Guard unable to deal with 2 hurricanes

Ron Burgundy · 08-18-2006, 10:46 AM

Guard unable to deal with 2 hurricanes (AP)

AP - Strapped by war and equipment shortages, the National Guard will find it difficult to deal with two or more major hurricanes if they sweep ashore in different regions around the same time, Guard leaders say.

WASHINGTON - Strapped by war and equipment shortages, the National Guard will find it difficult to deal with two or more major hurricanes if they sweep ashore in different regions around the same time, Guard leaders say.
ADVERTISEMENT

To counter equipment shortfalls caused largely by the
Iraq and
Afghanistan wars, the Guard has borrowed more than $500 million worth of equipment from the active duty military to restock its units. Thousands of trucks, Humvees and other supplies have been shifted mostly from inland states' Guard units closer to where storms are more likely to strike.

Army and Air Guard officials also are spending at least $900 million on new communications equipment and hundreds of tractors and trucks.

But that may be too little, too late, for states warily watching the weather reports as the nation enters peak hurricane season.

If a hurricane hits North Carolina and another one spins toward Texas, "we would have to make some very difficult decisions," Col. Pat Tennis, the National Guard's director of operations, told the Associated Press.

"Have we thinned the lines? Yes we have. Could we deal with the consequences of another hurricane like Katrina? Yes. Could we deal with two? That would be very challenging," Tennis said.

Guard officials, he said, would have to "look at population densities, what states could volunteer their equipment ... and we would have to travel equipment longer distances in order to meet the emergency."

Tennis' comments come nearly a year after more than 50,000 Guard members from across the country raced to the Gulf Coast to assist in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which destroyed wide swaths of the Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas coasts.

Similar concerns were expressed by Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard. Blum said the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have taken a toll on the Guard's equipment.

"We have to be able to respond even faster here at home than they have to overseas," said Blum, adding that because of agreements between state adjutants general, "we are able to move equipment from other states, to make up for the shortfalls in some states. We have to do that every single day to make the mission work."

According to documents, the Guard has borrowed 3,418 pieces of equipment from the active military, ranging from generators and Humvees to refueling tankers and medical gear.

One Guard document says the states should already have had the equipment as part of their warfighting capabilities, but "due to deployments and stay behind equipment for (Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom), the states are particularly short."

Military units departing Iraq have left hundreds of trucks and Humvees in the war zone, and lost many others due to wear and tear or attacks.

The Army is vowing to spend $21 billion between 2005 and 2011 to buy new equipment for the Guard, including funds to replace hundreds of trucks and trailers. Army spokesman Paul Boyce said there will be a "firewall" around the Guard money to insure the full amount is protected against budget cuts, and he said separate funding for the Reserves will be in the 2007 budget requests.

"We're spread really, really thin. That's a common concern that I hear about," said Maj. Gen. Roger Lempke, president of the Adjutants General Association of the United States. "My concern is having enough equipment to support a major event in a state."

Lempke, who is adjutant general in Nebraska, agreed that multiple crises will be difficult to handle.

"If we get sequential or simultaneous events, it could be a problem. We might not have the equipment we need nearby and we might have to go clear across the country to get it."

He said Guard units in North Carolina and Louisiana, for example, had to leave a lot of equipment, including trucks and Humvees, behind in Iraq and need replacements to meet their training and homeland security needs.

Right now, he said, his home state is borrowing two Black Hawk helicopters from Arizona to help with firefighting, because Nebraska sent eight of its aircraft to Iraq. And those two helicopters, he said, "were vital to saving two towns" in the western region of the state.

According to a budget document dated late last week, the Army and Air National Guard are buying more than 200 five-ton tractors; about 2,000 cargo trucks, and more than $300 million in communications equipment, including about 200 mobile tracking systems. Some of the equipment has been bought, other purchases are not completed.

U.S. Northern Command, which is largely responsible for homeland security, has also bought more mobile communications equipment, and would be ready to move that into a region if needed.

"We just have to keep the process going and keep our fingers crossed in the meantime," said Lempke. "I think they're doing the best they can."

ballz2wallz · 08-18-2006, 02:50 PM

hurricanes?

motivez · 08-19-2006, 01:35 PM

Probably because they're all in Iraq?

motivez · 08-19-2006, 01:36 PM

By the way, is it just me or does anyone else see the irony in using the national guard in an active combat zone overseas to fight a war that's turned into a clusterfuck.. when in the past, Bush used it as a shelter to avoid combat during Vietnam?

JaJae · 08-19-2006, 03:37 PM

Didn't take long to make fun of Bush.

The national guard isn't just in the middle east. They're spread thin along the border as well. The all out national guard use such as Katrina should be the last resort for a hurricane anyway. Typically they're handled on a more local level.

motivez · 08-19-2006, 10:49 PM

Well, the irony is there. He seems to have no problem using them in war zones across the world when he used it to avoid that very thing

I know they're not JUST in the middle east, but last I heard they were a large part of our forces over there.

And yes, I agree it should be a last resort.. but it would be nice to know we had the resources available should we need it.

JaJae · 08-19-2006, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Well, the irony is there. He seems to have no problem using them in war zones across the world when he used it to avoid that very thing

I know they're not JUST in the middle east, but last I heard they were a large part of our forces over there.

And yes, I agree it should be a last resort.. but it would be nice to know we had the resources available should we need it.

I agree. There's no reason our national guard should be spread this thin. Rather than using National Guard we should hire and train more border patrol and actually give them power.

National Guard should be used at a minimum in Iraq. And we should all be able to sleep cozy at night knowing the National Guard is ready.

If they can't help us in the wake of two hurricanes how can they be available to us if we get another terrorist attack?

motivez · 08-19-2006, 11:07 PM

They wont be able to. We can see hurricanes coming. We can't see terrorist attacks coming (generally speaking obviously).

I still don't understand why we are using the guard so heavily instead of other military branches instead.. maybe tking or someone who's been in the military can enlighten us to why it's been done like this and the rationalization for it

Diesel66 · 08-19-2006, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

By the way, is it just me or does anyone else see the irony in using the national guard in an active combat zone overseas to fight a war that's turned into a clusterfuck.. when in the past, Bush used it as a shelter to avoid combat during Vietnam?

Blame Johnson for not having the balls to use the Guard in Vietnam.

Plus wonder how he used it to avoid combat when he volunteered for combat while in the guard and his unit was in Vietnam flying that same jet when he joined.

Originally Posted by motivez

I still don't understand why we are using the guard so heavily instead of other military branches instead.. maybe tking or someone who's been in the military can enlighten us to why it's been done like this and the rationalization for it

The way the Guard and Reserve were reorganized after Vietnam made it impossible to fight a large scale war without them. It is a safety measure to ensure the public is backing the war (or at least not completely against it). Look at WWII casualties from when NG units went into combat. Small cities lost their entire generation.

motivez · 08-20-2006, 12:28 PM

How is the organization so different that it makes it impossible?

SpicyMcVoodoo · 08-20-2006, 05:53 PM

I learned one valuable lesson last year from all the hurricane stuff...when the shit hits the fan, you're own your own. It was insanity in Houston last year before the hurricane hit....all the roads out of town were completely stopped, and most of the gas stations were out of gas...the few that had gas had cars wrapped around the block waiting in line. There was also no fuel along the highways out, so all sorts of people were getting stranded on the side of the road. It was seriously a hard decision as to whether it was more risky to stay or evacuate. Of course, that was just in Houston, where nothing actually happened...New Olreans was a total anarchy clusterfuck. If I was in that position again, I'd feel safer with plenty of food, fuel and guns than I would with government assurances, redneck as that may sound.

Diesel66 · 08-20-2006, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

How is the organization so different that it makes it impossible?

Vital units are now in the Guard/Reserve.
It is impossible to use an all Active military for any long war. Major transportation units, MP units, psy-ops, etc...... are only in the guard/reserve.

motivez · 08-21-2006, 01:52 AM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I learned one valuable lesson last year from all the hurricane stuff...when the shit hits the fan, you're own your own. It was insanity in Houston last year before the hurricane hit....all the roads out of town were completely stopped, and most of the gas stations were out of gas...the few that had gas had cars wrapped around the block waiting in line. There was also no fuel along the highways out, so all sorts of people were getting stranded on the side of the road. It was seriously a hard decision as to whether it was more risky to stay or evacuate. Of course, that was just in Houston, where nothing actually happened...New Olreans was a total anarchy clusterfuck. If I was in that position again, I'd feel safer with plenty of food, fuel and guns than I would with government assurances, redneck as that may sound.

Yep. That's what I took away from it too.. Be prepared to be self reliant in case of an emergency, because the Government isn't going to be there to help.

I keep a closet full of stuff just incase, bottled water, canned goods, etc.. even though I doubt anything ever happens here, better safe than sorry.

motivez · 08-21-2006, 01:53 AM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Vital units are now in the Guard/Reserve.
It is impossible to use an all Active military for any long war. Major transportation units, MP units, psy-ops, etc...... are only in the guard/reserve.

Can you expand a little more on this?

When did it happen, who was responsibile for the reorganization, what was the justification, etc?

Why don't the "active military" branches have comparable units?

Diesel66 · 08-21-2006, 02:11 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

Can you expand a little more on this?

When did it happen, who was responsibile for the reorganization, what was the justification, etc?

Why don't the "active military" branches have comparable units?

Basically after Vietnam, Congress reogranized the military. Reasons included saving money because we dont need certain units on active status if they are only used in major wars. Other major reasons are the President couldnt start a war without the public behind it. If the war was fought with mainly a draftee Army, the casualties would be spread out and the effect wouldnt be felt that badly. But if the war was faught mainly with NG/Reserve soldiers the casualties would be concentrated in certain sections of the country. News reports coming out that a city lost 1/4 of their young men and women would change the population's view of the war greatly.

Many types of units dont need to be in the active military force just because they arent necessary for most military action. We need carriers, fighter jets, Spec ops, airborne and Marine units for rapid deployment. We dont really need all the psy-ops and MP units on rapid deployment status. AF has a number of attack (A10) and tranporation units in their reserve for similar reasons.

PARAMETERS, US Army War College Quarterly - Summer 2001
Large report on this topic.

ballz2wallz · 08-21-2006, 08:47 AM

we might not even have to worry about hurricanes this year. even the tropical storm levels are below normal

motivez · 08-21-2006, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

we might not even have to worry about hurricanes this year. even the tropical storm levels are below normal

Less hurricanes would be

3 more months left in the season though I think?

ballz2wallz · 08-21-2006, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Less hurricanes would be

3 more months left in the season though I think?

yup. but i don't think in all my years in florida i ever remember a season when we didn't have a hurricane by now. very weird, especially after last year.

lew · 08-21-2006, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I learned one valuable lesson last year from all the hurricane stuff...when the shit hits the fan, you're own your own. It was insanity in Houston last year before the hurricane hit....all the roads out of town were completely stopped, and most of the gas stations were out of gas...the few that had gas had cars wrapped around the block waiting in line. There was also no fuel along the highways out, so all sorts of people were getting stranded on the side of the road. It was seriously a hard decision as to whether it was more risky to stay or evacuate. Of course, that was just in Houston, where nothing actually happened...New Olreans was a total anarchy clusterfuck. If I was in that position again, I'd feel safer with plenty of food, fuel and guns than I would with government assurances, redneck as that may sound.

New Orleans was in a chaotic state, not an anarchic one.