Am I the only one who thinks the first job of the National Guard is to fight wars? I keep reading stories about how the Guard is being misused in Iraq when they should be at home ready to respond to natural disasters. That seems kind of ass-backwards to me. I would be pissed if the Guard were kept out of the fight just in case they were needed to clean up after a tornado.
What are the police and fire departments for? And do the people who choose to live in areas prone to hurricanes and tornados bear no responsibility for their choice? Why is this the Army's problem? Shouldn't it be the people, who choose to live in an area that has a "season" for natural disasters, who have to deal with the inevitable consequences of their choice? For that matter, why is it that my tax dollars are going to rebuild a city that is below sea level, when Al Gore clearly states that the level of the sea is going to rise even higher soon?
When I went through basic training the active duty, Reserve and National Guard troops were all together. The Guard guys were never taken off and given seperate training on how to respond to a hurricane or tornado. They were trained in the same things the rest of us were: how to shoot, move and communicate in combat.
It's great that the National Guard can help when needed. The Reserves has pitched in many times as well as troops from active duty units. No problem, glad to do it, too. But we shouldn't forget that the first job of the Army is to close with and destroy the enemy, not save people who choose to live in "Tornado Alley" from the consequences of their poor choice.
You Need Me On That Wall! A blog about military service, gear, leadership, politics, motorcycles, watches and whatever else strikes me.
2 comments:
Obviously the primary mission of the National Guard is national defense. But there's a realistic potential for some sort of natural disaster anywhere in the world. I put a lot of thought into this when my town was evacuated because of wildfire. Okay, a controlled burn that wasn't. But on the east coast, it's storms. In the midwest, it's tornados. In the mountains, it's snowstorms and avalanches. In California, it's all of the above at once plus earthquakes. Now granted, if you are living in a 50-year flood plain you are asking for trouble, but when you really think about it, no where on earth is safe.
But that still doesn't mean we should keep the NG at home because there might be a storm.
hidesert
What I object to is using my tax dollars to subsidize the recovery effort for people who live in an area where they KNOW they will get hit with something. There is a CHANCE of bad things happening everywhere, but there are some places where we KNOW for sure that bad things will happen. Coasts of Florida and California; plains of Kansas or Colorado for examples.
I just think those folks should pitch in a little more for their choice. And I don't have a problem with the Guard helping out. I was only making the point that war is the primary mission and relief is the secondary mission.
Post a Comment