Talk:National Guard of the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
[edit] Previously unsectioned comments
Is there no Navy National Guard? What is the difference in the National Guard and the Reserves? Are the National Guard units still state units requiring the state governor's permission to be federalized and work outside their state? --rmhermen
There is no Navy National Guard today for a variety of reasons: A) not every state has a coastline, whereas every state has land and airspace B)The Coast Guard serves most of the roles a naval militia would C) Naval forces are extremely expensive to maintain compared to land and air forces. Some states used to have state naval militias, maybe as recently as the early 20th century (don't recall). As for the difference between NG and Reserves, Reserves are always part of the Army, and answer to the President, even when inactive. National Guard units are underthe control of State governments and their Governors until federalized by the President, when they become part of the regular Army. The President does not need permission from anyone, much less the state governor, to federalize the State Guard, and it has happened many notable times, famously in Little Rock, AR in 1957 when Eisenhower federalized the National Guard and ordered them to return to their barracks to prevent them from interfering in the desegregation of the schools (see Little_Rock_Integration_Crisis). Once the National Guard is federalized, they do what the President tells them. --ThirtyOneKnots 19:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Hah I should have read down before answering :-X --ThirtyOneKnots 19:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I thought that the militia made up the majority of the forces throughout the Civil War, not just at the beginning. Can anyone confirm this? Rmhermen 22:47, Sep 13, 2003 (UTC)
First, there is no Naval National Guard because when Congress founded the Navy it was to be a Federal only force, and actually prohibited the states from maintaining any type of naval organization
Second, The National Guard is officially a state and a federal entity and can be actived by either/or, but with federal having precidence. When federally activated they can be deployed anywhere the President, in his role as Commander in Chief, says even without the approval of the state governor.
Third, The Reserves are a federal entity only activatable by the President. They hold no state responsibility whatsoever.
Fourth, Once on active duty the militias became subject to the sames rules and regulations as the army.
Fifth, The Militia Act was passed to rectify the many problems of the militias by providing identical training, recruiting standards, weapons and equipment to ensure their deployability in usage.
Sixth, The National Guard and Militia Act recognized two types of militias,
- (A)The organized, properly uniformed, and trained.
- (B)the unorganized or state/community level posse commitatus. Tomtom
Possession of Warships by the States is prohibited by Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution:
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." Rdamurphy (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Some amusing misconceptions here, plus unsaid stuff.
1. The Posse Comitatus Act does apply to federalized NG forces. Not, however, to NG forces called up and under state command. This is how/why the NG gets used during, say, snowstorms and riots and so forth: They have the same arrest powers as, say, state troopers.
2. The Governor's permission is not required for NG troops to be federalized. Under state command, they can be sent out of state, but that (as a matter of courtesy at the least) requires the governor of the recieving state to ask first. I've never, however, heard of a case where such a request has not been immediately granted; Much as with mutual aid betweem fire and police departments and the like, it's in your own interest to do so, since it could be you asking next time.
3. Some states have 'Naval militias', which fall under the same org chart as the ARNG (Army National Guard) and ANG (Air National Guard), but aren't federally liable, assisted, or recognized. Mostly, these are to beef up port security, augment the US Coast Guard, etc.
4. Even in reserve status, the NG follows all active Army/AF regs. Sometimes they have their own besides, but not in place of, the active force regs.
5. It should be noted that 10 USC 311 defines the militia as every able-bodied male 17-45 and female members of the NG. (Verified at the Cornell US Code site) --Penta 18:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Lower than it's ever been?
- Is whoever wrote that serious? Enlistment is currently lower than it was in, say, 1789? Gimme a break. -Kasreyn
I have no edit to make, as this is currently a good article, but to the (anonymous) person who made the worthwhile edits under the unfortunate header "How many National Guardsmen has Bush let die in Iraq?" I can only say "F*** you". Particularly since I am joining the Ohio National Guard and am not worried at all about Bush "letting me die in Iraq". Good edit, bulls*** POV "reason" for the edit. Jfiling 01:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
The various State Naval Militias are more the equivalent of the State Guard (which - in NY at least - has Army and Air Divisions), as opposed to being the Naval equivalent of, say, the Army National Guard or Air National Guard
[edit] The NG chief does not sit on JCS
I deleted the line (in italics) that states "Both are maintained through the National Guard Bureau, whose Chief sits on the Joint Chiefs of Staff." This is inaccurate. The JCS is made up of the Chairman, the Vice Chairman, the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps.
All of these are 4 star Generals, while the NG chief is only a (3 star) Lieutenant General. See http://www.jcs.mil 68.111.236.53 05:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] US Nat'l Guard 369 years old (12/13/2005)
According to: http://www.oregonarmyguard.com/about_us.htm " The Army National Guard trace its roots to a time that predates our Declaration of Independence, a time that begins well before our Constitution declared us an independent nation. In 1636, in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, groups of farmers, merchants and fishermen took up arms to defend their homesteads from native Americans intent on driving them back to England. These first organized militias carved forts from the forest, and defended the colonies from the Dutch and the French. One hundred and fifty years later, these same militia units were called upon to lead a Revolution, a war with a tyrant 3,000 miles away, a war that birthed a nation unlike any other – a nation where the common man could create his own destiny."
Could someone add this info to the article?
Hmm... "a war with a tyrant 3,000 miles away, a war that birthed a nation unlike any other(...)" Wasnt' England in 1776 a democracy based on parliamentary system of government? Offcurse the numbers of men with right to vote was smal - but in the US there was slaves with no voting rights...
[edit] Only U.S. military reserves?
The Army National Guard, the Air National Guard and the State Defense Forces are the only military reserves of the U.S.? --200.123.151.171 03:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Texas Air National Guard?
I'm not sure if this is the place to ask, but does anybody know why "Texas Air National Guard" redirects to this page, which has very little to do with the TANG?--Raguleader 22:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- I fixed that January 11th, there is now a Texas Air National Guard Page. --Colputt 16:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] National Guard and State Militia
RTO Trainer 16:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC) The article currently says:
Various State Militias also exist which are reserves to the National Guard and are collectively known as State Defense Forces. The State Militias, in some cases, pre-date the existence of the National Guard and are maintained on both an organized and unorganized level. The organized militia exists to supplement the National Guard in the event of manpower shortages while the unorganized militia comprises every able bodied male in a state which may be called up for extreme emergencies such as an invasion of the United States or a major catastrophe inside her shores. The last time that the unorganized state militias were activated was during the Civil War.
It would be mroe accurate thus:
Various State Militias also exist which are auxiliaries to the National Guard and are collectively known as State Defense Forces, prepared to augment and support state directed National Guard activities in the event of insufficient manpower. The State Militias, in some cases, pre-date the existence of the National Guard and are maintained on both an organized and unorganized level. Statutorilly however, the State Defense Forces were authorized by Congress in 1945 in recognition that some states had been left with only a token force at home, insufficient to handle local emergencies.
The organized militia is the National Guard in the event of manpower shortages while the unorganized militia comprises every able bodied male in a state which may be called up for extreme emergencies such as an invasion of the United States or a major catastrophe inside her shores (per 10 USC 311). The last time that the unorganized state militias were activated was during the Civil War.
--RTO Trainer 16:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Possibly, but you'd need to cite your sources. In particular, I have beef with "State Defense Forces were authorized....in 1945"....various State Militia have been around since before the Constitution even existed. (Virginia comes to mind). Unless you can find a cite for that, it can't be included. As of now, I don't see any reason to change it.Oh, and Statutorilly isn't the proper spelling, nor grammar. It would be "By statute" ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Predating is alrady addressed. And the first Guard regiments trace their lineage to 1636 with the formation three regiments in Massachusetts. Smaller formations even earlier, especially if including Spanish militia organizations in Puerto Rico. How about: Various State Militias also exist which are auxiliaries to the National Guard and are collectively known as State Defense Forces, prepared to augment and support state directed National Guard activities in the event of insufficient manpower. The State Militias, in some cases, pre-date the existence of the National Guard and are maintained on both an organized and unorganized level. By statute however, the State Defense Forces were first authorized in their current form by Congress in 1954 (32 USC 109) in recognition that some states had been left with only a token force at home during both World Wars which was insufficient to handle local emergencies.RTO Trainer 13:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-
On the topic of Duties and Administrative Organization I feel a need to dispute the opening sentence regarding the Presidential authority to order National Guard troops into service. There appears to be little or no legal or Constitutional basis for that position. In fact the Constitution would appear to clearly delegate that power to the Congress (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15). The [presidential order] hyperlink provided does not provide any mention of Presidential authority to order Guard members into active duty. The closest I can find to such an authority is a provision in the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 (H.R. 5122), but I believe that only applies to a declared state of emergency and only to deploying troops within the United States. If there is some legal standing for the following statement, it should be supported in the document text or stricken.
-
- Depends on what "into service" means. There are two Consitutional authorities under which the National Guard is called into service. Title 32 authority derives from Ar. 1, Sec. 8, Cl 15, which you cite (To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions). Title 10 authority derives instead from Ar. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 12 (To raise and support armies) and in fact Guard units cease to be "militia" when operating under Title 10, but revert back when Title 10 orders are rescinded or expire (32 USC 325). RTO Trainer 13:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
National Guard units can be mobilized at any time by presidential order to supplement regular armed forces, and ...
Gregreynoldsjr 19:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC) gregreynoldsjr
This statement appears to be repeated across numerous National Guard related wikipedia entries. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Army_National_Guard Under CA it states "The National Guard may be called into federal service in response to a call by the President or Congress." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_National_Guard. This should instead be stated as "When certain conditions are met, the National Guard may be called into federal service by the President or Congress."
Presidential limitations of authority to call up the National Guard is described under Title 10, Subtitle E, PART II, CHAPTER 1211, § 12406 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00012406----000-.html
Gregreynoldsjr 19:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Style
Can someone go over to WP:MOS then come back here and look at the lead section... it is so long it seems as though there aren't going to be any sections in the article at all, then you get to the contents table!Garrie 05:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, tagged as {{Intro length}} for visibility — MrDolomite | Talk 07:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bad intro
The intro doesn't explicitly state what the National Guard is. Or what their primary duty is, and how it is different from other military outfits. 67.77.245.12 14:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edited Intro
I commented out three paragraphs (or was it four?) in the intro, and moved two paragraphs into their own subsection under "history" titled "war in iraq, war on terror", as these paragraphs explicitly cover that topic as regards the guard. Mtiffany71 20:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Changing all the links to the state guard pages
Making the links go to only the Army Guard pages leaves out the Air Guard. If both Army and Air pages exsist for a state then the link should go to the State National Guard page for that state. Don't ya think? So I reverted the edits that were supposedly for consistancy, but effectively just blocked the Air Guard from being linked. --Colputt 01:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed Neutrality
Sorry I wasn't clear on why I added the disputed neutrality tag at the time. Anyway the primary thing I think violates NPOV is the following line (in laws covering the national guard):
Requires all active and reserve military organizations be treated as a single integrated force; reinforced the original intent of the founding fathers (a small standing army complemented by citizen-soldiers.)
- The Total Force Policy, 1973
I find the claim that making the national guard an integrated part of the standing US army furthers the original intent of the founding fathers to be suspicious. In particular many of the founding fathers quite clearly viewed the militia as an alternative and antidote against a standing national army. Further integrating the state forces into a standing national army seems like exactly the opposite of at least some of the founding father's intent. At the very least this passage seems to violate NPOV.
Also on a less important point I'm a bit suspicious of the section talking about the national guard being authorized by the constitution. It's not obvious to me at all that the national guard qualifies as a militia under the framer's conception that the militia is composed of most (all?) able bodied men armed with their private firearms. Rather than just stating this as a flat out fact it might be better to cite a supreme court case recognizing the national guard as the militia mentioned in the constitution.
Finally this may not be a NPOV issue but why is the second ammendment quoted with the operative part ("right to keep and bear arms") cut out. Logicnazi (aka TruePath) 06:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Section or statement tags would be more appropriate than a whole article header. I honestly don't believ your issues affect the entire article, so I've removed the header. I've tagged one of the statements with {{tl:POVassertion}}, but I'm not real sure what tags are best for the rest of your issues. The bottom of the Template:POV-section page has several section and statement tags that might fit. While I don't necessarily agree with where you're coming from on this, I do agree that such statements need clear attribution and sources, or else they should be changed to remove those parts. Also, the header has been there long enough without any discussion that you could just remove the offending statements if you wish. Two weeks is usually considered a good amount of time, and a month is more than long enough, especially without any intervening discussion here. - TomKat222 03:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Funding, Budget Process? How are NG expenditures decided?
This article is missing a very important, bottom-line part: who pays for the National Guard? Is it up to each individual State to decide how much to fund their Guard? (Once the troops are federalized, obviously, Uncle Sam pays.) No -- it mostly is allocated out of the general US Defense Budget. So how much goes to each State, and how is this decided? How big are the various States' NG budgets? Some quick googling suggests that "the federal government [...] provides virtually all of the National Guard's budget."[1] In that case, does this mean the Federal Government also dictates how those expenditures are allocated? In what aspects do States have leeway in allocating Guard expenditures and activities? Can States specify the areas and degree of training the Guard must receive? This all seems essential to understanding the US National Guard, and would be a big help to the article. DBrnstn 04:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- The National Guard Defense Budget is approved via bill by Congress. Individual states do provide resources and funding to the NG in their states but the NG gets over 90% of their budget and expenditures from the federal government. Of course like all our tax dollars the government dictates where funding goes, and the NG and the states, like all other federal agencies, fight and lobby for a bigger share of the pie for themselves.
And lastly, states work with their NG Adjunct Generals to train NG personnel to fit the needs of the individual states but basic combat training is still provided by the Army and Air Force. Neovu79 (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pre-National Guard members
people are listed as members of the National Guard before it was created. How can that be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rds865 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
