States Consider Calling Back National Guards from Iraq

P

Pat H

Moderator
Looks like there's going to be another showdown between the fedgov and the states that created it. One that I certainly hope they win.

States Consider Calling Back National Guards from Iraq

by Aaron Glantz

State legislators in Vermont introduced legislation Wednesday demanding the state's National Guard troops return from Iraq. Lawmakers in Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania are poised to push similar legislation.

At the heart of the matter is a contention that President George W. Bush's legal authority to deploy the National Guard to Iraq has expired.
"Congress laid out a pretty specific mission for the Guard in 2002," Vermont State Representative Michael Fisher (D-Lincoln) told OneWorld. "That mission was two things: it was to defend the national security of the United States [against] the threat posed by Iraq, and, two, to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. I don't believe there are any credible arguments that the state of Iraq poses a risk to the Untied States or that there may still be weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

"If the president believes there's still a need to have our National Guard in Iraq to stabilize that country or whatever, it's his job to go back to Congress and ask for that authorization," Fisher added. "The president doesn't have the authority to permanently federalize our Guards."

The legislation comes amid increasing antiwar sentiment in the Green Mountain state. In 2005, voters in 48 Vermont towns approved resolutions calling on the State Legislature to study the effect on Vermont of numerous deployments to Iraq and asked Vermont's congressional delegation ''to work to restore a proper balance between the powers of the states and that of the federal government over state National Guard units."

The Vermont State Legislature also asked the president and the Congress to withdraw the U.S. military from Iraq.

Vermont, like other rural parts of the country, has suffered disproportionately from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, say analysts. A November 2006 report by the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire found soldiers from rural Vermont had the highest death rate in the nation.

A June 2007 survey sponsored by the nonpartisan Center for Rural Strategies found rural support for the war slipping: some 45 percent of rural Americans said then that the United States should "stay the course" in Iraq, down from 51 percent in 2004.
And 60 percent of respondents said they knew someone serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Despite popular sentiment and rising casualties, Vermont's Republican Governor Jim Douglas reacted coldly to Fisher's legislation.
"This is a federal issue," spokesman Jason Gibbs told the Burlington Free Press. "Governor Douglas would like to see Washington develop a strategy to bring the troops home."

The Free Press reported that, according to Gibbs, the Vermont governor's legal staff looked into the authority over the National Guard when the issue was under public scrutiny several years ago. They found that states had no legal basis for refusing to deploy National Guard units, Gibbs said. "To change that, Congress would have to act."

This is not the first time states have looked into recalling their National Guards from an unpopular foreign conflict.

In the 1986, several governors opposed to President Ronald Reagan's covert military operations in Central America refused to allow their National Guard units to participate in exercises there.

That fall, Congress, led by Mississippi Congressmen and longtime National Guard ally G. V. "Sonny" Montgomery, passed an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act that prevented governors from withholding units from federal training in the future.

Minnesota Governor Rudy Perpich took the lead in challenging the new law, but after losing several appeals, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the law's constitutionality in 1990.

Many constitutional authorities argue that the Montgomery Amendment essentially ended any power a governor might have to veto deployment of National Guard units.

But the bill's backers say the war in Iraq is different than the 1980s conflict in Central America.

"In the 1980s, President Reagan said he wanted to send the National Guard to Central America for 'training,'" said Benson Scotch, a former chief staff attorney to Vermont's Supreme Court, who helped write the bill. "There is no such thing as a limited authorization by Congress for a permanent ongoing call-up."
Attribution
Click to expand...
 
One added benefit of this administration is they have shown states they need
to stand up and do for themselves.
 
More states need to join in

More states need to join in this action. Its not a cut and run as the war believers will claim. There are plenty of full time military personnel to send over to replace the guard. States across the country have seen their NG units decimated as they packed everything and took it to Iraq. Then they returned home leaving most of what the took with them behind.

The NG armory building here looks like an abandoned building. Inside it appears they could not put out a fire without having to call someone to bring them a fire extinguisher. I seriously doubt they could respond to any local natural disaster in a meaningful manner. Meanwhile the are in Iraq for the second time.

I understand being there is within their mission. But being available for local or statewide problems is also in the mission.
 
Standard, some folks want the benefits with out the expense. I never heard any of the states complaining when the Federal Govt was supplying them with all of that war making equipment.
 
I favor a "cut and run" strategy in Iraq. Republican act like its a bad thing.
But we have done all we initially intended to do in Iraq. Nation building is not our job. We need to bring the guard home and put them on the southern border.
 
Sure...let's leave the lights on and toss the keys to the Syrians and the Iranians on our way out. That would really be the best thing to do for that country, that region and for our country.
 
We need to bring the guard home and put them on the southern border.
Click to expand...

Ditto on that. I agree with the sentiment of a lot of the above posts, but the fact is the Presidents power to federalize the guard supersedes all other powers. In fact, in recent years it has even gotten stronger.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard

National Guard units can be mobilized at any time by presidential order to supplement regular armed forces, and upon declaration of a state of emergency by the governor of the state or territory in which they serve (in the case of Washington DC, the Commanding General).
Click to expand...

If George Wallace was alive he could tell you about who can control a states national guard.

After the Guard is Federalized only one person can issue orders to the Guard...the President. There is simply no means for a Guard commander to receive orders from anyone except the President or the officers the President appoints to give such orders.
 
Sure...let's leave the lights on and toss the keys to the Syrians and the Iranians on our way out. That would really be the best thing to do for that country, that region and for our country.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. By the time the Iranians, Syrians, and Iraqis finish killing each other there will be a whole lot less of them to cause problems for us.
 
Sure...let's leave the lights on and toss the keys to the Syrians and the Iranians on our way out. That would really be the best thing to do for that country, that region and for our country.
Click to expand...
This is the modern version of the "domino theory".

It was wrong 30+ years ago and it's wrong today.
 
Sure...let's leave the lights on and toss the keys to the Syrians and the Iranians on our way out.
Click to expand...

Just a harsh fact, Saddam Hussein was doing a good job of keeping the Syrians & Iranians out. Now we have opened it up for all to come. I am not saying that a dictator like Hussein is a good thing...just pointing out the real world.
 
We need to bring the guard home and put them on the southern border.QUOTE]

You'll love this then, we actually send US Border Patrol Agents to help guard their borders. It's only a few, but the irony !
Click to expand...
 
States can pass all the feel good legislation they want to. It will be shot down in federal court. A couple of states tried to pull similar crap during the first Gulf War. It was shot down by federal judges.
 
Perpich v. DoD is a very narrowly ruled case, is weak Constitutionally, and is even weaker by legal precedent.

The reason the states are legally correct this time is that the Invasion and War Against Iraq have no treaty that permitted its prosecution, making it illegal. The states would go to court with that fact, the last thing this regime wants to happen.

More states should now act, they have a very strong case.
 
This is the modern version of the "domino theory".

It was wrong 30+ years ago and it's wrong today.
Click to expand...

Right....just like central and south america. There's no teetering (or fallen) dominoes there either, right?
 
Perpich v. DoD is a very narrowly ruled case, is weak Constitutionally, and is even weaker by legal precedent.

The reason the states are legally correct this time is that the Invasion and War Against Iraq have no treaty that permitted its prosecution, making it illegal. The states would go to court with that fact, the last thing this regime wants to happen.

More states should now act, they have a very strong case.
Click to expand...


Fed's response to the states: "Oh sure, you can file a suit in court to bring your gaurd units home. I hope you like getting by with no education or highway funding". The Fed's have the states by the fiscal gonads. They continue to squeeze them tighter with every bit of additional power that they are able to grab or which they are given by "the people" to solve their problems and make them happy. We have made this bed. We have now seen the giant bed bug called the federal government whom we've been feeding since the New Deal.


I see the town council in Berkley, CA voted to prevent military recruiters from operating within the city. I didn't see any details as to how they would accomplish this. I suppose via zoning and business licensing policies and regulations. I wonder what repurcussions that will have. Maybe they just don't like the fact that recruiters are getting kids signed up to go shoot those "icky, evil" guns.
 
Last edited:
States can pass all the hyperbole legislation that they want.

How do they propose getting their troops back?
Click to expand...

Say pretty please?

I suppose they're making better theater of it this time than our Governor did last time, but the result will be the same. Neither our men nor our equipment returned from Iraq anytime soon after, and the Vermont will fare no better. It's is a huge issue, though. it was particularly bad back when Schweitzer played this game; I believe that for that rotation it was something like 40% or 50% National Guard troops in Iraq (which is a bit much, if you ask me). Nearly half our Guard was gone, and almost all of our equipment (from HMMWV's to helicopters) was gone.

And even beyond that, you have to realize that a disproportionate number of civilian emergency personnel seem to be in the Guard/Reserves...police, firefighters, etc. (I know that, for instance, a few smaller police forces up here lost upwards of 20% of their people when we deployed.) When you have your entire force to choose from, it's easier to just activate others and leave such personnel in their civilian positions. When half are gone....well, anyway, it doesn't work out as well. And while bringing in others from out-of-state is an option...blah blah blah.

The National Guard's (and, I'd imagine, the Reserves') optempo has been insane. I've railed against it enough times here, I doubt I'm going to convince anybody that doesn't already care. The active Army may be doing 12-on 12-off deployments (up to 15-on and 12-or-less off right now), but many reservists have wound up serving upwards of 3 years out of 6 or 7...which for people who are expected to maintain civilian careers between deployments is absolutely ludicrous. I applaud lawmakers in these states for trying to help out their servicemembers, but I'll be incredibly surprised if anything actually comes of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top