Why States don’t fight wars

| March 6, 2009

Jerry920 sent us this article from the Army Times which reports on the efforts of one State Senator of mine in the sorry state of Maryland.

Sorry? Yes, because they have a long history of being two-faced and populated by morons. They were one of the slave states that remained in the Union during the Civil War having their cake and eating it, too, since the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t apply to them. It was Marylanders that Pinkerton had to protect the new President Lincoln from as he made his way to his first Inauguration. It was Marylanders that hid John Wilkes Boothe until he could cross the Potomac into Virginia. In fact, John Wilkes Booth was a Marylander. Well, you see where I get this intense dislike of my neighbors.

Back to the article;

A Maryland state senator is pushing a bill that would require the governor to prevent the mobilization of the state’s National Guard for federal duty unless Congress has authorized the use of military force or issued a declaration of war.

The bill also would authorize the governor to ask for the return of deployed units in certain circumstances.

While the sons and daughters of 49 other States fight and die for the security of the chuckleheads of Maryland.

Madaleno, a Democrat [as if you hadn’t guessed at this point], said he supported the Iraq invasion, although he said he believes there were “serious gaps in how the war was prosecuted after…the first six months.”

At the same time, he argued, “If we are actually going to be actively engaged in conflicts around the world for a variety of reasons, how do we create a political process that makes sure that the people remain engaged and supportive of the conflicts that we’re in? It shouldn’t just be the executive branch that is solely responsible for that decision-making. We have to create a political process that keeps the public engaged, informed, through their elected representatives.”

Never mind whether we win or lose, or if we’re secure in our homes – it’s more important that the public remain engaged. It’s all about feelings.

It’s all a part of the “Bring The Guard Home” Movement which I’ve written about before here. They’re perfectly willing to let other soldiers fight their wars while they feel good about their neighbors sitting out a war at home. There’s probably a movement in your state, too. And Oh, they have the backing of Code Pink, too.

“By doing it this way, I’m trying to take a slightly different tack than several other states, where they’ve focused solely on the resolution to bring the Guard home from Iraq now,” Madaleno said. “And I’m trying to refocus and broaden the debate a little bit: What are the lessons of this conflict that inform us for the next conflict?”

This is why States and the US Congress don’t fight wars – they don’t understand that you can’t hamstring your military and the application of military power where and when it’s needed by setting up a series of useless and unnecessary legislative hoops to jump through.

Jerry asked me about Minnesota – according to National Review;

The United States Supreme Court settled this question definitively in 1990, when the then-governor of Minnesota complained that Guard troops from that state had been sent to Central America. In that case — Perpich v. Department of Defense — the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the governor of Minnesota had no such authority over the Guard troops, and recognized “the supremacy of federal power in the area of military affairs.”

Wikipedia concurs. The actual decision says;

Congress has provided by statute that, in addition to its National Guard, a State may provide and maintain at its own expense a defense force that is exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States. See 32 U.S.C. § 109(c). As long as that provision remains in effect, there is no basis for an argument that the federal statutory scheme deprives Minnesota of any constitutional entitlement to a separate militia of its own.

So they have no legs to stand on. But, it’s just the idea….

Category: Antiwar crowd, Code Pink, Foreign Policy, Liberals suck, Politics, Terror War, Usual Suspects

5 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ponsdorf

It’s sad the anti-war types are involved. The curious constitutional ambiguity is of note, court decisions not withstanding.

Various laws equate the National Guard clearly with a ‘militia’ and this has been used with some glee by the anti-gun crowd.

Aside: States Rights are making a comeback of sorts just now as well.

Finally, I’ve never understood the need for the NG as a federal arm. At best it robs our reserves of manpower and material, but it exists in an odd limbo. A governor can call them up, but has no say if the Feds do???

Junior AG

If the misguided State Senator got his way and dissolved the 1903 Dick act, it would be an act of political suicide. The Federal Gov’t funds the full time Technicians and AGR types who run MATES and other facilities. Yank their funds and a whole bunch of people are unemployed and the surrounding communities get smacked, too.

“At best it robs our reserves of manpower and material,” The National Guard has the combat forces that back the Active component, The Army Reserve lost all combat arms after Desert Storm and has a Combat Service and Support mission to support the active component.

Caroline

I think Texas has their own state guard as well as their national guard and the air national guard units. As you said a state can maintain a defense force that is exempt from being drafted “at their own expense.” He sounds like the rest of the anti-war crowd they want the money and benefits for signing up, but they don’t want to full fill their end of the obligation.

Militant Bibliophile

Yup, Oregon has the same type of movement, spearheaded (if my sources are correct) by the FATHER of a local Guardsman. Classy. When I first heard this, several questions immediately sprang to mind:

1. Do they know who actually pays the bills for the Guard they insist they are looking out for? (Ans: the Feds. This bill would be GREAT cause for them to yank funding until the State came to it’s senses, if it ever did, crippling the Guard).

2. The Guard has only just started to lose it’s reputation as a third-rate fighting force, largely because the deployment schedule has helped give necessary experience to its Soldiers and chased out the true weekend warriors. Do they want a Guard staffed with incompetents who just want to wear a pretty uniform and avoid fighting? (Ans: yes, that’s half the point!)

3. Re enlistments go UP when Soldiers actually get to, y’know, FIGHT! It’s what we signed up to do, even us nasty Guardsmen who don’t want to or can’t (like in my case) do it full time anymore. Are they aware that this would likely destroy the Guard from a manpower perspective? (Ans: again, that’s half the point!)

So in short, this is a bill aimed not at keeping the Guard safely at home so they can be proper first responders and protect their whinging asses, but at destroying it as a fighting force. The Guard has gotten dangerously competent and good at it’s job (not great, but at least more of help than hindrance), which is bad news for the type of folks pushing these bills. They would MUCH prefer a weak, understaffed and incompetent Guard trained to help fight the occasional forest fire or aid in disaster relief rather than Soldiers who actually know and take pride in their own fighting ability.

I’ll leave their motives for wanting eunuchs rather than Warriors up to you…

trackback

[…] Why States don’t fight wars and That’s not encouraging – This Ain’t Hell […]