Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
May 27, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Truthdig Bazaar more items

Ear to the Ground
Email this item Print this item

National Guard Difficulty ‘Places the Nation at Risk’

Posted on Feb 1, 2008

A commission set up by Congress in 2005 to examine the readiness of National Guard and reserve units has found that they’re simply inadequate to the task of dealing with a major disaster in the United States. The commission blamed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also the Pentagon’s assumption that training for those conflicts would somehow prepare troops for disaster relief at home.

Los Angeles Times:

Reserve units have been taxed by repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, but the commission said the inadequacies were not solely the result of the wars. Overall, it said, the Pentagon has failed to provide adequate funding, on the “flawed assumption” that current training for military operations overseas would suffice for domestic duties as well.

The commission was set up by Congress in 2005 to examine the needs of the Guard and reserves amid their heavy deployment to war zones. The panel sounded a special alarm over what it said was the Guard’s insufficient training—due to inadequate funding—for a chemical, biological or nuclear strike.

Read more

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, February 4, 2008 at 4:36 pm Link to this comment

Better to have the states militias on the other side of the world than in tour buses heading for Washington to take back the country.

Report this

By DennisD, February 4, 2008 at 8:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Just change the name to the “International Guard”. It’s much more fitting.

The real everyday disaster we have to face in the United States is our own government and its complete disregard for the demands of its citizens.

We’ve all forgotten that they(all of government)is supposed to be working for us. Anything less, is not the republic the country’s founders intended.

Report this

By GW=MCHammered, February 4, 2008 at 8:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Does anybody know if the National Guard provides coup d’état services for the American people? Otherwise, we need to begin a global auction for bids ‘cause, our forefather’s government by constitution has been hijacked.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, February 3, 2008 at 12:09 pm Link to this comment

When the private contractors come to forcibly relocate you to wherever, it’s nice to have a gun when faced with uncertainty.

I agree with you that we need the National Guard here in the U.S., I can’t believe that they are still over there on such a trite mission.

Report this

By purplewolf, February 3, 2008 at 11:52 am Link to this comment

It’s time for a name change to something more appropriate for this group of the military. Perhaps the “Non-National Guard” or the “Outer-National Guard,” since they certainly are no longer the National(as in nation)Guard. I respect our military people, but they have become pawns in Emperor Bullshits game of “Ruler of the World.”

A long time ago, when growing up, we were fed the line that the National Guard was trained to help out in disasters in this country. Not anymore. Now if we have a problem over here, the Emperor calls on his goon squad(privatized,of course)Blackwater and fiends at about $1,250.00 a day per person(most current amount found),so much more than the National Guard, all in the name of helping out his buddies who bailed his ass out in the past.

And just what do the taxpayers get for that amount of money? Heavily armed anti-American Christian Conservative Mercenaries who disallowed the victims to leave the area for safer quarters in New Orleans, held at gunpoint and shot and killed if they tried to get out of a dangerous situation. And this is helping in a disaster situation how?, by killing the people? They did not pass out water, food, medicine, no promised buses to move the people out to safer places? HELL NO. Even an animal will run from danger, it’s a natural instinct, yet when people tried to run to safety, they were shot and killed. And we all know how easily Blackwater squeezes that trigger. Especially as there are no consequences for THEM!

It’s time to bring our people home, America should come first. We have enough things that happen in this country to have need of a real National Guard here. They were not created to take over the type of wars that used to be for the Army, Navy, Air force and the Marines, etc.

You cannot have a strong country without a strong base. While our people are over in other countries trying to build them up, ours is falling apart due to neglect and lack of funding as it is all going out of the country for some spoiled brats ego-fantasy view of his goal of world domination.

Report this

By cyrena, February 3, 2008 at 4:32 am Link to this comment

Actually, what I think Katrina proved was just another component of the fascist takeover.

In perspective..the victims of Katrina were actually PREVENTED from leaving the site of the emergency. Whatever arms they had were taken from them, and Blackwater took over. (Blackwater being equivalent to the SS in Hitler’s Nazi Army).

Could the National Guard have performed it’s duty…IF THEY WERE THERE, rather than fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Well, the old National Guard would have been able to help, so I’m not sure that Katrina is an example that one can only depend on themselves or their communities in an emergency. That may be the case now, since we effectively no longer HAVE a National Guard, but again, the ‘original intent’ would have provided for an APPROPRIATE response to a natural disaster.

I’m not suggesting that the 2nd amendment isn’t an important right that belongs in our Constitution, but it has little or nothing to do with responding to a natural disaster, since one cannot use weapons to protect or defend their families against high winds and the floods. How would they do that? Shoot the hurricane?

No, but the National Guard, (properly trained and available) COULD in fact perform rescue operations, and maintain order in the face of mass panic. I suspect that’s the reason why the most practically thinking state in the Union, (Vermont) is demanding the return of their National Guard. It will be interesting to see how that comes along.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, February 2, 2008 at 8:54 pm Link to this comment

Bush the mighty, joined the National Guard for the same reason I tried, but could not get in because it was full of Republicans and so I joined up in the Marine Corps, I did not want to be drafted. 

It is well known that Bush evaded Vietnam because he had some help from high places, so hawk like,  atypical to make sure anyone but their selves and friends goes to war.
The fact that Bush sent the National Guard to Iraq, speaks of his attitude about war, everyone but him and the elite go to war. 

Now I did not want to go to Vietnam, but had to, guess I should be happy Bush never made it, because he has become a great president in his own eyes.

You know if we sent the hawks to the front lines, the wars would never start.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, February 1, 2008 at 3:59 pm Link to this comment

Didn’t hurricane Katrina prove this?

You can not depend on any one but yourself and maybe your community.  If the shit hits the fan the cops are going home to defend thir families. 

This is why the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is so important.

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook