GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: GAO: Guard may lack gear needed for domestic crises

• 20893
  

  Great article, but it was apparently written before the sad news story on the southern border, where National Guard troops ran away from armed Mexican criminals. Personally, I think that they did the smart thing, but they shouldn't be there in uniform without weapons, and ammunition in them! With all the lead flying around in the Middle East, maybe President Shrub can send a few crates of the above commodity out West, where it is really needed!

  GovExec.com reader Posted January 31, 2007 10:16 AM
• 20886
  

  "Congressional investigators have found that the Defense Department does not adequately track National Guard equipment needs for domestic missions, raising questions about whether the state-run units have adequate supplies to respond to disasters and emergencies on U.S. soil." How stupid is this for a Congressional position?

  The Dept of Defense should handle issues of the military that involve the defense of the country. The DoD should have no role in decisions of preparedness for domestic issues. That is why the Guard is under the control of the states. This is another prime example of a democratic Congress that thinks the federal government can operate better than anyone else! The states should have the responsibility to make sure their guard units are prepared for domestic emergencies. This is not and should not be a role for DoD or any other federal agency. Guard gear should be provided for and paid for by the states and not the federal government! This simply is another bid by Congress to buy votes by providing funds to states again!

  taxpayer Posted January 31, 2007 7:11 AM
• 20883
  

  I find it amazing that no governor has yet stood up to the President and questioned why National Guard units are continuing to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, when no declaration of war has been declared. This is King George's war, and his minions should have told him that the Court Jesters' [aka Donald Rummy] continuing degradation of the military had left it unable to fight the type of war it would be facing in these two far off locations. History should have taught King George that this was a war that could not be won, should not be fought, and will leave a lasting, albeit terrible, legacy for the US for many, many years.

  The National Guard's primary purpose is to protect the nation, serve the nation during national disasters, and augment the military in times when this nation faces an armed aggressor. Iraq does not fit this requirement, and King George's continued pursuit of "victory" in Iraq only serves to weaken this nation's defenses, and places young Americans in harms way, for no useful purpose.

  I fully support our young service men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I do not respect or support the administration that lied about why we are there, and continues to lie about our prospect of success.

  JD Posted January 31, 2007 6:39 AM