National Guard Stretched too Thin

[2pac Shakur]

WASHINGTON - The National Guard is stretched so thin by simultaneous assignments in Iraq and the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast that leaders in statehouses and Congress say it is time to reconsider how the force is used.

Republicans and Democrats alike worry about the service's ability to balance its federal and state missions of fighting wars and responding to domestic crises.

"We need to look at what is going to be the long-term future of our Guard when states need to rely on these soldiers for emergencies and the nation continues to rely on them for overseas deployment," said Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, a Democrat.

About 41,000 Guard members are scattered across Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana, along with 17,000 active-duty troops. About 30,000 Guard members are serving in Iraq, with smaller numbers in Afghanistan, Kosovo and elsewhere overseas.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,76870,00.html?ESRC=dod.nl

Because Bush thinks terrrorism is the only thing anybody has to worry about in their lives. Of course, this has NOTHING to do with the lousy fed response.

Brownie - your doing a heck of a job.

[Tim><]

Perhaps you missed the part of the article that mentioned the guardsman deployed in hurricane relief.

[2pac Shakur]

Perhaps you missed the part of the article that mentioned the guardsman deployed in hurricane relief.


There'd be 30,000 more if it weren't for Iraq.

[Cloister]

There'd be 30,000 more if it weren't for Iraq.

Obviously you think 30,000 more NG troops in the U.S. would make a big difference. I'm curious, what percentage of the total NG force do you think that 30,000 represents (don't look it up first - I want to know what your preconception is).

[2pac Shakur]

Obviously you think 30,000 more NG troops in the U.S. would make a big difference. I'm curious, what percentage of the total NG force do you think that 30,000 represents (don't look it up first - I want to know what your preconception is).

No, I think 30,000 NG in the Gulf region would make a big difference.
Not sure what the total NG force is.
According to the article, there are currently 41,000 NG troops in the Gulf region. 30,000 more would be significant.

[Tim><]

No, I think 30,000 NG in the Gulf region would make a big difference.
Not sure what the total NG force is.
According to the article, there are currently 41,000 NG troops in the Gulf region. 30,000 more would be significant.I've been waiting for a chance to bust this out: :oyh:

[2pac Shakur]

Then perhaps they could come from the more than 30,000 troops that are in the U.S. that are not in either place. The Iraq thing is a red herring.

Yea.
That's why they've dipped into ready reserve.

[Cloister]

No, I think 30,000 NG in the Gulf region would make a big difference.
Not sure what the total NG force is.
According to the article, there are currently 41,000 NG troops in the Gulf region. 30,000 more would be significant.

So, you think increasing the available NG force in the U.S. by LESS than 10% would make the difference in nearly DOUBLING the number in the Gulf region. Because that's what's in Iraq - less than 10% of the total NG force. Putting it another way, there are (I should say were as last I heard nearly 70,000 were in the Gulf area) over 250,000 NG troops that were in neither place. Another 30,000 wouldn't make that much difference in their ability to deploy forces to LA, MS, or AL. You think they didn't send enough - fine. But Iraq's got nothing to do with that.

[yankeetripper]

My understanding is 1/3rd of the NG from LA/Miss/Ala is currently stationed in Iraq. I would call that a significant portion of the "local" NG.

[Cloister]

My understanding is 1/3rd of the NG from LA/Miss/Ala is currently stationed in Iraq. I would call that a significant portion of the "local" NG.

Sure, but NG units from other states were ready, willing, and able to move in. That there was apparently a breakdown in getting them signed orders to actually move in is a different issue - one that should be looked into - but different nonetheless.

In other words "Poor utilization of NG" <> "Inadequate numbers of NG troops".

[yankeetripper]

In other words "Poor utilization of NG" <> "Inadequate numbers of NG troops".

I think both played a part in this but mostly I blame Bush and the incompentent cronies he's appointed at every level of his administartion. Oh and on NG I think the reports were most to all of the "high water equipment" they had was in Iraq. Just a hunch that some of that gear might have been a bit helpful in flood conditions.

The Gov of LA could have done a much better job but mostly I blame the Feds on this one.

[2pac Shakur]

So, you think increasing the available NG force in the U.S. by LESS than 10% would make the difference in nearly DOUBLING the number in the Gulf region. Because that's what's in Iraq - less than 10% of the total NG force. Putting it another way, there are (I should say were as last I heard nearly 70,000 were in the Gulf area) over 250,000 NG troops that were in neither place. Another 30,000 wouldn't make that much difference in their ability to deploy forces to LA, MS, or AL. You think they didn't send enough - fine. But Iraq's got nothing to do with that.

Here's another military guy that thinks Iraq hurt the fed's response...

BAY ST. LOUIS, Mississippi (AP) -- The deployment of thousands of National Guard troops from Mississippi and Louisiana in Iraq when Hurricane Katrina struck hindered those states' initial storm response, military and civilian officials said Friday.

Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said that "arguably" a day or so of response time was lost due to the absence of the Mississippi National Guard's 155th Infantry Brigade and Louisiana's 256th Infantry Brigade, each with thousands of troops in Iraq.

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=62555&highlight=Iraq

I guess he didn't check with Cloister.