Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
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.

National Guard Should Protect People, Not Oil

By Stacy Bannerman, Foreign Policy in Focus. Posted September 29, 2005.


When hundreds of desperately needed high-water humvees, refuelers and generators are overseas, not only Gulf Coast residents are in jeopardy -- the Iraq war endangers the nation.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Stacy Bannerman

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 

Hurricane Katrina blew apart President Bush's rickety arguments about how invading Iraq would make us safe.

We don't know Hurricane Katrina's death toll, or how many Americans might have lived had the thousands of National Guard troops trained to help in the wake of hurricanes and floods not been protecting oil in the desert.

But we know 35 percent of Louisiana's and 40 percent of Mississippi's National Guard troops were in Iraq while their towns were leveled. National Guard officers repeatedly had warned officials about the catastrophic impact of having so many Guardsmen deployed in the event of a major natural disaster.

More soldiers and equipment are now stateside. But hundreds of high-water vehicles, humvees, refuelers and generators the Gulf Coast desperately needs remain overseas. Not only Gulf Coast residents are in jeopardy; the Iraq war endangers the nation.

More than a third of the U.S. soldiers based in Iraq belong to the Reserves or National Guard. Weekend warriors intended to supplement full-time active duty troops now fight for 14 months on average. But most are still treated like part-timers, and prepped and outfitted for combat accordingly. New equipment goes to the Army while Guardsmen and Reservists get hand-me-downs. This bodes badly for part-time soldiers who have become a major fighting force in Iraq.

August was the deadliest month for citizen soldiers. Five Pennsylvania Guardsmen died when the second-class humvee they were in was blown up. They had requested permission to use some of the 12 brand new, fully up-armored vehicles issued to a nearby active duty unit. The request was denied. The trucks stood idle when the Guardsmen died.

A total of 46 National Guard and Reserve soldiers were killed in August, more than half the 83 troop deaths. The disproportionately high -- and rising -- casualty rates of citizen soldiers are part of a trend. Pentagon statistics released at the end of 2004 showed losses sustained by Army National Guard soldiers in Iraq were 35 percent higher than that of regular enlisted. The elevated mortality rate of citizen soldiers is unparalleled. Of the 58,209 U.S. deaths in Vietnam, 94 were Guardsmen, and none were killed in the Persian Gulf War, USA Today has reported.

Long, hazardous duty is one reason why Army National Guard and Army Reserve recruitment numbers are off by 23 percent and 20 percent, respectively. In the first half of 2005, the Seattle Army Reserve office missed its target of about 100 recruits by 75 percent. Oregon recruitment is down 40 percent. Several battalions have lost more than half their members. One Reserve unit saw 70 percent of its members leave within a few months of coming home.

Half the soldiers leaving active duty service have traditionally joined the Guard, but since that likely means a quick trip back to Iraq, the number has dropped to about 35 percent. With so many first responders in Iraq, we have fewer first responders -- fire, police and emergency medical technicians -- in our communities.

While the Guard and Reserve are particularly hard hit, our entire country is suffering from the Iraq war. Rep. Michael McNulty, D-N.Y., recently noted that more than 16,000 U.S. troops have been killed or wounded in Iraq, and that the government has spent more than $200 billion on the war so far, saying, "The war has been a tremendous failure by both measures." He was announcing his support for legislation to require that U.S. troops begin their withdrawal from Iraq by October 2006.

It's time we add Homeland Security to the growing list of casualties of the war in Iraq.

Digg!

Stacy Bannerman is a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus. Her book, "When the War Came Home: The Inside Story of Citizen Soldiers and the Families Left Behind," will be released by Continuum Publishing in 2006. This story first appeared in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

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


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:
Corporate Domination
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Sep 29, 2005 4:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are guarding the oil in Iraq rather than protecting our citzens at home because we are told that it is in the national interest. Is it a coincidence that it is also in the corporate interest? Or is it a belief that "What's good for General Motors is good for America"? The conservatives, who always tout the free market, send us to war to defeat the free market. They seem to be flexible on this point. Bush, who during the Viet Nam war, stayed home to defend our shores, now thinks the nation is better defended on foreign soil. There are inconsistencies in the national policies. I guess it started when we changed the name of the War Department, which was dedicated to defense, to the Defense Department which is dedicated to war.

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

» RE: Corporate Domination Posted by: stoney13
The Neocons believe in King Hubbert's Peak Oil
Posted by: billyboy43 on Sep 29, 2005 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This neocon administration believes the world is facing a diminishing supply of oil, which has peaked, and for America's way of life to be sustained, the US oil companies need access to the remaining supply, and need the assistance of the US government to get it, and all hell will break loose in the world when the supply side shrinks dramatically, and there is no developed alternative source of energy. They therefore are doing a service to the ignorant public by killing the people that have it and taking it. Cheney has been a featured at Peak Oil summits.

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

Please tell me
Posted by: seefleur on Sep 29, 2005 6:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why on earth there are high water humvees needed in Iraq??? What idiot would send over vehicles like this to an arid country... oh wait, how could I have missed the link between poor planning and the criminals in the current administration..

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

defending the National Guard
Posted by: Lindz2976 on Sep 29, 2005 8:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just so you know, when National Guard troops go overseas, they take their own vehicles and those vehicles come home w/ them. Also, one of the biggest reasons the Reserves and National Guard are being used so much overseas is because in the 1990's the active duty military was severly downsized. Why don't people ever remember this? My husband is Army National Guard and he was overseas in Kuwait from January 2000 to June 2000, yes, that's before Bush ever became President, catch my drift? It's not just the Republicans fault, all of the government is to blame! And to add a quick note about how truly great our military is, my husband received notice he was being activated to go to Louisiana, within 3 days they left (we are in Oregon) and not once since my husband found out he was activated ( and he's still there) has he ever complained! He went there to help people and that's what he's doing.

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

» RE: defending the National Guard Posted by: OldRedleg2
» RE: defending the National Guard Posted by: sbannerman
Another Reason for Withdrawing National Guardsmen
Posted by: david.model@senecac.on.ca on Sep 29, 2005 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It clearly was a tragedy that the National Guard was absent when they were needed for flood relief in New Orleans but it is a greater tragedy that there are any American soldiers in Iraq at all.

First of all, the military occupation of Iraq violates the UN charter and is therefore illegal. The American troops in Iraq are violating the fourth Geneva Convention by killing innocent people and destroying non-military targets and by torturing prisoners, they are violating both the third Geneva Convention and the Convention on Torture.

The American military presence can serve no possible useful function given the growing alienation of the Iraqi people, the farcial attempt to create a democracy and the increasing number of terrorists who are flocking to Iraq to take a pot shot at a real American.

Even the objectives stated by the administration are beyond the reach of American troops and there is no possible motive other than protecting oil wells. How many times does Bush have to change his justification for being there before the American people catch on to the fact that American and Iraqis are dying not to mention the people in New Orleans in order to protect oil wells before the American people rise up in opposition to the military occupation.

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

And then some.......
Posted by: Smiggsy on Sep 29, 2005 10:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What will happen when US troops are pulled out of Iraq? Does anybody in the Bush gov't know? No wonder Bush wants to leave US troops there till he leaves office. Who is going to deal with the the mess tomorrow? Bush is leaving a trail of unparalleled catastrophy in his wake. He is history's greatest f@ckup.

I'm certain some arabs are grateful for the removal of Saddam from power, but exactly what will fill the political void once the US gov't leaves the country. Certainly not the US installed puppet gov't of the new Iraq. Anything is possible. Civil war? Religious fundamentalists running amuck? More conflict - the next world war?

What seems apparent is you can expect more problems at home & abroad, creating even more death & destruction in Iraq after the troops have gone. And don't think that the USA will not be seen as a target by some religious madmen in retribution. Arab tradition dictates an 'eye for an eye'.

Obviously the UN will have to pick-up some of the pieces, or a real shit storm will eventuate. Time to think about moving to Antarctica.

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

» RE: And then some....... Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: And then some....... Posted by: billfaster
» RE: And then some....... Posted by: loony
Some people can never be pleased.
Posted by: Sojourner on Sep 29, 2005 8:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gore wasn't good enough. Kerry wasn't good enough. Those were Anybody But Bush elections!

So you want the bickering in Washington to stop? Just think of all the issues that have been shoveled through that we haven't heard about because Americans don't like bad news.

We are looking at Anybody But a Republican elections as far as the eye can see -- assuming voters can get their heads out of their you-know-whats.

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

priscilla ammerman
Posted by: priscillaammerman on Oct 3, 2005 2:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This writer is exactly right. It is good to see someone come forth with the real truth. I have twin sons in the Mississippi National Guard. We always said while they were going through the activation and moblization process, "What if a hurricane hits." Well we found out. Our national guard was in Iraq and after about a week - the 82 airborne was here. Tell me what sense that makes.

The response to Katrina which was reprehensible would have been a different story if our guard with its equipment had been here. It takes helicopters and heavy equipment to get through storm ravaged areas to deliver a first response. Unfortunately most of Mississippi's equipment like this was in Iraq.

It's time for Rumsfield and Bush to go to plan B to shore up the lagging all-voluteer arm and leave our guard troops to do what they were trained to do here at home.

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

A solution
Posted by: mom'z the word on Oct 7, 2005 12:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Politics aside what is the harm in using the War Powers Resolution of 1973 to begin a meaningful dialogue on troop withdrawal from Iraq?The nation’s frustrations and growing anguish over the war in Vietnam finally moved Congress to pass the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The act is designed to place close limits on the President’s war-making powers. The resolution’s central provisions require that:

__Within 48 hours after committing American forces to combat abroad, the President must report to Congress, detailing the circumstances and the scope of his actions.

__That combat commitment must end within 60 days, unless Congress authorizes a longer period. That 60-day deadline may be extended for as much as 30 days, however, to allow for the safe withdrawal of the American forces involved.

__Congress may bring an end to the combat commitment at any time, by passing a concurrent resolution to that effect .

The constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution remains in dispute. A determination of the question must await a situation in which Congress demands that its provisions be obeyed but the President refuses to do so

This is the precise time to make the demand. Congress must declare its intent and the President his. Ultimately Congress can end this once and for all. But someone must be brave enough to start the ending process. This Resolution is our tool. Please for goodness sake write congress and demand we use it. Please, please don’t hesitate to save the lives of those soldiers who will die because of a lack of political will to do the right thing.

An Act of Congress is a powerful tool. Powerful enough to save lives but not powerful enough to bring one back. Act now. Mom’z the word.

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