications gear.
Western Kansas felt one of the effects of that lack this winter, when blizzards buried the high plains. The National Guard lacked enough — and large enough — helicopters to drop the many tons of hay needed to sustain stranded cattle herds. Other states have reported similar problems.
Tornado season is beginning in Kansas. Do Guard units have the equipment they would need to do their job in the wake of a devastating storm?
The problem is not the National Guard, whose members have done all — and more — that that their state and their nation have asked of them. The problem is with the priorities of Congress and the narrow focus of an administration that sees national security as only a matter of fighting wars in far-off places and has paid scant attention to the equally valid security needs of states and cities.
The National Guard stands ready, as always, to defend the people of the United States and to help them in times of trouble. Its strong commitment should be matched by an equal commitment by the federal government to give the Guard the tools it needs to do its job.
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by wifeandmother (anonymous) on April 17, 2007 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually, the primary mission of the National Guard is to provide help in their state during times of disaster or emergency. Going to war is the primary mission of active duty forces. The National Guard should only be used for war as filler when there are not enough active duty troops to fulfill the mission. Unfortunately, this war has pushed all branches and areas of the military to its capacity. Now we are practicing back-door drafting of both Guard, Reserve and active duty.
This war has stretched all of our military resources thin. In my opinion, too thin, for too long and for too little reason.
I am speaking as a military veteran having served 8 years in the Army and my husband serving 24 years, part of which in Vietnam.
Posted by MelissaE (anonymous) on April 17, 2007 at 8:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I completely agree with you. We are stretched too thin right now and it's taking its toll on all the military families (I am one of those).
Melissa
Posted by dwlawson (anonymous) on April 17, 2007 at 10:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The National Guard is absolutely NOT the "well-regulated militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment. Read some primary and secondary sources and you will find many letters and debates over the issue of a standing army, a select militia, and the militia. The National Guard is an example of a select militia. The militia was composed of all able bodied men. The founders generally frowned upon the concept of a select militia.
Under current US Code, the militia is defined as any adult not in the National Guard or Military.
Also, the term "well-regulated" does not have the same meaning today as it did in the 18th century. At that time it was more like "well maintained" or "in good working order." In context, it means a militia that is properly armed and practiced in the use of their arms.
Posted by sciguy (anonymous) on April 19, 2007 at 6:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you, dwlawson, for correcting the misinformation Mr. Kelley placed in his writing.
In fact, I'm not sure how that last sentence of his opening paragraph even relates to the topic of the piece.
Post a comment
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. Our goal with this feature is to encourage thoughtful discussions about the news stories. Using the comment feature to make random attacks on people is not acceptable. Emporiagazette.com neither endorses nor guarantees the accuracy of any user contribution. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
(Requires free registration.)