Time: Mon Dec 01 06:50:36 1997 To: From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: National Guard's New Role (fwd) Cc: Bcc: sls References: <snip> > >From the Los Angeles Times: > >Monday, December 1, 1997 > >Experts Split Over New Role for National Guard >Military: Plan for force to counter chemical weapons >and other threats to U.S. is considered a bad fit by some. > >by PAUL RICHTER, Times Staff Writer > >WASHINGTON--A proposal to give the National Guard a broader >role in defending an increasingly vulnerable U.S. homeland would >provide a badly needed new mission for the organization, but it may fit >poorly with the Guard's desires and capabilities, some defense analysts say. > >In a report to be released today, a congressionally mandated panel has >urged that the Guard take an expanded role in countering the threat of attack >from chemical or biological weapons, along with other unconventional >threats. The advisory group, called the National Defense Panel, contends >that the military has not moved quickly enough to counter the new dangers >from enemy nations and groups, and argues that the Guard is well-suited to >help respond to such emergencies because of its routine contacts with local >civilian agencies. > >The proposal tracks with a Pentagon initiative, announced last week, to >give the 400,000-member Guard new responsibilities to help lead the >response to chemical or biological attacks. > >Defense officials have sought a new role for an organization they believe >to be underused but backed by too much grass-root political support to be >eliminated. The Pentagon has been "looking desperately for missions for the >National Guard," said one high-ranking defense official, adding that >officials understand that "they won't go away." > >Some analysts believe, however, that the Guard's training level and >historic mission make it a poor choice for a job requiring quick reaction and >highly specialized technical expertise. > >"You're talking about handing them one of the most time-sensitive, least >clear-cut threats out there," said Daniel Goure, a defense expert at the >Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "They may be >one of the worst choices for this," he said. > >Moreover, Goure said, because their units might be called to active duty >during a national emergency, many would be unavailable for such >civil-defense responsibilities in time of war. > >Guard members generally train one weekend a month and two weeks a >year. Although they have a long tradition of helping local authorities with >natural disasters, riots and similar emergencies, their first mission is to >take part in war. > >They lag behind active-duty Army units and the Marines in receiving >training to defend against chemical and biological weapons. > >One panel official, who asked to remain unidentified, acknowledged that >the Guard does not have the technical expertise to train civilian agencies in >countering such threats. > >"We have to get them ready," he said, as other agencies also must learn >how to deal with the various aspects of the new threat. > >Any expansion of the National Guard's mission could have a significant >impact in California. The Army National Guard has 17,000 members in >California and a fiscal 1998 operations budget of $155 million. An additional >4,900 Californians belong to the Air National Guard. > >Cutbacks in overall defense spending have created myriad problems for >the Guard in California and other states, making the new proposals >potentially welcome. > >But Lawrence Korb, who as a Pentagon official in the 1980s had >authority over the Guard, speculated that the organization might not like an >assignment if it conflicted with its war-waging mission. "They see their >first role as helping fight wars," he said. > >Richard N. Haas, a former Bush administration national security aide at >Brookings Institution, agreed that there would probably be "a lot of >resistance" from the Guard because the change would blur war and policing >roles. > >Korb and Haas, however, said they believe that the role could be a good >fit for the organization. > >Some Guard officials declined to comment, saying they would wait for the >report to become public. > >Although 95% of the National Guard's funding comes from the federal >government, Guard units are subject to state authority and can be called into >action to help in natural disasters and civil emergencies. > >The National Defense Panel report recommends that the National Guard, >"together with the Army Reserve, be prepared to train local authorities in >chemical and biological weapons detection and decontamination, assist in >casualty treatment and evacuation, quarantine if necessary affected areas and >people, and assist in restoration of infrastructure and services." > >But even as it calls for the Guard to develop what amounts to a new >specialty, the report calls for a significant downsizing of the Guard. That >recommendation will probably be well received at the Pentagon but resisted >in Congress and among Guard officials. > >The panel's proposal comes one week after Defense Secretary William >S. Cohen, at an event to publicize a report on the spread of weapons of >mass destruction, called for the Guard to broaden its role in responding to >attacks by chemical and biological weapons. > > Copyright Los Angeles Times > <snip>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail