Jump to content

Why you don't fight a prolonged war with the Guard


Recommended Posts

Guard faces shortages in dealing with natural disasters

By Nancy A. Youssef

McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - With much of their equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan, state National Guards face profound shortages in responding to natural disasters, particularly as they get ready for the hurricane season, which begins June 1.

The Guard has been shipping gear to hurricane-prone states in an effort to ease concerns, but a large disaster affecting several states would tax the Guard's ability to respond, according to National Guard officials and government reports. Some deficiencies aren't correctable. The Texas National Guard's helicopters, for example, are in Iraq and can't be replaced easily.

The potential impact of the equipment shortages became apparent over the weekend when a tornado devastated Greensburg, Kan. Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius said Monday that the state's National Guard couldn't respond as quickly as it should have because much of its equipment is overseas. About 300 Kansas National Guardsmen have been sent to Greensburg.

"Fifty percent of our trucks are gone. Our front loaders are gone. We are missing Humvees that move people," Sebelius told NBC's "Today" show. "We can't borrow them from other states because their equipment is gone. It's a huge issue for states across the country to respond to disasters like this."

That problem is likely to worsen in the event of a major hurricane, which generally affects a much larger area than a tornado does. Guard officials in hurricane-prone states say they're ready, but only if they can get help from other states. That will slow critical response times, emergency managers say.

Guard and other government agencies have been warning of the problem for months.

"Most of the units in the Army and Air National Guard are under-equipped for the jobs and the missions that they have to perform" domestically, Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard bureau, told Congress last month. "Can we do the job? Yes, we can. But the lack of equipment (means it takes) longer to do that job, and lost time translates into lost lives, and those lost lives are American lives."

Sebelius, a Democrat, first warned of her state's equipment shortage in February, when she complained in Washington that Kansas Guard units had left $117 million worth of equipment overseas. "The president and Congress need to step up to the plate and give our Guard members the support they deserve," she said then.

A Government Accountability Office report in January found that of 300 types of equipment needed in natural disasters, the Guard had fewer in all categories than it did in 2001, before the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17192275.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites





The sky is falling tune is a bit old.

No one is saying the sky is falling, but it is foolish to fail to recognize any problems with how we have conducted this war, especially the ways we have hampered our ability to address the problems faced by Americans in crisis situations. We don't make America safer by sending so many of our first responders elsewhere. We have weakened our ability to respond to problems at home. If this war is as important as Bush says, and we need to be there for years to come, expand the numbers of full-time military and equip them properly-- don't rob the states to hide the costs of the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sky is falling tune is a bit old.

No one is saying the sky is falling, but it is foolish to fail to recognize any problems with how we have conducted this war, especially the ways we have hampered our ability to address the problems faced by Americans in crisis situations. We don't make America safer by sending so many of our first responders elsewhere.

The Dems talk about using scare tactics of the GOP, then bring up this ? Seems ' first responders' is the new catch phrase the Dems have found which plays well to focus groups.
We have weakened our ability to respond to problems at home.
No, we haven't. Police, Fire and EMTs are still as strong as they ever were. As for the Nat. Guard, I heard a story where 4 of them were arrested looting a liquor store in Kansas after the tornado. Yeah, blame Bush for there not being 8 instead of only 4 looters. <_< So much for your ' first responders '.
If this war is as important as Bush says, and we need to be there for years to come, expand the numbers of full-time military and equip them properly-- don't rob the states to hide the costs of the war.

There is no cap on the numbers of full time military, but I get your point. You want Bush to to call for a draft, which would make this EXACTLY like Vietnam for the pukes on the Left. Sorry, no sale there. Fact is, we're at or above recruitment numbers, and the re-enlist rate is still very high.

This story is just another installment by the biased main stream media and it's constant 'drip-drip-drip ' assault against this war and against Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sky is falling tune is a bit old.

No one is saying the sky is falling, but it is foolish to fail to recognize any problems with how we have conducted this war, especially the ways we have hampered our ability to address the problems faced by Americans in crisis situations. We don't make America safer by sending so many of our first responders elsewhere.

The Dems talk about using scare tactics of the GOP, then bring up this ? Seems ' first responders' is the new catch phrase the Dems have found which plays well to focus groups.
We have weakened our ability to respond to problems at home.
No, we haven't. Police, Fire and EMTs are still as strong as they ever were. As for the Nat. Guard, I heard a story where 4 of them were arrested looting a liquor store in Kansas after the tornado. Yeah, blame Bush for there not being 8 instead of only 4 looters. <_< So much for your ' first responders '.
If this war is as important as Bush says, and we need to be there for years to come, expand the numbers of full-time military and equip them properly-- don't rob the states to hide the costs of the war.

There is no cap on the numbers of full time military, but I get your point. You want Bush to to call for a draft, which would make this EXACTLY like Vietnam for the pukes on the Left. Sorry, no sale there. Fact is, we're at or above recruitment numbers, and the re-enlist rate is still very high.

This story is just another installment by the biased main stream media and it's constant 'drip-drip-drip ' assault against this war and against Bush.

applausesmall.gif

2thumbs.gifhigh5.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sky is falling tune is a bit old.

No one is saying the sky is falling, but it is foolish to fail to recognize any problems with how we have conducted this war, especially the ways we have hampered our ability to address the problems faced by Americans in crisis situations. We don't make America safer by sending so many of our first responders elsewhere. We have weakened our ability to respond to problems at home. If this war is as important as Bush says, and we need to be there for years to come, expand the numbers of full-time military and equip them properly-- don't rob the states to hide the costs of the war.

What will be the costs when the Democrat surrender monkeys get their way????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With deployments extended to 15 months and guard units recalled repeatedly it is obvious to any objective person that the military is stretched too thin. Recruitment levels are set too low to meet our obligations and even at the current level, standards have needed to be lowered to meet them. Any objective person knows that. Dismiss it, excuse it, it is still true. If our very civilization hangs on this war, then sell the need to fight it all out to the American people. That's was a leader would do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

objective person = anyone that sits on the sideline and criticizes every aspect of the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

objective person = anyone that sits on the sideline and criticizes every aspect of the war.

Dispute what I said. Defend the 15 month deployments as evidence that our troop levels are exactly where they need to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cut the troop levels in the first place?

Hint: it wasn't Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cut the troop levels in the first place?

Hint: it wasn't Bush.

Actually, it was the first Bush with Cheney as the Sec. of Def. Look it up. But Bush has been in power for over six years and is fighting two wars. I know the boy is slow, but houldn't he have adjusted our recruitment levels to meet the need by now?

You're just avoiding dealing with the issue and I understand why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're partially correct. The downsizing that occurred on 41's watch was congressionally mandated peace dividend in response to the end of the cold war. No need to keep insanely large troop levels when the enemy has been subdued. Not fiscally responsible to do so, the taxpayers demand better use of their dollars. It turned out that this was a period of transition between the Cold War and the real outbreak of radical terrorism. Granted, there were some terrorist attacks prior to 41, but the spike in attacks didn't occur until the 1990's.

Now, from roughly 1993 on, the armed forces was gutted to the tune of approx 40% troop strength reduction. Money was whacked from the budget at a rate that severely impacted mission readiness of what was left of our military machine. Morale, retention, and readiness (both material readiness and combat readiness) took major hits. We didn't begin to emerge from this trough until mid-2001.

Which had the greater effect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Money was whacked from the budget at a rate that severely impacted mission readiness of what was left of our military machine. Morale, retention, and readiness (both material readiness and combat readiness) took major hits. We didn't begin to emerge from this trough until mid-2001.

That's why I got out. I went to rifle qualification with my reserve unit in Atlanta one time in 5 years, you're supposed to do once at least every three years. My cutting score took a hit, since my rifle qual was no longer valid. When we finally got to go to the rifle range, we were given 3 practice rounds to shoot on a weapon that we've never fired before. When I asked why didn't we get a full 50 rounds to practice with, the armorer told me that the budget only was in place for 3 rounds per Marine to practice in with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have weakened our ability to respond to problems at home.
No, we haven't. Police, Fire and EMTs are still as strong as they ever were. As for the Nat. Guard, I heard a story where 4 of them were arrested looting a liquor store in Kansas after the tornado. Yeah, blame Bush for there not being 8 instead of only 4 looters. <_< So much for your ' first responders '.

Don't forget that a police officer was also arrested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...