GUARD NOT READY FOR HOMELAND DISASTERS

The Iraq war has so seriously depleted the National Guard’s supplies and monopolized its personnel that it may not be able to cope with several natural disasters occurring at the one time, or with a major terrorist attack involving chemical, nuclear or biological weapons.
That is the message coming loud and clear from senior Guard officers and politicians in the wake of the tornado that almost obliterated the Kansas farming town of Greensburg. As the Governor of the State, Kathleen Sebelius, surveyed the damage and contemplated the massive clean up that must follow, she lamented the fact that the recovery operation will be hampered by a National Guard that is ill-equipped to deal with domestic emergencies.
The Governor believes the federal response to the disaster has been negatively impacted by the National Guard’s Middle East deployments.
“If you are missing trucks, Humvees and helicopters the response is going to be slower,” she told reporters, adding that the real victims of a slower recovery pace will be all those who lost their homes or lost loved ones.
The White House response to her criticism was that the National Guard has plenty of equipment positioned around the country, ready to deal with disasters. That statement was somewhat disingenuous because it did not specifically deal with the problems in Kansas as outlined by Gov. Sebelius.

“Here in Kansas, about 50% of our trucks are gone. We need trucks. We’re missing Humvees. We’re missing all kinds of equipment to respond to this kind of emergency,” she complained.
A spokesman for the Kansas National Guard confirmed that more than 20% of its Humvees and as many as 19 helicopters were in Iraq.
The concerns expressed by Gov. Sebelius pointed to a much bigger issue, namely the Guard’s level of unpreparedness at home. For several years, senior military figures and members of both sides of the House have tried to impress on the Bush administration the fact that continued Guard deployments to Afghanistan, and particularly Iraq, have slowly weakened the Guard, leaving it short of personnel and equipment to discharge its duty to respond to national disasters or emergencies on US soil.
The Guard has approximately $3 billion worth of equipment in Iraq and much of that will not be coming home soon because it is needed for the president’s “surge” strategy. Some analysts reckon much of it will be left in Iraq when our forces withdraw because it will be needed by the Iraqi army or it will be too old and worn out by then. Therefore, it would not make economic sense to ship it home. That has left the Guard in some states across the nation with a third or less of the standard equipment needed to discharge its domestic responsibilities vis a vis disasters and homeland security crises. Many observers say the real problem lies in the fact that the Guard comprises over 20% of our combat troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and the National Guard commitments in both conflict zones have seriously reduced recruitment levels.
In March 2007, Lt. Col. Pete Schneider, spokesman for the Guard in Louisiana told the Washington Post he was concerned he would not have the kind of equipment needed to deal with a Katrina type aftermath. He believed all the Guard could cope with was “maybe a Category 1 tropical storm” that did not create massive flooding or the need for a massive rescue operation.
Back in January this year, the Government Accounting Office issued a report that admitted the wars overseas had “reduced equipment needed for state-led domestic missions” at a time when the nation was facing an expanded array of threats at home.
The Guard’s National Guard Bureau Chief, Lt. Gen H. Steven Blum has publicly voiced the view that governors are right to be concerned because of what he calls the “equipment piece” of the Guard. In his view the National Guard “has never been less ready” because of its depleted stores of equipment.
For National Guard troops returning home the picture is just as bleak. They are often coming off long tours of duty in Iraq, lasting as much as 13 months, and are suddenly tasked to move to another state to deal with a natural disaster such as tornado damage, forest fires or massive floods etc. In many instances employers end up angry at having to keep jobs open for such lengthy periods and families become very upset that their loved ones are home for 24 hours and then gone. It is all having a negative impact on National Guard recruitment because seasoned soldiers are finding it hard to cope with extended periods away from jobs and families, and families are discouraging their kids from signing up with the Guard.
Many people point to the Vietnam War as an example of how the National Guard coped well in a time of war and say they find it difficult to understand why the Guard should now be under so much strain. Well, the difference between the present wars and Vietnam is that there was a draft during the Vietnam War. Nowadays, the lack of a draft means that active duty troops after 12-month tours in Iraq and Afghanistan are being replaced by Guard soldiers. As a consequence, the continued use of the Guard has gradually weakened it in terms of its ability to fulfill its domestic roles. Additionally, it image of part-time soldiers has been replaced by a new reality that affects recruitment. For example, the war in Iraq in particular has essentially converted National Guard troops into active-duty combat troops undertaking lengthy deployments. And with commitments in Afghanistan the pressure on the National Guard to fill gaps in active duty rosters in both conflict zones has become increasingly demanding.
The war in Iraq has been the greatest drain on the National Guard and the longer it continues the greater the damage to the Guard’s ability to be an effective force if needed to respond to emergencies at home. Congress may also have to consider providing as much as $3 billion to replace equipment that will never leave the two conflict zones. As for the Guard, the longer its troops are used in long tours of combat the more difficult recruitment will become and some observers say it may take a decade to restore the National Guard to the level of readiness it was at prior to the invasion of Iraq.