Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Who's Guarding Montana from a Firestorm?

By Matt Singer, AlterNet. Posted July 13, 2005.


Fire season is underway in Montana -- but the troops the state needs to quell the blazes are currently preoccupied with the war on Iraq.
Who's Guarding Montana from a Firestorm
Who's Guarding Montana from a Firestorm

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Matt Singer

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

BILLINGS, Montana -- As fire season gets underway in Montana this summer, the Pentagon's increased reliance on the state's National Guard to help fight our foreign wars has turned into a serious local issue.

Brian Schweitzer, the Democratic Governor of this state, reviewed the potential emergencies that face Montana, largely a massive fire danger this summer due to low snowpack levels and insect infestations in trees, and requested the Pentagon to rotate more Guard troops out of Iraq and into Montana for the critical fire months of July and August.

Schweitzer has been among the most outspoken governors on the Pentagon’s overuse of the Guard, which has left states without key resources to deal with natural disasters and local defense. He's frustrated that 1,300 of Montana’s roughly 3,500 National Guard soldiers and airmen have been called up to active duty, deployed as military police to Afghanistan, Iraq and locations across the United States. Schweitzer says that Washington has placed the burden of domestic defense on governors without providing them the tools. "I said, 'look, you have told me that I, as governor, am responsible first and foremost for national security in Montana -- don't come crying to Washington.'"

The Pentagon's response to Schweitzer's request for more Guard troops this summer was brief. "There wasn't a conversation," he says. "The answer wasn't how many assets. The answer wasn't when. The answer was just no. So you've got commanders-in-chief and we're told to plan. And when we do, we're told no."

One of the problems with fire planning is that no one really knows what the fire danger will be in any given year. But from early on in 2005, fire experts have predicted a summer of blaze for Montana, which has had seven straight years of drought. In 2000, the last year that Montana had serious wildfires, the state required not only National Guard forces, but also a battalion of regular Army troops help fight the fires.

In Montana and elsewhere in the dry-land West, governors are concerned about fires. In Florida, the Guard is occasionally called out to respond to hurricanes. Each state, Schweitzer argues, has its own needs and times when it knows it may face emergency situations: tornado season, hurricane season, mudslide season, fire season.

Governors and state leaders across the country share Schweitzer's concerns. The issue cuts across partisan lines, with Democratic governors like Ted Kulongoski of Oregon expressing concerns right alongside Republican Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho. Kulongoski told the Oregonian that the federal government's growing use of the Guard is not "good for the states, and I don't think it's good for the National Guard." And Kempthorne, who often works on National Guard issues on behalf of the National Governors Association, sent a letter to the Pentagon's National Guard Bureau expressing concern about the bureau's commitment to ensure that states have adequate resources to deal with emergencies.

Governor Schweitzer says that if the Pentagon would just simply listen to governors, a plan that balanced the emergency response needs of the states with the military needs of the federal government could be worked out. The problem is that the federal government isn't working with governors.

The Pentagon counters that it has put guidelines in place to ensure that states are not left helpless in the case of emergencies. Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, who oversees the Pentagon's National Guard Bureau, has pledged that the federal government will not call up more than 50% of a state's Guard personnel. In the case that more personnel is needed, Major Scott Smith of the Montana National Guard says that Mutual Aid Compacts and federal assistance can overcome a shortfall.

But part of the problem is that the shortfall for firefighting and local defense is not simply in personnel. There are also equipment issues. Montana relied on Guard machinery to help put out the wildfires in 2000, and many of the helicopter mechanics who help fight the fires were members of the Guard or Reserves. Schweitzer ticks off a list of physical assets that are overseas: Humvees, low bed trailers, and 10 of the state's 12 Black Hawk helicopters. And while the state still has helicopters in other departments, many of the pilots and crews have been called up for service outside Montana.

Max Baucus, Montana's senior U.S. Senator, recently raised concerns about a Pentagon plan to remove jets from Montana's Air National Guard that are used to patrol the northernmost border. Citing the length of Montana's border, Baucus wrote in a letter to Undersecretary of Defense Michael Wynne, "It is, quite frankly, a very high risk to shore up security on the nation's southern border, while cutting Homeland Security forces such as the Montana Air National Guard at the northern border."

Baucus' concern was roundly mocked by one Montana columnist as being nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to bring home more pork funding. But given that terrorists have attempted to access the United States via Canada -- in one case with a car loaded full of explosives -- the danger is not purely speculative.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Matt Singer is a freelance writer and lives in Billings, Montana. Read his blog at Left in the West.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The Fire Next Time
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jul 13, 2005 4:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the next terrorist attack on this country comes (and I must emphasize the word "when" not "if". All the experts agree on that) The national guard will be so depleted state side that we will be looking at a major calamity. All because of the First Fool's mind-numbingly stupid, wreckless, wicked and illegal invasion of Iraq.

Why isn't anyone in the congress or senate calling for his impeachment? As citizens we should all be demanding it.
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Fire Next Time Posted by: funtime42
Civil Affairs Are Secondary
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jul 13, 2005 8:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The National Guard, the modern militia, exists first as a component of the United States Army. As such the missions tasked by the Pentagon and the NCA (National Command Authority) take precedence over all other missions.
If Montana needs firefighters, that's Montana's problem-- not the Pentagon's. GWB & Co have pursued a number of ill-advised and poorly planned policies, but fighting fires is an ancillary function of the National Guard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

solution.
Posted by: sarah on Jul 13, 2005 10:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know. Maybe the eco-activists described in the "environmentalists on the fringe" article can help out with fighting the big montana fire... consolidation is the key... and fighting fires would increase positive perception of the "eco activists" by the FEDS and the public... kick in a little PR know- how, and all the probs. of the world are reported to be resolved. the end.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

chuck reinhardt
Posted by: chuckyeo on Jul 13, 2005 11:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as a former smokejumper with the us. forest service, missoula, montana, we seldom had need for the national guard. but since the cuts of funding by bush sr. and jr.,[ funding for jumpers, hotshot crews, and native american crews,] the national guard has been needed more often. another example of bush's utter disregard for our countries national resources. one source of aid has come from eco-activist, who volunteer to fight fire from all over the country, mexico and canada............

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

as a MT resident, I think this article is embarrassing for AlterNet
Posted by: wendigo on Jul 13, 2005 12:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Singer's premise is that we are in huge fire danger courtesy of the current illegal war against/in Iraq.

How sad, that now some have taken to spewing such crap in order to discredit Bush and the GOP.

Let me help Singer out here.

1) We aren't perched on a disaster of fire. Our moisture in fire country is above average, not tinderbox arid.

2) Fire fighting is a questionable practice, and costs the taxpayer way more than it ought, primarily because...

3) the "troops" who fight most of our fires are contract workers and not USFS Smoke Jumpers or other USFS fire crews... contract workers are more costly by several times, especially given that most fires are unexpected and typically "catastrophic" circumstances that usually call for 2x to 3x normal firefighting pay; and

4) most fires are natural and allowing burning is integral to the forest ecosystem. the sense of needing to "fight" a fire comes from a very man-derived need to put things in order and control nature. fire-fighting is just another boondoggle, along with...

5) if you want to blame Bush for anything forest-related in Montana, how about something that has real relevance: the "healthy forests" we have courtesy of the Healthy Forests Initiative" have resulted in radically altered recreational trails and utterly decimated aesthetics, not to mention lots less shade for cooling one's self on hot summer days... but the real strategy is...

6) make the forests less recreational user friendly, and it becomes much easier for timber industry to say there is no need to account for aesthetics or recreation in forest management.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Montana is a red state!
Posted by: johnB on Jul 16, 2005 2:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let them learn to live with the consequences of their decision, as must the rest of us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Montana is a red state! Posted by: maxpayne
What's the problem?
Posted by: FlapJackSeven on Jul 17, 2005 5:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If people are worried about getting pulled up into an active status, why did they join in the first place. It's volunary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What's the problem? Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: What's the problem? Posted by: FlapJackSeven
» RE: What's the problem? Posted by: MausMasher
» RE: What's the problem? Posted by: FlapJackSeven