Guard only if war is declared?

[Clark Griswold]

Saw this on Breitbart

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/08/14/tim-sheehy-backs-bill-prevent-national-guardsmen-being-deployed-fight-foreign-wars/

 

If passed which I think it would not would cause the ANG to be questioned why it is needed then as its capabilities it has would be very difficult to access

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Flev]

This bill is stupid when you actually consider what airframes are in the Guard. Specifically the B-2 comes to mind...

What about units with very specific capabilities like the 109th? This would imply either re-missioning a lot of squadrons or trying to bring them back under AD like they tried with the ANG space groups.

[Scooter14]

I get what he’s trying to do but…

For example 55-60% of AMC’s capability residing in the Reserve Component that’s an impossible task. I think there’s 18 ANG tanker wings, probably the same number or more ANG C-130 wings.

Add in C-17 wings, the aforementioned examples with the B-2, the F-15EX, etc. and that’s just the Air side. Add in all the Army Guard capes on top of that (HIMARS, Apaches, etc) plus all the manpower.

That’s a lot of capability to have sidelined waiting for the declaration of war, which according to the interwebs, hasn’t happened since WWII.

Besides, every CODEL out there is trying to get the newest stuff for their state and concurrent fielding of the KC-46, F-35, F-15EX with the Active component. Sheehy’s legislation would not sit well with those states. The ANG would be back to flying the sloppy seconds like they did in the ‘50s and ‘60s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

Concur
I think I get the sentiment of the proposed bill but the reality of our force structure makes this a nonstarter
The bill itself really only refers to the national guard and I think you can infer the intent as no more national guard for long term stabilization missions but if it were actually enacted I think the ANG would get roped in
Still the idea of raising the bar to make overseas adventures to filter out poor choices by politicians is intriguing
My 2 cents would be to make all overseas operations of the US military funded explicitly by a set formula on individual tax returns with a progressive tax rate, $0-50k at 1% of your AGI, above $50k to 150k at 1.5%, etc… the problem is that feedback mechanism of actually seeing and feeling the financial costs have been negated by intermingled money (revenues and deficit spending) by the federal government


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lawman]

Concur
I think I get the sentiment of the proposed bill but the reality of our force structure makes this a nonstarter
The bill itself really only refers to the national guard and I think you can infer the intent as no more national guard for long term stabilization missions but if it were actually enacted I think the ANG would get roped in
Still the idea of raising the bar to make overseas adventures to filter out poor choices by politicians is intriguing
My 2 cents would be to make all overseas operations of the US military funded explicitly by a set formula on individual tax returns with a progressive tax rate, $0-50k at 1% of your AGI, above $50k to 150k at 1.5%, etc… the problem is that feedback mechanism of actually seeing and feeling the financial costs have been negated by intermingled money (revenues and deficit spending) by the federal government


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But that’s part of the problem with this bill…. Long term stabilization and the wider DOD mission is not in its self “war.”

The number of engineering assets that reside in the guard which are specifically critical to any post reconstructive get things back in order mission would prevent this from ever being possible. We still have guard units supporting missions in places like Kosovo and it’s been decades since that was active combat.

Similarly the entire concept of out of support missions becomes this grey area that would be impossible to satisfy everybody on. “Hey doc you’re mobilizing to go augment the hospital in Spain/Germany/etc because we are deploying that units personnel to combat.” Or look at all the support personnel sitting in logistics hubs and theatre SSAs because while we conduct the war in a particular COCOM we have requirements outside it which also funnel through there. How does that count or not when the combat is clearly in _____ and all these people on orders are not physically in the combat zone. How many echelons removed does one have to be from active combat to now deploy abroad, because you’re taking that decision away from commanders to decide.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

But that’s part of the problem with this bill…. Long term stabilization and the wider DOD mission is not in its self “war.”

The number of engineering assets that reside in the guard which are specifically critical to any post reconstructive get things back in order mission would prevent this from ever being possible. We still have guard units supporting missions in places like Kosovo and it’s been decades since that was active combat.

Similarly the entire concept of out of support missions becomes this grey area that would be impossible to satisfy everybody on. “Hey doc you’re mobilizing to go augment the hospital in Spain/Germany/etc because we are deploying that units personnel to combat.” Or look at all the support personnel sitting in logistics hubs and theatre SSAs because while we conduct the war in a particular COCOM we have requirements outside it which also funnel through there. How does that count or not when the combat is clearly in _____ and all these people on orders are not physically in the combat zone. How many echelons removed does one have to be from active combat to now deploy abroad, because you’re taking that decision away from commanders to decide.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concur again
The Russians and Chinese have it right, you’re always at war/conflict it’s just a matter of how much at any one time - info/economics/espionage to grey zone to kinetic to nukes - all or some of it ongoing all the time

While I get the idea the practical implications are not possible

I’d rather see outsiders breaking into the political system with military experience try to make the chattering and administration classes uncomfortable with a modernized draft for basic military and infantry training with a period of eligibility of call to service and mandatory musters / drills / exercises
Not AD service unless needed but required to train and be eligible for call up
I think that has a chance of being enacted (low) and would accomplish the intended effect of putting all of society into the situation where the real question of whether or not a mission is worth it would be debated along with also seeing the costs in their yearly taxes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stoker]

Certain politicians get really hung up on the Constitutionality of declaring war. We had (have?) a declaration of war after 9/11 - if Congress authorizes the use of military force, is that not them declaring war?

[SurelySerious]

Certain politicians get really hung up on the Constitutionality of declaring war. We had (have?) a declaration of war after 9/11 - if Congress authorizes the use of military force, is that not them declaring war?

Semantically no. War is by that level of technicality between nations that actually has protocol, and we haven’t declared one in 8 decades.

They have authorized many uses of force, though, that we all recognize as “war” against states and non-states that are technically just hostilities.

Since the UN has forbidden war (except for security council authorization essentially) since WWII… no one declares it anyway because why would you incriminate yourself? Korea and Iraq I we were acting on UN’s behalf so no declaration required apparently.

So there’s validity to the semantics in some sense, but there’s also the practicality in practice.

[lloyd christmas]

On 8/15/2024 at 5:26 PM, Clark Griswold said:

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/08/14/tim-sheehy-backs-bill-prevent-national-guardsmen-being-deployed-fight-foreign-wars/

 

Gov Tim Walz co-sponsor this? 

[SocialD]

On 8/15/2024 at 10:08 PM, Scooter14 said:

The ANG would be back to flying the sloppy seconds like they did in the ‘50s and ‘60s.

 

They don't call it the good ole' days for nothing... 

Edited August 19 by SocialD

[157 ARW Aircrew Hiring]

 
They don't call it the good ole' days for nothing... 

It probably would have been fun to rip around in F-100s and F-104s, be a generation behind the AD and not have to do more than 2 weeks a year.

My old unit flew C-133s…not sure I would have enjoyed Old Shakey. Maybe.

When I look back at my old unit’s KC-135 to KC-46 conversion and what a pain that was from a training, Stan/eval, funding and MX perspective, I can’t imagine being in the 1950s ANG where units swapped aircraft every 2-3 years.

Units like the 104th went P-47, P-51, F-94 to F-86 in a decade back in the 50s

I know some units had to deal with the C-21 to the “C-23…no just kidding…find something else to fly”.

Conversions are a challenge any way you slice it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SocialD]

32 minutes ago, 157 ARW Aircrew Hiring said:

It probably would have been fun to rip around in F-100s and F-104s, be a generation behind the AD and not have to do more than 2 weeks a year.

 

Yes sir.  And be called up when there is a legit shooting match worth fighting.  Not this continuous game of whack-a-mole/nation building that we played for two decades with no discernable objective.  

 

32 minutes ago, 157 ARW Aircrew Hiring said:

When I look back at my old unit’s KC-135 to KC-46 conversion and what a pain that was from a training, Stan/eval, funding and MX perspective, I can’t imagine being in the 1950s ANG where units swapped aircraft every 2-3 years.

Units like the 104th went P-47, P-51, F-94 to F-86 in a decade back in the 50s

 

Switching between those planes would have been mostly cake, especially piston to piston or jet to jet.  Their systems we're mostly the same, even in the 100 series days and were fairly basic.  If you can fine a 30 wire in a P-51, you can find it in an F-84.  I've talked with a few guys who flew P-47s up through F-105s.  The earlier transitions we're often nothing more than reading a manual and a cockpit checkout...goodluck!  

 

Today...not so much.  I always said that if my unit had transitioned to the F-35, I would have rode the Viper out until the last one left the ramp, then retired.  No desire to learn another military jet at that age/time in my career.  

[157 ARW Aircrew Hiring]

 

Yes sir.  And be called up when there is a legit shooting match worth fighting.  Not this continuous game of whack-a-mole/nation building that we played for two decades with no discernable objective. 

The stark irony of this is that the equipment we should have been using for the 20+ years of whack-a-mole was the older hardware and we should have saved the wear and tear and countless AOS moves on the nice stuff.

But I digress. Back to our regular programming


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

As the Guard (Air and Army) are technically independent militias could they not implement this policy on their own thru legislation of their own state legislature?
Need a lawyer lurking on BO to answer this…
Funding then would be the key / crux but really there’s a middle ground…
It would be a Goldwater-Nichols level legislation but allow Guard units and their States to redesignate themselves as strategic only forces, self funded by their state and OTE’d in coordination with DoD (negotiated not directed)
This would principally be done IMO to have mass available if the feces hit the fan and we needed a lot of platforms of relevant capes but also affordable at scale to deliver fires/effects/deterrence and a large conventional ground force to reinforce a more robust force
AD has new shiny toys and high speed low drag dudes, ANG/AG has a lotta good toys and capable troops kept at a simmer who can reinforce, deter and in theater conflicts defeat independently some threats (contingency in Venezuela, European regional assurance mission as an examples) leaving AD with less to budget for and an affordable back up to call on
This force or construct would also take on roles the AD may not want and keep those capabilities ready if called on: Light Strike Armed Recon, Light Air Mobility, Pilot/WSO training, etc…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[M2]

11 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

As the Guard (Air and Army) are technically independent militias could they not implement this policy on their own thru legislation of their own state legislature?
Need a lawyer lurking on BO to answer this…

Not a lawyer, but technically state defense forces (SDFs) are the only military units/recognized independent militias which operate solely under the authority of a state government.  SDFs are distinct from National Guard units in that they cannot become Federal entities per 32 U.S.C. §109.

With the onset of World War II and as a result of the Federalization of the National Guard, in 1940 Congress amended the National Defense Act of 1916 and authorized states to maintain "military forces other than National Guard."

Nearly every state has laws authorizing state defense forces, and 19 (and Puerto Rico) have active forces with different levels of activity, support and strength.   

Most execute emergency management and homeland security missions.  For example, the Texas State Guard has a non-armed role supporting Operation LONE STAR - BORDER SURGE.

Governor DeSantis recently reactivated the Florida State Guard to deal with natural disasters in that state, but has also send FSG personnel to the Mexican border in Texas.

[Clark Griswold]

9 hours ago, M2 said:

Not a lawyer, but technically state defense forces (SDFs) are the only military units/recognized independent militias which operate solely under the authority of a state government.  SDFs are distinct from National Guard units in that they cannot become Federal entities per 32 U.S.C. §109.

With the onset of World War II and as a result of the Federalization of the National Guard, in 1940 Congress amended the National Defense Act of 1916 and authorized states to maintain "military forces other than National Guard."

Nearly every state has laws authorizing state defense forces, and 19 (and Puerto Rico) have active forces with different levels of activity, support and strength.   

Most execute emergency management and homeland security missions.  For example, the Texas State Guard has a non-armed role supporting Operation LONE STAR - BORDER SURGE.

Governor DeSantis recently reactivated the Florida State Guard to deal with natural disasters in that state, but has also send FSG personnel to the Mexican border in Texas.

Knowledge 

Thanks