Bush's policies weakened Kansas' ability to respond adequately to disaster

motivez · 05-09-2007, 03:29 PM

Some of you may remember awhile back there were several articles about Bush's power grab with the national guard and taking control away from the states, and I made this thread: Bush Guts Posse Comitatus, Grabs National Guard..

..as well as several articles that had widespread support from Governor's on both sides of the isle like this one: Bush Policies Are Weakening National Guard, Governors Say - New York Times

WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 — Governors of both parties said Sunday that Bush administration policies were stripping the National Guard of equipment and personnel needed to respond to hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, forest fires and other emergencies.

"We should be increasing the number of National Guard combat brigades, not reducing it," Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco said.

Tens of thousands of National Guard members have been sent to Iraq, along with much of the equipment needed to deal with natural disasters and terrorist threats in the United States, the governors said here at the winter meeting of the National Governors Association.

The National Guard, which traces its roots to the colonial militia, has a dual federal-state role. Governors normally command the Guard in their states, but Guard members deployed overseas in support of a federal mission are under the control of the president.

The governors said they would present their concerns to President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Monday. In a preview of their message, all 50 governors signed a letter to the president opposing any cuts in the size of the National Guard.

"Unfortunately," the letter said, "when our National Guard men and women return from being deployed in foreign theaters, much of their equipment remains behind." The governors said the White House must immediately re-equip Guard units "to carry out their homeland security and domestic disaster duties."

Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, a Republican and chairman of the governors association, said: "The National Guard plays an incredibly valuable role in the states. What we are concerned about, as governors, is that when our troops are deployed for long periods of time, and their equipment goes with them but does not come back, the troops are very strained, and they no longer have the equipment they were trained to use."

Nearly one-third of the American ground forces in Iraq are members of the Army National Guard.

This month the Pentagon backed away from a budget proposal to reduce the authorized strength of the National Guard to 330,000 soldiers, from 350,000.

"We have no intention of cutting the number of Guard or Reserve brigades, reducing the number of Guard or Reserve soldiers, or cutting the level of Guard or Reserve funding," said the Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker.

Gov. Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho, a Republican, said Sunday that he was still "very concerned." The administration may have set aside the proposal on authorized strength, but it has not restored money to the budget to pay for 350,000 Guard members, he said.

In a recent report, the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said that "extensive use of the Guard's equipment overseas has significantly reduced the amount of equipment available to governors for domestic needs."

Since 2003, the report said, the Army National Guard has left more than 64,000 pieces of equipment, valued at more than $1.2 billion, in Iraq. The Army has not kept track of most of this equipment and has no firm plans to replace it, the report said.

Governor Kempthorne said the National Guard was bearing "a totally disproportionate share" of proposed cuts in the growth of the Army's budget over the next five years, even as the Guard's responsibilities at home were increasing.

Governors of both parties said a Pentagon plan to reorganize the Army National Guard would significantly weaken its ability to save lives and property at home.

After Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, more than 40,000 Guard members helped evacuate storm victims, distributed food and water, provided emergency medical care, repaired homes and restored power.

Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco of Louisiana, a Democrat, said: "The Guard played an awesome role. We should be increasing the number of National Guard combat brigades, not reducing it."

Two other Democrats, Govs. Tom Vilsack of Iowa and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, said the strength and resources of Guard units in their states were being depleted.

"We are not only missing National Guard personnel," Ms. Sebelius said. "We are also missing a lot of the equipment that's used to deal with situations at home, day in and day out."

Despite assurances from top administration officials, Mr. Vilsack said, "many of us are very concerned about what we're hearing, that the Pentagon, the administration, might reduce the resources for the National Guard so they can redirect resources to pay for more boots on the ground, more full-time military."

David M. Walker, the comptroller general of the United States, who heads the Government Accountability Office, said the governors had some basis for their concerns.

"The Army cannot account for over half the equipment that Army National Guard units have left overseas," Mr. Walker said. "And it has not developed replacement plans for the equipment, as Defense Department policy requires."

Well, it seems like we're seeing the result of this in Kansas, where as we all know, a town was devastated by national disaster and is unfortunately not able to respond with the full capacity that they should.

Not enough equipment

During a tour of the town early Sunday evening, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius — who in December asked the Pentagon to replenish Kansas equipment left by the National Guard in Iraq — said the devastation in Greensburg shows why the state needs its equipment back.

“We’re missing about half of our trucks from the National Guard units,” Sebelius said. “Clearly trucks to haul this debris away would be enormously helpful. We are missing flatbeds. We are missing Humvees, which are used to get people to safety and security and to haul equipment around. We are missing a number of our well-trained National Guard personnel. The equipment that we continue to harp on that has been sent overseas when our troops are deployed and not restored at the same level could be enormously helpful.”

LJWorld.com / Talk of rebuilding begins amid rescue

Despite there being concern about this type of thing over a year ago there was nothing done by Bush and his team to address the bipartisan concerns of Governors in all 50 states.. that is ridiculous and pathetic to me, and now it's the residents of Kansas who are suffering.

What happens if we are struck by another hurricane and the state simply doesn't have enough resources or men left to respond properly? Surely nothing is going to be done to rectify the situation in the next month before hurricane season starts if it hasn't been looked at in over a year..

For me this illustrates another reason why "elite" isn't the bad word the Republicans would make it out to be.. and why having a "good ol boy" who's "common folk" as President isn't a great idea.. I want someone elite, who's at the top of their game running the country.. not someone without the vision or foresight to see that putting this kind of strain on our military and national guard forces is going to have consequences domestically.

It's baffling to me that there hasn't been an effort to replace equipment used by the National Guard over there when it's left (since as the articles state, they don't bring it back with them..). It seems like if they're on a mission where the Federal Government is in control of their equipment, it's their responsibility (and not the states) to replace it.

That said, I still don't understand why we are using national guard forces to fight in Iraq instead of active military, if we don't have enough, that's something that should be addressed.. maybe king or someone can expand on that.

JaJae · 05-09-2007, 03:38 PM

I think it's horrible what happened to those people in Kansas and it's a shame so many of their national guard units are overseas. We're stretched thin with our military supplies and personnel. I don't intend to make this a race issue, but in all honesty I'm glad this happened in Kansas and not a poor urban town. Our country can deal with the aftermath of Kansas, but if it weren't mostly white people affected our nation would be in turmoil right now and we'd be having another Katrina. And I think it would be used to direct a lot of political pressure on the war in Iraq in ways that may not all be necessary.

I think anyone who is from the Kansas National Guard and is stationed in Iraq should be given emergency leave to come home to work. I'm not sure how that would pan out for Iraq, but we need to take care of ourselves first.

Not having enough equipment shouldn't be an issue either. We should have paid for the replacement of equipment shipped to Iraq. We shouldn't leave ourselves vulnerable just because we're in Iraq. What if this wasn't a tornado, but was an act of terrorism? How safe has Bush made us? How can we respond to another major act of terror in this country without our national guard units on hand and fully equipped?

These are answers the Bush administration must start answering to.

motivez · 05-09-2007, 03:42 PM

Yeah, they should be home and helping protect their states, like I said I don't understand why we aren't using active duty military personnel in the first place.. is it that we don't have enough?

Bush needs to now make a serious effort to address the concerns of the Governors who have been left without the proper resources to sufficiently respond to disasters in their states..

David Octavius · 05-09-2007, 03:50 PM

The military is so overburden that the national guard is needed. The problem is this: the administration wants to wage global war against "terrorism" - their definition of it anyway - but it takes so much resources and personnel that in order to do this they will have to use the national guards, that or re institute the draft.

To them risking the national guard at the expense of our need of them at home is much more acceptable than a draft which they know will utterly destroy any support for the war. People are pissed now about Iraq, imagine if there is a draft, that would motivate them well beyond anything that is going on now to stop it, it would be a death blow to the Neocons.

They haven't yet realize that you cant have your cake and eat it too, something will suffer as a consequence of them trying to have it all and unfortunately we are seeing it now and it will only get worse now that we are entering the hurricane season.

Diesel66 · 05-09-2007, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Despite there being concern about this type of thing over a year ago there was nothing done by Bush and his team to address the bipartisan concerns of Governors in all 50 states.. that is ridiculous and pathetic to me, and now it's the residents of Kansas who are suffering.

Backing up the US active Military is the wholepoint of the NG. Do you expect him to fight a war without using them and the Reserves ?

We had similar issues in WWII.

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, they should be home and helping protect their states, like I said I don't understand why we aren't using active duty military personnel in the first place.. is it that we don't have enough?

The entire Active Army and Marines have been in Iraq and the light forces also go to Afghanistan.

We just dont have enough men available to fight both wars, have downtime/training and have a ready reaction force availabe using only Active duty. Plus many MOS's just dont exist in the Active Army.

JaJae · 05-09-2007, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Backing up the US active Military is the wholepoint of the NG. Do you expect him to fight a war without using them and the Reserves ?

Their primary purpose is to protect the people on our soil. Which they are failing to do in Kansas... at no fault of their own.

Diesel66 · 05-09-2007, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Their primary purpose is to protect the people on our soil. Which they are failing to do in Kansas... at no fault of their own.

false.

The NG are Soldiers.

After the reorganization following Vietnam, it is impossible to fight any war for anything more then a couple weeks without using the NG and Reserves. MP, PSYOPS, and other similar MOS are almost completely in reserve/ng units.

There are 10 active Army divisions and 1 Marine active Division. That isnt enough force to fight 2 wars, train, and still have enough to attack any new enemy.

Stylerod · 05-09-2007, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

false.

The NG are Soldiers.

After the reorganization following Vietnam, it is impossible to fight any war for anything more then a couple weeks without using the NG and Reserves. MP, PSYOPS, and other similar MOS are almost completely in reserve/ng units.

There are 10 active Army divisions and 1 Marine active Division. That isnt enough force to fight 2 wars, train, and still have enough to attack any new enemy.

And are controlled by the Federal Government and the Pentagon, not the states.

6SpeedTA95 · 05-09-2007, 04:21 PM

If the federal government is depleting state resources they should replenish those same resources.

However, I think it is important to point out being close to the site and having a friend that lives in greensburg they have said nothing but good things about FEMA and the state response to this situation

motivez · 05-09-2007, 04:26 PM

The reserves for the active branches of the military is different than the national guard, though.

If we have capacity problems for the active duty services then that's something we as a nation should definitely address.. but taking control of the National Guard (over the express disagreement of a Governor even) and then refusing to keep the service in working order so they can adequately respond to situations happening in their states is ridiculous.

Nonphixion · 05-09-2007, 04:27 PM

Don't worry about it, the Neo-Cons will send in their Blackwater Mercenaries to get the job previously entrusted to the National Gaurd, done at 10x the cost, except this time with even less oversight.

Just ask the survivors of post-Katrina New Orleans about the Blackwater presence.

blackwater in new orleans katrina - Google Search

Obviously this is counter to Don Rumsfeld's vision of "fighting this War on-the-cheap" in order to (I would say with some careful discernment) undoubtedly fund Black Budget Government Defense projects.

Stylerod · 05-09-2007, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

The reserves for the active branches of the military is different than the national guard, though.

If we have capacity problems for the active duty services then that's something we as a nation should definitely address.. but taking control of the National Guard (over the express disagreement of a Governor even) and then refusing to keep the service in working order so they can adequately respond to situations happening in their states is ridiculous.

You are talking like the National Guard is a state entity. It's not. It is controlled and paid for by the Federal Government. The Federal Government ALLOWS states to use the National Guard in time of need, not vise versa.

A state owned military is called a State Defense Force, but not all states have them. Only about half I think.

6SpeedTA95 · 05-09-2007, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

The reserves for the active branches of the military is different than the national guard, though.

If we have capacity problems for the active duty services then that's something we as a nation should definitely address.. but taking control of the National Guard (over the express disagreement of a Governor even) and then refusing to keep the service in working order so they can adequately respond to situations happening in their states is ridiculous.

Well on that point I totally agree. If they're using up state resources they need to be replinished.

Stylerod · 05-09-2007, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Well on that point I totally agree. If they're using up state resources they need to be replinished.

Agree about an incorrect statement? The State's do not control the National Guard. They don't train the National Guard. They don't equip the National Guard. The pentagon does that. They are, in effect, owned by the Army and Air Force.

The Army and Air Force took their equipment and moved it to Iraq and Afghanistan. Why would they need to replenish equipment that the states do not own?

6SpeedTA95 · 05-09-2007, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Agree about an incorrect statement? The State's do not control the National Guard. They don't train the National Guard. They don't equip the National Guard. The pentagon does that. They are, in effect, owned by the Army and Air Force.

The Army and Air Force took their equipment and moved it to Iraq and Afghanistan. Why would they need to replenish equipment that the states do not own?

Here's what I was responding to

refusing to keep the service in working order so they can adequately respond to situations happening in their states is ridiculous.

If they're using state resources and not replenishing those resources they have an obligation to replenish the services they use. IF it is simply using the national guard to go to Iraq, as you state that is a seperate deal all together. The national guard is the NATIONAL guard, not the Kansas guard. It is funded by the federal government. But that doesn't dismiss or discount the use of resources from states that should be replaced if the government uses them.

Stylerod · 05-09-2007, 05:31 PM

Here. Some example of what the National Guard is.

The United States National Guard is a component of the United States Army (the Army National Guard) and the United States Air Force (the Air National Guard). Both are maintained through the National Guard Bureau, a semi-independent subordinate entity of the United States Department of Defense, whose Chief is a Lieutenant General.

Army National Guard units are trained and equipped as part of the U.S. Army; likewise, Air National Guard units are trained and equipped as part of the US Air Force. Both are expected to adhere to the same moral and physical standards as their "full-time" Federal counterparts. The same ranks and insignia are used and National Guardsmen are eligible to receive all United States military awards. The National Guard also bestows a number of state awards for local services rendered in a service member's home state.

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, D.C. guard units, the Mayor of D.C.).

The National Guard Bureau is in Arlington, Va., and is a joint bureau of the United States Department of the Army and The United States Department of the Air Force to conduct all the administrative matters pertaining to the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard.

Stylerod · 05-09-2007, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Here's what I was responding to

If they're using state resources and not replenishing those resources they have an obligation to replenish the services they use. IF it is simply using the national guard to go to Iraq, as you state that is a seperate deal all together. The national guard is the NATIONAL guard, not the Kansas guard. It is funded by the federal government. But that doesn't dismiss or discount the use of resources from states that should be replaced if the government uses them.

You quoted more though, including this:

but taking control of the National Guard (over the express disagreement of a Governor even)

Motivez threw that in like Governors have control of the NG. They don't. They are allowed to "borrow" them for State emergency's, but that is it.

And what state resources are we talking about?????? Do we have examples?