Soldiers
Soldiers
Posted on Jan 22, 2024
What seems to be the feelings, if any about the "Defend the guard" bills being passed?
5.48K
22
13
6
6
0
Not sure how many if anyone on here can comment on this question. Personally, I can imagine it being mixed between dreading longer deployments by the active members but also the sense of duty to follow the constitutional requirements requiring congress to actually declare a war before sending units overseas in a hostile stance. Just trying to get some perspective. If you can't answer the question without risking repercussions from the brass i understand and do not want, you to risk losing your job.
Sailors
Soldiers
Marines
Airmen
Posted 3 mo ago
Responses: 4
4
4
0
PO2 Steven Southard, Personally, I think its not a problem.
I think that if states actually cared about their NG members, they would press the issue every time the DoD called the Governor, or the state CG pushes back on the deployment order with the Governor. Passing legislation looks like a simple step that states can do to prevent the issue, but if the DoD and Congress are serious, they just ignore it, citing any number of constitutional or legislative rational. This is a test of federalism, and one that just requires states' Governors and NG CGs standing firm. Any other action is just a dog and pony show to delay the confrontation.
There are many interpretations of legislation that impacts this:
Article 1 Sec. 8 Clause 11
Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16
Dick Act of 1903
War Powers Resolution of 1973
The Montgomery Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act 1987
Perpich v. The Department of Defense
National Defense Act of 1933
The SCOTUS has yet to rule on the entirety of the issue, instead relying on piecemeal arguments. This complicates the issue.
As far as my position on the matter, Governors should always have the option to consent to a federal deployment order, except in cases where Congress has declared war. That is the plain text reading of the Constitution and any other related questions should be referred to the SCOTUS, and my guess, ruled unconstitutional.
I think that if states actually cared about their NG members, they would press the issue every time the DoD called the Governor, or the state CG pushes back on the deployment order with the Governor. Passing legislation looks like a simple step that states can do to prevent the issue, but if the DoD and Congress are serious, they just ignore it, citing any number of constitutional or legislative rational. This is a test of federalism, and one that just requires states' Governors and NG CGs standing firm. Any other action is just a dog and pony show to delay the confrontation.
There are many interpretations of legislation that impacts this:
Article 1 Sec. 8 Clause 11
Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16
Dick Act of 1903
War Powers Resolution of 1973
The Montgomery Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act 1987
Perpich v. The Department of Defense
National Defense Act of 1933
The SCOTUS has yet to rule on the entirety of the issue, instead relying on piecemeal arguments. This complicates the issue.
As far as my position on the matter, Governors should always have the option to consent to a federal deployment order, except in cases where Congress has declared war. That is the plain text reading of the Constitution and any other related questions should be referred to the SCOTUS, and my guess, ruled unconstitutional.
(4)
(0)
2
2
0
Look with service cut backs even before DS1, so much of the logistical tailof the military service was transferred to the Guard/Reserves. Thanks to ongoing conflicts, the services are stretched super thin. Some units can even get their dwell time before the next deployment. So what is wrong with sending Guard/Reserves ito non-hostile situations or training situations?
(2)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
The bill is about sending Guard units into Combat with a declared war, Nothing is stopping the Army from taping the Guard manpower as long as it isn't in a combat zone.
(1)
(0)
SGM Bill Frazer
So if it is a "declared war", then why wouldn't the GUard be called up? Look at Korea for instance, personnel and units were killed up and fought.
(0)
(0)
PO2 Steven Southard
Which in my opinion be a signal to the brass to prioritize the important locations and withdraw from the less important or untenable conflicts. Also in my opinion the Guard should never be used over seas they are meant to be a homeland defensive unit for each state first and nationally second. I understand that isn't how it is setup but that just kind of speaks to me about how broken the bureaucratic systems are.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
CSM William Everroad provided several legal citations related to the question. The Reserve Component has provided an important total force capability for decades. By using Reserve Component forces, the Services try to take some pressure off the Active Component units and personnel during extended non-declared wars. This seems like a good idea, but it can have a bad effect on military members in the Reserve Components. The Guard is a special case because they legally belong to the State Governor. When a Reserve Component service member is mobilized, there can be negative consequences for their family, employer, and sometimes the service member. These negative effects can make recruiting and retention in the Reserve Component more difficult.
Solutions vary, but increased workload on the Active Component might require a realignment of Active and Reserve Component Units. More Service and Service Support Units might be moved to the Active Component from the Reserve Component. This might end up depriving the Guard of units needed to perform State missions. It could make these units more available for overseas deployments, but more expensive to train and equip full-time for what might be a part-time job. No easy solutions. Glad I'm not a Service Force Planner these days.
Solutions vary, but increased workload on the Active Component might require a realignment of Active and Reserve Component Units. More Service and Service Support Units might be moved to the Active Component from the Reserve Component. This might end up depriving the Guard of units needed to perform State missions. It could make these units more available for overseas deployments, but more expensive to train and equip full-time for what might be a part-time job. No easy solutions. Glad I'm not a Service Force Planner these days.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google