WP: Wars Put Strain On National Guard

[kskiska]

Fire, Flood Relief Efforts Threatened

Sunday, June 6, 2004; Page A01

With almost 40,000 troops serving in the unexpectedly violent and difficult occupation of Iraq, the National Guard is beginning to show the strain of duty there, according to interviews and e-mail exchanges with 23 state Guard commanders from California to Maine.

The Iraq mission is placing new stress on the active-duty Army as it leans more heavily than it has in decades on the Guard -- which, with 350,000 troops, rivals the active force in size. That new reliance, in turn, is raising concerns about the Guard's long-term ability to recruit and retain troops, and it is provoking more immediate worries in states that rely on the Guard to deal with fires, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes.

Some Guard commanders are beginning to say they simply can't deploy any more troops. "As far as New Hampshire goes, we're tapped," said Maj. Gen. John E. Blair, that state's adjutant general, or Guard commander. Of his 1,700 Army National Guard troops, more than 1,000 are in Iraq, Afghanistan or Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or on alert for deployment. And to get units fully manned to head overseas, he said, "we've had to break other units."

Blair, who piloted a medical evacuation helicopter in the Vietnam War, said he informed the Pentagon's National Guard Bureau two weeks ago that "before you call us again, you've got to know that we are at our limit."

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18980-2004Jun5.html

[kalian]

1. What "wars"....?

:shrug:

[alcuno]

2. 6 of the last 6 killed in Iraq were from the National Guard.

http://icasualties.org/oif/Details.aspx

This is awful for me to say, but I keep thinking of the states that the KIA are from and hoping they are NOT from so-called "blue" states.

[ixion]

3. unexpectedly violent and difficult occupation of Iraq

funny, I remember saying that it was going to be this way... what are they smoking at the WP? :shrug:

[dusty64]

4. Gee, this is a

BIG surprise.

[PATRICK]

5. As opposed to regular army recruits

where you can get some gung ho and disadvantaged youths to volunteer for any form of heady risk and violence, the National Guard with its tearful departures of weekend warriors from their families is likely to be decimated by Bush policies, especially stop/loss and lack of support.

Under Bush a draft will be inevitable unless we are going to wait in a state of perpetual unreadiness to react with one when it is too late except to throw raw recruits into a crisis. Or a larger professional army with fewer high tech toys and less privatization and civilian control.

They have always enthused about renewing the small nuke option. I hope this will not be their cure all for the above inevitable crunch.

[struggle4progress]

6. kick

:kick:

[Bandit]

7. Well .....Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Use the National Guard for State matters and use the Army for US concerns.

[Gloria]

8. So when the next natural disaster or big attack hits here...who will

be guarding US???????? OH, I guess we can hire $7.00 an hour private guards, right???