International Misuse of the National Guard

by Jim Moore

04/15/2003

An unforgettable scene comes to my mind when I contemplate who Bush and his war buddies plan to use to fight the wars after we devastate Iraq; and any other country Bush adds to his "Axis of Evil" menu. 

The scene that shakes me up occurs in All Quiet on the Western Front, a gory movie about World War I. A soldier, just back from the front lines, is asked to speak to a schoolroom full of young kids. His pitch to them is supposed to be how glorious it is to fight (and die) for the Fatherland

He was asked to speak there because the war had killed off most of the able bodied men, and all that was left at the bottom of the barrel were school children. 

As he was speaking, the soldier suddenly, to the teacher's consternation, began telling the boys what war was really like; how it would feel knowing that you were about to kill or be killed; and how ghastly it was, battling in muddy trenches with screams of the wounded in your ears, and the stench of dead bodies in your nostrils. 

Some glory.

At the rate we're perpetuating wars, Bush, too, may well have to troll the bottom of the manpower barrel, and sooner than he thinks. But not to worry. Having dealt from the bottom of the deck so long, dealing from the bottom of the barrel may not cause him much concern. 

But it should scare hell out of every American with young males in the family. 

As it now stands, there are some 325,000 troops in Iraq and vicinity, and 150,000 more in Baghdad itself. The news media, mimicking the Pentagon, call these troops "coalition forces", which by any measure is a crock. In fact, the vast majority of these troops are American, and the high number represents the bulk of the entire U.S. army.

Now, if we have nearly all of our ground forces in or near Iraq, and the administration starts putting the arm on other Arab countries, where will the additional troops come from?

The soldiers who fought all the way to Baghdad may well be too exhausted and war-weary to start an assault on, say, Syria. 

We can't count on using more "coalition" forces either, since they were a dead-last minority in the Iraqi war. And there's no reason to think they would ante up more bodies for a run at another Arab country.

Help from Israel would be as non-existent later as it is now---why should the Israeli army get involved when they have American grunts doing the fighting for them? 

Bringing in more American troops seems to be an obvious answer, and it might be the logical one, if we didn't already have our whole U.S. army eating sand-dune sandwiches in the torrid Iraqi desert. 

So, where will the Pentagon and the armchair gladiators in the administration get the additional warm bodies that will be needed to move on to the next war?

The best answer might be to call up more of the National Guard. Thousands of NG men and women have already been called up to join the regular army when war with Iraq was imminent; no reason why more of them wouldn't be available and ready to give their lives to save some country somewhere.

Problem is, even the first call-up of the National Guard was a devious move to bump up the manpower numbers. Why devious? Because a reading of the U.S. Constitution will tell you that the National Guard is actually a U.S. Militia, authorized by the Constitution, which also defines the Militia's functions and its federal and state roles.

Article l, Section 8 provides that Congress shall have the power to call forth "the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." 

The U.S. Congress has the job of organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia. But officers and training the Militia are reserved for the states.
In times of war or other emergencies the National Guard is absorbed into the active service of the United States, and the president is commander in chief.
Hold it right there!

Read again those last two paragraphs. In calling up the National Guard (the Militia) for war in Iraq, the president's war team seriously overstepped their constitutional authority and should be held accountable for it.

First, the National Guard had no invasion to repel, no insurrection to suppress, and at that time no Laws of the Union to enforce.

Second, in "times of war" the National Guard may indeed be called up, but we are not technically at war because no formal Declaration of War by Congress exists. We are in conflict in Iraq at the president's discretion only, and this is a dictatorial-like breach of executive power 
Third, only Congress is empowered to call forth the Militia (the National Guard)----and I don't recall the Congress ever getting involved. Since it did not do so, and instead sat back and allowed the president to use the powers that are not his to use, Congress has abdicated its responsibility to the American people and should also be held accountable, not for their action but for their inaction.

If the president's advisors insist on "neutralizing" more of the Arab states after Iraq has been contained, we can be sure that more of the National Guard will be called up. 

But, hey, if it's that easy and simple to call up the Guard to fight an enemy, why did we wait for the Iraqi war to do so? If one of the prime duties of the National Guard is to "repel invasions" (protect our shores), why hasn't the Guard been patrolling our border states with Mexico and repelling illegal aliens from entering the U. S. and causing hell and havoc to ranchers and farmers on American soil?

The President of the United States seems to have no qualms about calling up the Guard to fight for and defend the arid land of Iraq, but he apparently has had a problem calling it up to protect our own sovereign shores, which is the first constitutional duty of the National Guard.

One has to wonder why the president has never done this. And what else he is doing for foreign countries that he is not doing for his own.


Jim Moore
Jmoore1819@aol.com