Biden: National Guard head deserves ’seat at the table’ with Joint Chiefs.
Biden: National Guard head deserves ’seat at the table’ with Joint Chiefs.
Today, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) spoke to the National Guard Association Conference. Noting that more than half of the veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been National Guard members or reservists, Biden declared, “Your voice needs to be heard.” He said that Lt. Gen. Craig McKinley, slated to be the first four-star general to head the Guard, should have a seat at the table with the Joint Chiefs:
It’s time for a change. Change begins with giving the Guard a seat at the table. That table in the Pentagon where the Joint Chiefs sit. General McKinley, I not only want to see your fourth star — I want to see you sitting there with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen. Your men and women are serving and dying. Your voice needs to be heard.
A similar proposal was made in 2006, but it was rejected by Donald Rumsfeld and Peter Pace, then-Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, respectively.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I’m surprised this wasn’t spoken of sooner. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:12 pmThe line between the national guard and the regular military blurs with the assignment of a full combat brigade to domestic service at our Northern Command.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/
The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use “the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,” 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.
“It’s a new modular package of nonlethal capabilities that they’re fielding. They’ve been using pieces of it in Iraq, but this is the first time that these modules were consolidated and this package fielded, and because of this mission we’re undertaking we were the first to get it.”
The package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and, beanbag bullets.
“I was the first guy in the brigade to get Tasered,” said Cloutier, describing the experience as “your worst muscle cramp ever — times 10 throughout your whole body.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:12 pmIt’s about time that the National Guard get its due. The Guard needs to be just as active in the decision making process as the rest of them, if they’re going to be sent off to the same wars at the other military sections. Go Biden!
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:14 pmI read somewhere that this Iraq War is the first time the National Guard is being used to such a large extent on the frontlines.
I really think the national guard needs to come home now – as well as all of our soldiers – this is a misbegotten war and it will haunt us for more than a generation.
May Bush, Cheney, Condi & Rumsfeld go to prison for a long time.
War Criminals all.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:16 pmI think we should go back to having our National Guard guard our nation. As in on our national soil. The way it’s going now, I am surprised we don’t have the CEO of Blackwater sitting in with the Joint Chiefs. Let’s get back to what it should be, not change to accommodate the mess they have created.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:25 pmI feel sorry for our soldiers of all stripe. They are being used as pawns by the bush admin.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:25 pmNot to beat a dead horse, but this is why Palin was able to promoted General Campbell — last year in the FY 08 Defense Authorization Act, the position of Chief of the National Guard Bureau (CNGB), the individual Biden is referring to here, was elevated to a 4-star slot, making the individual state Adjutants General eligible for 3 stars.
There was at that time discussion about moving the CNGB to the Joint Chiefs. The nay-sayers — and I think they had a good point — argued that, when the Guard is activated, it is rolled up into the Army or the Air Force — both of which already have Chiefs of Staff. To elevate the CNGB would essentially be to say that the National Guard is a separate service.
On the other hand, those in favor of moving CNGB to the Joint Chiefs argued that the Marine Corps is technically part of the Navy, yet the Commandant of the Corps AND the Chief of Naval Operations both get to be on the JCS.
The 2006 debate was over the National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act and, to be honest, though Rumsfeld was in fact opposed to it he didn’t “kill” it — the Act didn’t make enough allies in Congress for a full vote.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:25 pmLeaving the NG off the Joints Chiefs made some sense before the Bush Admin starting using them for his wars. If they had such a beef with that they should have left them here at home to serve in their primary role.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:29 pm#4 Water Man — almost 50% of the Guard was on active duty in the First World War, and about a quarter in World War II. In absolute numbers those are both greater than Iraq.
The 29th Division that landed at Normandy, for example, was the Virginia National Guard. The 45th Division, in which Bill Mauldin became famous, was a National Guard division.
But the basic point is valid — if you’re going to commit the nation to war, commit the resources. Otherwise, stay home.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:29 pmI agree with Biden. When a unit is activated, it is removed from state command (and funding) until it becomes attached to an active duty unit. This can take months. Even after this happens, the AC component does not really want to fund the NG guys, or provide gear – and for good reason. they are only temporarily attached. Also, once the AC component completes their tour – and returns home – the NG unit may just be reassigned to another AC unit. For these reasons, and many more, I agree with Biden.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:32 pm#8 j swift: This idea that the “primary mission” of the National Guard is at home is a popular, but mistaken, belief.
The National Guard as we know it was created by the Militia Act of 1903, which made the state militias the primary reserve force for the regular army. The term, “National Guard,” was coined in the National Defense Act of 1916, which also gave the President (and not Congress, as in the Constitution) the authority to activate the NG in wartime.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:34 pmHemlock for Gadflies Says:
The National Guard as we know it was created by the Militia Act of 1903, which made the state militias the primary reserve force for the regular army. The term, “National Guard,” was coined in the National Defense Act of 1916, which also gave the President (and not Congress, as in the Constitution) the authority to activate the NG in wartime.
#######
True, but at that time we did not have an “all-volunteer” army. The idea was that the NG acted as a reserve force for the regular army, until the selective service could be brought into effect. In 1973, the Selective Service draft was removed and the role of our NG changed. Now that we are fighting multiple conflicts on multiple fronts, our NG is being used as a regular component of the active duty military. Albeit without the proper representation.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:39 pmIf the National Guard is used as part of the active duty military, then it deserves a seat at the table. It is only fair. It would be different were this nationalization for a few months or a year. After that, it is important for the National Guard to be a full player. Nothing less will permit appropriate coordination, planning and participation.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:39 pm#10 Chris L: Having been a Guardsman I appreciate the point you’re making re: funding. But Biden’s proposal to elevate the CNGB to the JCS does not come with a separate pot of money. Which is why the elevation is somewhat beside the point.
Administratively it’s problematic because the Chiefs of Staff — not the Chairman, but the individual Chiefs — are the senior-most officers in their respective chains of command. When activated, an ARNG unit (for example) reports at the end of the day to the Army CoS — the CNGB is an administrative, not tactical, position.
Professionally the challenge is that, unlike active component flag officers, state Adjutants General do not need ever to have had military experience — TAG is a political appointee, not a “real” military officer.
So you’d have to pay attention to the actual professional qualifications of the CNGB in a way that you wouldn’t with active component flag officers. LTG Blum, for example, the current CNGB, is Special Forces qualified but all of his command time is in the Guard, except for one tour as CG of MND-N on SFOR 10 in Bosnia. So compared to an AC 3-star, his reservoir is a bit shallow.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:41 pmHemlock,
Another quick point – Although the NG was used heavily in WWI and WWII, both of those conflicts were shorter in total, and individual deployments were much shorter. The national guard has never endured this level of optempo in history.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:42 pmI think that’s a great idea. If they’re going to go fight in the wars – they ought to have a seat at the table to discuss the wars.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:45 pmHemlock for Gadflies Says:
#10 Chris L: Having been a Guardsman I appreciate the point you’re making re: funding. But Biden’s proposal to elevate the CNGB to the JCS does not come with a separate pot of money. Which is why the elevation is somewhat beside the point.
######
Hello fellow guardsman. My point is that a “seat at the table” so to speak would provide the negotiations capabilities and a greater focus on NG needs that could in turn be used to increase funding (or other such needs). It is not so much the direct, but the indirect benefits that I would be in favor of.
1457th Engineer Combat BN, OIF (BIAP) 2003-2004
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:46 pm#12 Chris L: I don’t know that that’s necessarily true. The NG provided the bulk of forces in the Mexican-American and Spanish-American wars, and there was no conscription then. The Regular Army at that time was, in fact, a volunteer force.
I take your point, though, but I still don’t believe putting CNGB on JCS would change anything. There’s an inherent social sanction among GOs about going against the grain, and I certainly can’t see any CNGB saying “no” to operations — particularly when, in point of fact, the CNGB has no line authority over a state’s National Guard forces. That belongs to the TAG and the Governor.
At any rate it’s probably a moot point — if the next Democratic administration does a better job of following the Constitution than this current horror show does, laws regarding the Joint Chiefs belong to the Congress under the Constitution.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:46 pm#15 Chris L: Again, I think that’s an empirical question. The 45th Division was on active duty from September 1940 to December 1945 — the entire division.
No Guard division today has been mobilized to that extent. And the 45th served over 500 days in combat, in North Africa, Sicily, Italy, France, and Germany. I think there’s a significant difference between mobilizing Brigade Combat Team Equivalents and entire divisions, and many NG mobilizations for OEF/OIF have been less than BCT-E’s.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:50 pmHemlock for Gadflies Says:
#15 Chris L: Again, I think that’s an empirical question. The 45th Division was on active duty from September 1940 to December 1945 — the entire division.
####
The difference was that they were on orders, but were not deployed the entire time. I highly doubt they were serving in North Africa, Sicily, Italy, France, or Germany between September 1940 and December 1941. As far as serving 500 days in combat, we have several NG units that do that now. In fact, the average NG tour is 450 days.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:56 pm“#8 j swift: This idea that the “primary mission” of the National Guard is at home is a popular, but mistaken, belief.”
Thanks for the clarification. I have always thought their primary mission was at home, but I had that impression because I was either unaware of all their service in conflicts and/or only aware of their work at home.
As other commenters have mentioned it seems Bush has used the NG and is using them up.
September 22nd, 2008 at 6:04 pmAbsolutely agree w/Biden.
September 22nd, 2008 at 7:11 pmTHIS IS GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION!!!!
The National Guard needs to NEVER be shipped overseas.
September 22nd, 2008 at 7:21 pmWhy would they need a ‘place at the table’ with the Joint Chiefs unless there were plans to send them all over the world for a really long time?
#11 This idea that the “primary mission” of the National Guard is at home is a popular, but mistaken, belief. The National Guard as we know it was created by the Militia Act of 1903, which made the state militias the primary reserve force for the regular army.
September 22nd, 2008 at 7:47 pmSo it would appear that this seat-at-the-table idea is about 105 years overdue.
I concur! Long overdue!
September 22nd, 2008 at 7:57 pmIf I can go back to the source on the National Guard . . .
All civilized countries defend themselves through professional armies, militia armies, or both. Europe re-invented professional armies during the early modern era, after centuries of depending on knights, mercenaries, and feudal levies, and the professional armies often were used more to hold down the populace than they were to defend the realm.
The original English colonies in North America had militias for defense, both because it was all they could afford and because they had English cultural roots and were well aware of the threat to their “English liberties” the regular army presented.
The United States, well aware of the threat (and expense) of a standing professional army, kept the US army ridiculously small for first 150 years of the nation’s existence. We got away with this because (a) potential enemies would bankrupt themselves trying to invade us across the Atlantic (b) the US was so large a huge army would be needed to conquer it, and (c) the Americans could, given a few months of prep, call up vast swarms of under-trained, under-equipped, but extremely well motivated militia and volunteer forces and smother any attackers.
Through the years, the militia in America has always had two important constitutional functions in addition to the overt ones of defending the nation and providing a quasi-military reaction force for local emergencies. First, it disperses the power to create a large army between the states, congress, and president. Second, it provides a deterrent force should the regular army become a threat to the nation.
The National Guard is the descendent of the old militias, augmented in the 20th Century by the trained army and marine reserves. When the nation mobilizes for war, the reserves get called up immediately, the National Guard mobilizes to be equipped and trained to current standards, the congress votes vast sums of money through taxes and sale of bonds to finance the war, and the executive is given authority to organize production and direct resources to the war effort. The executive and legislature work together to reinforce the armies through calls for volunteers and conscription.
There are no restrictions on how the Guard is used once the nation goes to war. It becomes part of the regular military and serves under the same orders and rules as everyone else.
Notice how none of those last bits of mobilization happened when we went to war in Iraq? The guard is supposed to be partially mobilized for emergencies and fully mobilized along with the nation in a large-scale war. The guardsmen sent to Iraq have been cheated and betrayed by the national government and the citizens. They disrupted their work and family life to fight for us and we pretend we’re supporting them by waving flags and trash-talking people who oppose the war.
Since 2003, we have all been guilty of a horrible breach of trust with regard to our military, particularly the National Guard. Putting a National Guard general on the joint chiefs, tying the Guard to the regular military, is a bad idea for a number of the constitutional reasons I noted above. On the other hand, if the president, the congress, and the citizenry cannot be trusted to keep their promises to the people in the National Guard, having a spokesman in the upper ranks of the Pentagon might be all we can do to help them.
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:29 pm