This went on during the Korean War as well.
My (late) father was over there with the (regular) Army, and he used to tell of National Guard units being sent over there with hardly any training, going straight into combat, then basically being decimated.
He always said someone, somewhere higher up should have been prosecuted.
Why can't we rotate some of the troops stationed in Germany or S. Korea into Iraq. Why does the National Guard keep getting slammed this way?
Our military has been stretched too thin for a long time. It seems to me that practical questions(Do we have the troops?)should weigh heavily in the decision to surge. Once again, the commander in chief makes decisions and ignores reality.
My outrage over this war fizzled out about a year ago. I appreciate that people like Rod can pick up the torch.
To send these Guardsmen into this wretched civil war is not just a miscalculation; it is slaughter. I agree with Rod: decent people should refuse to vote Republican, even if they can't bring themselves to vote Democratic. Sometimes you have to withdraw from evil. Sometimes that is all you can do.
If Guard units are being shipped out with inadequate training, that crime has been happening since the beginning of this war and, indeed, as a commenter says upthread, since Korea.
However, it seems that the units that have already deployed once to Iraq have some of the best training possible.
Rumsfeld was advised early on that we did not have the ground force structure to support an open-ended Iraq commitment as well as other contingencies around the world.
Because it did not fit with his vision of a mobile, high-tech military Rumsfeld ignored advice to increase the size of the active army. Congress was ready to vote the money for it. Bush stood by behind him all the way.
Now, finally, Gates is asking for more troops. It is a stunning 180-degree turn that few have noticed, and a complete repudiation of Rumsfeld's leadership. I'm surprised no one is making a bigger deal out of it.
I realize everyone is rushing to attack the war on any grounds possible but the story you cite Rod is grossly misleading. From the story
"Nearly half of the more than 3,100 U.S. military fatalities in Iraq have come from towns like McKeesport, where fewer than 25,000 people live" Yet, also from the story "The Census Bureau said 56 percent of the population in 2005 lived in towns under 25,000" So thats roughly proportionate.
You know as a person from one of those steel towns mentioned in the article it ticks me off to see the pity party and disdain shown for the soldiers who serve from here. They are good decent people, they don't need an AP reporter to fabricate facts to show how dumb and poor they are because it fits nicely with the AP's Marxist worldview.
This extended abuse of the mission of the National Guards could cause a calamatous decline in participation in the Guards. In George Bush's era, when people signed up for the Guard, they knew there was little chance of combat call ups. Now, they are rightly seen as cannon fodder in another mismanaged police action.
Mac Arthur's rebellion against Truman, which caused him to get fired, can be seen as MacArthur's understanding that police actions are sure fire losing propositions. He wasn't going to allow the troops to be victimized. Maybe this attitude was forged in the Philipines, when he got out unscathed, but left thousands of troops behind to be tortured in WWII.
Are the National Guards being victimized today? You betcha!
"The Census Bureau said 56 percent of the population in 2005 lived in towns under 25,000" So thats roughly proportionate.
Whoops. Like Dilbert's boss complaining that 40% of call-in sick days are on Mondays and Fridays.
I think I'm less sceptical of this than I might have been because Petraeus is finally in charge, and Rumsfeld is gone. I have a chaplain friend with a Guard unit in Iraq, so I have a personal interest in this too, like Rod. So I think we've gotta give Petraeus a chance, and that of course means giving the surge a chance. (Hopefully we're doing more creative diplomatic things wih Maliki and others; this is the area where I worry.) If it doesn't pan out, withdraw to rear bases, redeploy here and there, keep the fear of God in Iran.
I don't have a personal stake in the National Guard, but I still feel for these men and women. Their lives have hijacked and put at risk, for dubious purposes, in a sudden policy shift that allows for no recourse. Yes, they did join the National Guard, but for this? No. This is wrong.
Steve, the troops in Germany rotate all the time to Iraq. 1st Brigade, 1st Armored division,stationed in Friedburg (Elvis' old post) just returned from their 2nd tour (17 months 1st time, 13 this time). 1st Brigade, 1st Infantry division from Schweinfurt is likewise currently in Iraq on their 2nd tour. This doesn't count the soldiers who are individually on their 3rd tours or more.
As for Korea, one of the two brigades from 2nd Infantry division deployed to OIF and rotated directly back to the US as part of the transformation. The other brigade that is on the peninsula -- kind of important that it remains where it is.
Please educate yourself before you make blanket statements on military matters.
As an Oklahoma Guardsman who may be affected by the call up that inspired this post, let me say that if called, we will go. It's just how it is. Some are looking forward to it. Some are looking for a loophole. Some dread the very idea. But go we will, if it even happens, which is not yet a certainty. In addition, for those of you worrying, about the 1-180th, presently deployed to Afghanistan, facing a deployment almosst as soon as we come home, the NYT article conveniently left out that our command is doing all it can to keep us from having to deploy that quickly. Some of will volunteer anyway. 80% of those of us here didn't have to deploy this time, but we volunteered to do so, because servicemen serve.
Broken promises? Sorry, here, you'll have to do some explaining. Changes in policy are not broken promises, so I'd need some more details here about what you refer to .
Servicemen sign up to serve. Guard enlistments are up because we are deploying. It’s not a universal trait either, any more than the destitute reservist, but it’s enough to stave off the fulfillment of the “broken army” warnings I’ve been hearing every three months or so since the end of 2003. It’s my opinion that they keep making their predictions either because they think they may actually come true and can say “toldjya” or because it’s a plausible scary story that might convince people to join the white flag/white feather crowd.
Don: If it's a slaughter, it's the smallest slaughter in history (If we extrapolate Desert Storm fatalities over the duration of the GWOT, you'd have had 71,000 deaths by now). And it's not affecting Guard troops in any particular disporportinate way so Anonymous Also's point is moot.
Patrick, check your chronology on that. An Army troop increase of 30,000 was mandated by Congress over the recommendations of the SECDEF, the JCS and the CSA. The 70,000 Army/Marine increase was called for and approved before Rumsfeld resigned.
redoppto: You don't appear to be familiar with the mission ofthe National Guard. I recommend this post: http://www.donaldsensing.com/ind...national-guard/
. And none of us are victims, thank you very much.
St_Irinaeus: Your ire for Rumsfeld might weel be misplaced. Undoubtedly one of the recently lamented "promises" was the "24 months deployment over 6 years" policy. I'm personally getting an extra $1000 a month in my paycheck because I volunteered for a deployment that would take me over that 24 month threshold.
And that policy was Rumsfeld's. No accident that the policy changed when he left. The law oly requires that any one contiguous deployment for a Guardsman not exceed 24 months.
Kit: If you don't have a "stake in the Guard," I feel for you. I take it to mean that you don't know any National Guardsmen and you would not feel the loss of any of us. Too bad. Guardsmen are some of the finest people this country has to offer. You should make an effort to get to know us. That you haven't speaks poorly of you.
Andy, Pauli, Collins: Rock on.
By posting here, you agree to abide by the Beliefnet Rules of Conduct.
