Washblog

Redeployment of Wash. Nat'l Guard continues misuse of `emergency' force

[WA state issue worth front page attention - LR] The announcement this month that a Washington State National Guard unit back will redeploy Iraq did not occasion much comment, though it coincided with the fifth anniversary of the invasion.  This piece reviews a few news articles about the redeployment and connects the news to a number of discussions of the use and misuse of National Guard troops over the past several years, including a recent book by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and the October 2006 law giving the president the authority to commandeer National Guard troops over the wishes of the state governor to respond to "a serious natural or manmade disaster, accident, or catastrophe," vague language that could cover almost any circumstance.[1]  Naomi Wolf, author of The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2007), warned last year about the latter change in an article entitled "Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps."  Given this background, the low-key treatment that the mainstream media gave to the news of the National Guard redeployment may be a bad omen.  

REDEPLOYMENT TO IRAQ IS MISUSE OF WASHINGTON NATIONAL GUARD
By Mark Jensen

* Unit intended for emergencies conscripted to serve empire overseas *

United for Peace of Pierce County (WA)
March 29, 2008

http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/7291/ (see link for references)

TACOMA, Washington -- Mobilization orders were received on March 17, 2008, by a Washington State National Guard brigade.[2]  

The 81st Heavy Combat Brigade Team will deploy to Iraq for the second time in the fall of 2008 after exercises at Washington's Yakima Training Center in July, mobilization in mid-August at Fort McCoy, Wis., and more training in Kuwait.  

On March 21, the Seattle Times noted that the Seattle-based unit "draws soldiers from all over the state" and also includes about 900 Californians.  Hal Bernton said that the brigade's "yearlong tour will involve security, force protection, and other missions."[3]

For most of the National Guard unit's members, the redeployment means a second tour in Iraq:  "Lt. Col. William Palmer, who commands about 500 soldiers in the 1st Squadron, 303rd Calvary of the 81st, estimates about 60 percent of the brigade served during the first tour and 40 percent has joined the Guard since then," Bernton wrote.

NOBEL PRIZE WINNER OPPOSED TO REDEPLOYMENT OF GUARD

A just-published book calls misuse of the National Guard one of the lessons the U.S. can learn from the Iraq war.

The final chapter of The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict (W.W. Norton, 2008), co-authored by Joseph Stiglitz, recommends that "The military should not be permitted to call upon the National Guard or the Reserves for more than one year, unless it can demonstrate that it is not feasible to increase the requisite size of the armed forces."  

The Nobel Prize-winning economist and co-author Linda Bilmes, an expert in government finance at Harvard, explain:  "We are supposed to call upon the Reserves and the National Guard in times of emergency.  Five years into a war, we cannot credibly claim that in Iraq it is still an emergency.  We have already seen the consequences of a first-responder National Guard that is overseas instead of able to take action quickly at home.  Limiting the deployment of these troops to one year will compel the military to present alternative approaches. . . .

"In the event National Guard or Reserve troops do serve more than one tour, the military would be required to pay double wages on the second tour of duty and triple on a third.  Double pay should be given to any individual required involuntarily to extend his or her time in service beyond the originally contracted amount.  This will provide incentives for the military not to use the National Guard or Reserves for repeated tours of duty" (ibid., p. 196, emphasis in original).  

WASHINGTON'S GOVERNOR HAS NO COMMENT

In 2005, during the brigade's first deployment, Washington Governor Chris Gregoire was urged my members of military families to call on President George W. Bush to release Washington National Guard troops from service in Iraq.[4]  An aide met with a delegation from Military Families Speak Out, Gold Star Families for Peace and Veterans for Peace.

In March 2008, on the day that the Washington National Guard confirmed the mobilization orders for the brigade's redeployment, the governor signed into law an act ensuring that their spouses will get "precious time to connect during challenging times" -- language from her office's press release --, and, should they be killed in Iraq, "special plates [that] will recognize and honor those men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice."[5]  

The occasion presented an opportunity for her to speak out about the misuse of National Guard troops in Iraq.

But there was not a word about the new deployment.

GOVERNORS FIGHT BACK, BUT FAIL

In August 2006 a bipartisan effort on the part of the nation's governors was led by then-Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee to block a provision in a House-passed defense bill authorizing the president to take control of the Guard in case of "a serious natural or manmade disaster, accident, or catastrophe" in the U.S.[6]  

David Broder of the Washington Post said "Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, the senior Democrat, called the proposal `one step away from a complete takeover of the National Guard, the end of the Guard as a dual-function force that can respond to both state and national needs.'"  

But despite the concurrence of all 50 state governors in objecting to the change in the law, the effort to block it failed.[7]  

A commentator noted in January 2007 that "The change adds to tensions between governors and the White House after more than four years of heavy federal deployment of state-based Guard forces to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Since the 2001 terrorist attacks, four out of five guardsmen have been sent overseas in the largest deployment of the National Guard since World War II.  Shortage of the Guard's military equipment -- such as helicopters to drop hay to snow-stranded cattle in Colorado -- also is a nagging issue as much of units' heavy equipment is left overseas and unavailable in case of a natural disaster at home."  

THE CHANGING NATURE OF THE NATIONAL GUARD

As the Republic has been morphing into an empire, the nature of the National Guard has been changing.  

Under the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8; Clause 15), the United States Congress has the power to pass laws for "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."  

But the National Defense Act of June 3, 1916, provided for the nationalization of the National Guard, regarded as part of the "militia of the United States."  

In 1987, the Montgomery Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act provided that a governor cannot withhold consent with regard to active duty outside the United States because of an objection to the location, purpose, type, or schedule of such duty; this was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1990.  

As Gov. Vilsack of Iowa said in 2006, we are now "one step away from a complete takeover of the National Guard."

--Mark Jensen is a member of United for Peace of Pierce County (WA) and of the faculty of Pacific Lutheran University.

< On Filling The Time, Or, The 24 Hour News Cycle Improved | Please help Lewis County!! >
Display: Sort:
the announcement that WA Natl Guard was being mobilized for deployment to Iraq --- again.  I was recalling how in 2005, the campaign that I and others of Military Families Speak Out participated in meeting with Governor Gregoire's Military Advisor did get some media notice. We attempted to press for the Governor to stand on her Commander-in-Chief status of the WA Natl Guard, suggesting she challenge the President's right to commandeer the state Natl Guard for combat deployment in Iraq when they were needed on the homefront.

I remember that time (early 2005)as still being a difficult time to publicly challenge this administration on anything related to Iraq.  That we were military families, with one among us with a husband in the WA Natl Guard who was deployed in Iraq at that time, the other the sister of a soldier killed in Iraq and myself with two loved ones deployed in Iraq - we hoped would give balast to the message we were trying to convey to Governor Gregoire.

Now, it is 2008, five years of war in Iraq; the opinions in this country have changed and it is not so difficult to publicly challenge this administration on decisions about Iraq. (Not that public or private challenges have any impact to  change the mind of this President and Vice President determined on a course that makes sense only to themselves)  

Yet, the announcement that the WA Natl Guard - the citizen soldiers whose function was as a state militia - will deploy again to Iraq to function in combat in war was met with barely a peep. Hardly a ripple, and certainly not any outcry that registered.

Thank you Mark for posting the diary. Thank you for calling attention to what few seemed to notice. I wish I had checked into WB sooner, so I could have front paged your diary.  It asssuredly is a matter th