Welcome to NGAC
National Guard: Why So Special? PDF Print E-mail

National Guard: Why So Special?

From Soldiers Magazine


Why does the Army have two elements in the reserve component the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard? It’s a fairly common question.

The Army National Guard is distinctly different from the Army Reserve and the regular Army. The differences aren’t immediately evident, but they are real, nevertheless. The differences originate deep in our national past, but they exist today and are important for Soldiers to understand, regardless of whether they are active, Guard or Reserve.

Even if Soldiers never join the Guard, they will almost certainly work with Guard Soldiers while they train or are deployed, if they haven’t done so already.

The most fundamental difference is that every member of the National Guard belongs to two organizations:  the National Guard of the United States and the National Guard of his or her particular state. In addition to the 50 states, the U.S. territories of Guam and the Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico all have National Guard units. So there are 54 Army National Guards in all.

Because the Air Force grew out of the Army and has been a separate service only since 1947, there are also 54 separate Air National Guards. When National Guard members enlist, they swear an oath to the Constitution of the United States as well as to the constitution of the state or territory where they join. They serve two sovereign governments.

Decentralized control for domestic operations is a key part of what makes the Guard special and unique. Centuries of service have shown the wisdom of having a military force that can respond to local as well as national needs. In the past, the Guard served an obvious domestic defensive need.

Today, natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina and regional situations that have national consequences; such as the recent announcement that 6,000 National Guard troops operating under state command will support the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency to stem illegal immigration � demonstrate the continued need for a National Guard that the states can call on.

When America was first settled by Europeans, the Europeans imported their military customs to the New World. The English, who became the dominant power on this continent, relied on local militias that required all free adult men to train together in defense of their colonies. 

It is from these militia roots that the Guard traces its history. In fact, the birthday of the National Guard is Dec. 13, 1636, marking the day that town militia companies in the Massachusetts Bay Colony were first organized into regiments, a full 139 years before the founding of the U.S. Army.


GEN George Washington’s Continental Army, the forerunner of today’s regular Army, was organized from members of these militia units in June 1775 - two months after the battles of Lexington and Concord that started the American Revolution. The militia was a key to winning that war, not just because of its role in battle, but because it denied the British control of the countryside. With British troops isolated in coastal cities, popular opinion in the surrounding areas gradually shifted towards independence from Britain.

Recognizing the key role the militia played in the Revolution, the founding fathers ratified the militia’s continued existence by providing for its longevity in the Constitution. Control over the militia was split between the states and the federal government. The states would train the militia and appoint officers. The federal government would organize and arm the militia and determine the standard of training. The founders intentionally developed a system where military power was not monopolized by the federal government, but split with the states.


That division between state and federal control, further defined by numerous laws over the last two centuries, still characterizes today’s National Guard. The Guard remains under the control of its state commander in chief, the governor, unless mobilized for federal service. Governors don’t have to request permission from the federal government to use the Guard. It is immediately available and accountable to them.

While in state service, the Guard supports civil authorities as they cope with lawlessness and all types of natural disasters. To this day, the National Guard is called out by individual state governors hundreds of times each year.

The Origin of the Guard

The name “National Guard” was first adopted in 1825 by militia units in New York to honor the Marquis de Lafayette, the French nobleman who served with Washington during the American Revolution and later commanded the Garde Nationale de Paris, (a citizen’s militia) during the French Revolution.

The name caught on in other states, and in 1916 the federal government adopted “National Guard” as the official term for the militia. That same year, Congress authorized the creation of the Organized Reserve Corps, the forerunner of today’s Army Reserve.

A significant difference between the Guard and Reserve today is the size and composition of the two forces. The Army Guard is authorized 350,000 Soldiers and is divided into combat, combat-support and combat-service-support units. The portion of the Army Reserve that is organized into troop units is authorized 205,000 Soldiers, but there is very little combat structure. So combat-arms Soldiers coming off active duty and seeking a combat unit in the Reserves will probably end up joining the Guard.

Soldiers in the Army Reserve, as with those in the active Army, don’t have state obligations. Though calls to state active duty can be inconvenient for Guard Soldiers, they have their benefits. There is a great deal of personal satisfaction that comes from helping neighbors during times of crisis. State service also builds a reservoir of goodwill with local communities, which translates into support at the state and national levels.

Governors and congressional delegations will fight for ‘their’ National Guards. For countless American citizens, the face of the Army in their communities is the National Guard, a neighbor helping a neighbor recover from the effects of a natural disaster.

There are legal differences that make this distinction between the Guard and the other Army components even more clear. The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act prevents federal military forces from enforcing civil laws in the United States unless specifically authorized by the president. Federal military forces include the Army Reserve and even the Guard when it is mobilized by the federal government.

Posse comitatus does not apply to the Guard when it is employed in its state status. That allows governors to augment local law-enforcement agencies with Guard troops if necessary.

Posse comitatus, the rapid response and local accountability that come from state control, and long experience in supporting civil authorities explain why the Guard alone is used in the vast majority of homeland-defense, homeland-security and military-aid-to-civil-authority missions.

Only rarely is a disaster or riot so overwhelming that federal forces must become involved. On some of these occasions, like the 1992 Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, the National Guard was federalized after active Army and Marine troops arrived on the scene and the Guard was placed under command of an active Army officer.

On other occasions, including after Hurricane Katrina, federal forces, under a federal chain of command, work together with Guard forces, under a state chain of command, all in support of local civil authorities. Close coordination between state and federal authorities assures unity of effort during those situations.

Homeland Security Today

Because the Guard has such a long history of serving the states, it has been quick to adapt to changing threats to homeland security. The result has been an expansion of forces and capabilities tailored to address 21st-century threats. All of these activities are unique to the National Guard.

In 1996 Congress told the Department of Defense to organize specialized units that would work with civilian emergency responders. These units would assess potential attacks with weapons of mass destruction, advise emergency responders on how to deal with the hazard and provide communication capabilities at an incident site.

Because of the Guard’s traditionally close association with emergency responders, the DOD decided to build this capability into the Guard. Initially, 10 22-man weapons-of-mass-destruction civil support teams were organized, one for each Federal Emergency Management Agency region, and composed of full-time Army and Air National Guard members.

In the wake of Sept. 11 and the anthrax attacks of 2001, demand for the teams was so great that Congress authorized one team for each state and territory, with two in California, for a total of 55.

Twelve regional response teams, called CERFPs, have also been organized. [See related story on homeland defense.]

The Guard also includes Alaska’s 49th Missile Defense Battalion and Colorado’s 100th Missile Defense Brigade, both dedicated to defeating ballistic missile attacks against the United States.

Since 9/11, the National Guard has been leveraging existing combat capabilities for homeland defense. The headquarters in every state has been transformed to provide a joint-forces command-and-control capability in the event of an emergency. A joint operations center with redundant and secure communications capabilities now operates all day, every day, in every state. These state JOCs regularly conduct exercises to test their reactions to a variety of incidents and attacks, from hurricanes to terrorist use of a WMD.

Every state now has a designated reaction force for rapid emergency response. These forces come from existing units and aren’t always Army Guard. Air National Guard security police “the equivalent of Army military police” frequently take turns serving as reaction forces.

One key element in preparing for domestic missions is having the right troops on hand for governors to deal with a crisis. Since 2003 the National Guard has redistributed forces among the states to ensure that each state has a core group of response capabilities, termed the “essential 10.” These capabilities include the joint force headquarters and CST in each state, plus the ability to conduct security, communications, medical, aviation, engineering, transportation, maintenance and logistics operations.

In an emergency in their state, no governor would have to go searching for these capabilities. Each one has immediate access to them in either their Army or Air National Guard.

The Guard has trained units to respond to cyber attacks and to assist the government, commercial and private sectors in evaluating threats to critical infrastructure. All of these new capabilities are unique responses to the homeland-security threats of the 21st century.

Meanwhile, overseas, the Guard’s role in the war on terror continues. More than 200,000 Guard Soldiers have been mobilized for active duty overseas since 9/11. At one point in 2005, half of the combat brigades in Iraq were Army Guard units, and a Guard division headquarters commanded active-duty brigades for the first time since World War II.

When mobilized to fight overseas, all units are being equipped identically, and it is hard to distinguish the Guard from Reserve and active-duty Soldiers.

With all Army components scheduled to convert to identical modular units over the next few years, the days of tiered resourcing; in which Guard and Reserve units were equipped with fewer Soldiers and outdated equipment are expected to become a thing of the past.

Overseas, the total Army concept makes all components increasingly hard to distinguish. At home, the National Guard’s roots as the militia of the states give it a role and influence in homeland defense, homeland security and military support to civil authorities far out of proportion to its size.

For nearly 400 years, the Guard has been the average American’s most direct link to the military, and it remains so to this day.

 
AUSA Legislative Update - May 14, 2012 PDF Print E-mail

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION PASSES COMMITTEE

The House Armed Services Committee passed the fiscal 2013 National Defense Authorization bill last week by a vote of 56-5.  The bill authorizes $554 billion for national defense and $88.5 billion for Overseas Contingencies Operations, $4 billion more than the President’s request but less than fiscal 2012 funding levels. 

 

The committee-approved provisions:

* Restate the firmly-held sense of Congress that prior service to our nation is a pre-payment of healthcare benefits in retirement.  Specifically, the bill states that “This nation must honor its commitment to generations of service members, families, and survivors who have spent decades sacrificing their personal interests in service to their country.  As such, it rejects Administration proposals to increase some TRICARE fees and establish new TRICARE fees.  These proposals went too far and were not included in the bill.” 


* Include a modest increase in TRICARE pharmacy co-pays in 2013 and a cap on pharmacy co-pays beginning in 2014 that would allow fees to rise by no more than the annual retiree cost of living allowance (COLA).  This is offset by a 5-year pilot program that requires TRICARE for Life recipients to obtain refills of maintenance drugs through the TRICARE mail-order program. 


* Authorize a 1.7 percent pay increase and extends bonuses and special pay


* Cap the number of troops that can be separated from the force in a single year


* Mandate that in the future, funding for troops designated for separation must be part of DoD’s base budget and not carried in accounts for contingency operations


* Allow transition benefits for members involuntarily separated during force cuts, including six months' continued access to family housing and two years of commissary and exchange benefits


* Reject the Pentagon proposal for two additional rounds of Base Reduction and Closure (BRAC) action, and bar the Pentagon from planning any closures during fiscal 2013.


* Authorize $30 million in Impact Aid assistance for civilian schools serving significant populations of military children


* Protect child custody agreements in the event of deployment of the military parent


* Extend certain refinancing help for qualifying servicemembers who can't sell their homes in conjunction with a military-ordered relocation


* Authorize transition benefits of 180 days of TRICARE Reserve Select health coverage and TRICARE dental coverage for members involuntarily separated from the Selected Reserve


* Require DoD to establish a unified medical command


The committee’s passage of the defense bill was not without some controversy.  In a press conference late last week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta blasted the committee and charged that Congress was protecting “particular constituencies that may not be critical to our national defense capabilities”.  He also said that every dollar added to the budget will “have to be offset by cuts in national security.”


In response, Committee Chairman Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., sent a scathing letter to Panetta justifying his committee’s bill.  McKeon said, “In your criticism of my proposal for the Department’s FY13 Authorization Bill, you are clearly operating under some misconceptions.”  He also noted that the bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. 


What’s next:  The full House is scheduled to take up the bill on Thursday.  The Senate Armed Services Committee’s markup of its version is scheduled to begin on May 21.


LAUTENBERG TO INTRODUCE TRICARE LEGISLATION


Now that the House Armed Services Committee has rejected the Defense Department’s proposed TRICARE fee increases, our attention turns toward the Senate. 

 

We’ve thanked Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., for his leadership as the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee with regards to the DoD proposal.  Webb has publically stated that he is not in favor of the dramatic increases. 


Now, we would like to offer an AUSA salute to Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., who announced his intention to introduce legislation that would protect uniformed services beneficiaries from proposed fee increases in TRICARE coverage. 


Lautenberg intends to introduce his bill this week before the Senate Armed Services Committee starts its markup of the defense bill.  His legislation expresses the sense of Congress that career members of the uniformed services and their families experience decades of unique demands and sacrifices that constitute a significant pre-paid premium for their health care in retirement, over and above what the retired member pays in cash.


Now is the time to let your Senators know how strongly you feel about this.  Write, call, email, text, tweet or Facebook them.  If you want to send a letter or email, you can use AUSA’s Contact Congress link.  Go to www.ausa.org, click on Legislative Agenda and then Contact Congress.  We have several prepared letters you can use.

CBO PREDICTS COLA

 

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has predicted that the cost-of-living adjustment in military retirement and veterans’ disability benefits for 2013 will be 1.3 percent.


The CBO’s prediction was included in a report that estimated the cost of H.R. 4114, the Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2012.  This bill, which passed the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee on April 27, would ensure that veteran disability and survivors benefits increase by the same percentage.  


If passed, the increase will take effect on December 1, 2012, and will appear in the January 2012 checks.

 
NGAUS News Summary-5/11/2012 PDF Print E-mail

NGAUS News Summary is compiled from various news outlets throughout the United States and is intended for informational purposes only. Republishing, reproducing, transmitting, or distributing this publication by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, outside of the organization is strictly prohibited. Use of these news items does not reflect official NGAUS endorsement.

 

Guard Officers Applaud House Action To Pause Air National Guard Cuts

Source: MarketWatch, http://on.mktw.net/IQiSLV

By Staff Reports

May 10, 2012


The National Guard Association of the United States today released the following statement by retired Maj. Gen. Gus L. Hargett Jr., association president, on House Armed Services Committee passage of the fiscal 2013 defense authorization bill:


"National Guard leaders across the country are encouraged by the House Armed Services Committee's action early this morning that would halt the Air Force's ill-advised and disproportionate cuts to the Air National Guard in the fiscal 2013 defense budget request.


"The HASC defense authorization bill includes an amendment sponsored by California Rep. Duncan Hunter and Iowa Rep. Dave Loebsack that would maintain all Air National Guard aircraft and personnel at fiscal 2012 levels for fiscal 2013.


"This pause would preserve Air Guard capabilities to accomplish its many missions while the Department of Defense and the nation's governors develop a process that better accounts for domestic missions in future defense budgets.


"While this is a big step toward a legislative remedy, the journey continues. We now ask the Senate to also pause these cuts long enough to fix a budget process that for too long has given scant attention to defense needs at home. We look forward to working with the members of the Senate in the days and weeks ahead."


Hunter-Loebsack Amendment To House Fiscal 2013 Defense Authorization Bill halts transfers of all Air Force A-10, C-5, C-27, C-130, E-8, F-16, KC-135, MC-12 aircraft and all Army C-23s.

Read More


Cantor says defense authorization, VAWA up in House next week

Source: The Hill, http://bit.ly/JCy3qI

By Pete Kasperowicz

May 10, 2012


House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Thursday afternoon that the House would vote next week on a $643 billion defense authorization bill and a bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The House Armed Services Committee early Thursday morning approved H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Read More


Vermont Guard chief nominated to USNORTHCOM job

Source: Army Times, http://bit.ly/JEP1Vj

By Staff Reports

May 11, 2012


The head of the Vermont National Guard is due to get a new job as the deputy commander of the U.S. military's Northern Command. The Northern Command was created following the 9/11 attacks to protect U.S. territory and provide military support for civil authorities in the event of a national emergency.


If confirmed, Maj. Gen. Michael Dubie would become a three-star general. He would be the third general from the ranks of the National Guard to fill the number two position. And if confirmed, Dubie would leave his post at the Vermont Guard National.  Northern Command is based in Colorado Springs, Colo. It is responsible for protecting the continental United States as well as Alaska, Canada, Mexicoand surrounding international waters.


SecDef slams House panel for budget extras  

Source: Army Times, http://bit.ly/JizpZJ

By: Donna Cassata

May 11, 2012


Defense Secretary Leon Panetta slammed a House panel on Thursday for adding billions of dollars to President Obama's defense budget, including money for a new East Coast missile defense site that the military says is unnecessary.  Just hours after the House Armed Services Committee approved its $642 billion spending blueprint, Panetta and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the panel's additions ignored the careful strategic review that was the basis for the 2013 budget proposal. They warned that if the Pentagon is prevented from retiring aging ships and aircraft or reducing the size of the force, it might have to cut training or equipment. 


“If members try to restore their favorite programs without regard to an overall strategy, the cuts will have to come from areas that could impact overall readiness.” Panetta told reporters. “There is no free lunch here. Every dollar that is added will have to be offset by cuts in national security.”


The bill's total is $8 billion more than what Obama and congressional Republicans agreed to last summer in a deficit-cutting agreement. The spending blueprint outlines a base defense budget of $554 billion, including nuclear weapons spending, plus $88 billion for the war in Afghanistan and counterterrorism efforts. Obama had proposed $551 billion, plus $88 billion. The panel voted 56-5 for the measure early Thursday morning after more than 15 hours of bitter, partisan debate. 

Read More


Mark Welsh nominated to lead Air Force

Source: Washington Post, http://wapo.st/KLCO3C

By Craig Whitlock

May 11, 2012


The White House has nominated Gen. Mark A. Welsh III, the commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe and a former senior official at the CIA, to be the next Air Force chief of staff.  Welsh's selection to lead the Air Force was announced Thursday by Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta. Welsh would replace Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, who is scheduled to retire in August after a four-year stint as chief of staff. 

Welsh and Panetta worked closely together at the CIA during the first years of the Obama administration. Welsh served as associate director of military affairs at the spy agency until December 2010; Panetta was the CIA's director until Obama tapped him to lead the Pentagon in July.


Welsh “functioned as a critical link between the military and intelligence communities,” Panetta told reporters Thursday. “Over the course of our time working together, I developed a deep appreciation for his wisdom and his counsel.”


A pilot trained to fly F-16 and A-10 Thunderbolt II fighter jets, Welsh will take over the Air Force at a time when it is grappling with budget cuts and also cost overruns with its biggest-ever weapon acquisition program, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.  At the same time, the Obama administration is expecting the Air Force to play a leading role in its new global security strategy, which emphasizes the importance of air and sea power while cutting back on land forces.


Welch is a native of San Antonio and a 1976 graduate of the Air Force Academy. His nomination must be approved by the Senate.

 
Formal Military Ball Fundraiser PDF Print E-mail

Southern California Military Childrens Ball

 Saturday, April 21, 2012 in Azusa

This is going to be a military Ball for the Air Guard and National Guard children. 
The POC for this event is myself Rhonda Sparks.
Everyone who attends must RSVP by April 13, 2012.
If anyone has any questions they can contact me. See attached >>>>>> 
Thank you.
Rhonda Sparks
CNG Child & Youth Outreach Assistant
Southern California Region
1351 W. Sierra Madre Ave.
Azusa, CA 91702
(818) 402- 3296 
 
 
Veterans Lunch Sponsorship Letter PDF Print E-mail

California State Assembly Fifth Annual Veteran of the Year Luncheon


Sacramento Convention Center

June 27, 2012

11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.


Sponsorship Levels

 

Four Stars      $4900.00

10 Lunch Tickets

Preferred Seating

Table Sign

Program Recognition

Event Signage


Three Stars    $2500.00

6 Lunch Tickets

Preferred Seating

Table Sign

Program Recognition

Event Signage


Two Stars       $1500.00

4 Lunch Tickets

Program Recognition

Event Signage

 

One Star         $1000.00

2 Lunch Tickets

Program Recognition

Event Signage

 

Honorary Supporter  $500.00

1 Lunch Ticket

Program Recognition

Event Signage


Individual Ticket        $60.00 By Invitation Only


If you have any questions concerning sponsorship levels or to RSVP for the lunch please contact Pete Conaty This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or Dana Nichol This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it at 916-492-0550 or 916-492-8957 fax.


California State Assembly Fifth Annual Veteran of the Year Luncheon

Sacramento Convention Center

June 27, 2012

11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.

 

Assembly members Paul Cook and Richard Pan, the Chair and Vice Chair of the Assembly Veterans Committee are pleased to announce the Fifth Annual Veteran of the Year Luncheon.


The Luncheon this year will be held on June 27th from 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. at the Sacramento Convention Center.  Each Legislator participating will be presenting a veteran from their district.


The co-host for the luncheon this year are the California State Council, Vietnam Veterans of America and AMVETS, Department of California. 


Attached is information about sponsorship opportunities.  Sponsorship contributions or requests for tickets should be made out to:


California Veterans Benefit Fund

1017 L Street, PMB 426

Sacramento, CA 95814-3805

 

The California Veterans Benefit Fund is a California nonprofit corporation under Section 501 (C) (3) of the IRS Code. (ID#20-4536035)  Donations can be considered charitable deductions to the extent allowed by the law.


If you have any questions concerning sponsorship levels or to RSVP for the lunch please contact Pete Conaty This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or Dana Nichol This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it at 916-492-0550 or 916-492-8957 fax.


Note:  Sponsorship commitments are requested no later than May 3, 2012 to be listed in the official event program.  

 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 2