Aaron Baca Marietta Daily Journal 580 Fairground Street Marietta, GA 30061
From:
Andy Rice
Date:May 18, 2006 11:45PM CEST
Subject: Use of National Guard Troops for Border Patrol
This message was modified on May 19, 2006 6:57PM CEST
Dear Aaron Baca - Marietta Daily Journal:
I am writing in response to your article, "Bush loses Cobb GOP with plan," published in the Marietta Daily Journal on Wednesday, May 17, 2006. Security of our borders and out of control illegal immigration is of major concern. However, I do not agree with the President's proposal of mobilizing National Guard forces for border patrol duty.
As you are aware, I am running against John Wiles for Georgia Senate District 37. I was amazed to see that Mr. Wiles supports the use of Georgia National Guard forces for border duty. In the 2006 legislative session, Mr. Wiles sponsored Senate Resolution 334, which solicited private donors for contributions to the Georgia National Guard Family Support Foundation, Inc., which is a 501c(3) charitable organization to provide loans and grants to members of the National Guard and their families. I fully support the goals of this organization, which is similar to the Navy Relief Society, with which my wife and I worked, while on active duty as a United States Marine Corps officer.
SR 334 states, "WHEREAS, the level, frequency, and duration of such mobilizations has worked economic hardships on many Georgia National Guard members and their families." This quote refers to the information in the Resolution's preceding paragraph, which outlines the number of Georgia National Guard troops, which have been mobilized for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait. The National Guard is wearing thin, nationwide. According to press reports, LtGen Steve Blum, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, testified in April before the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, "A real sense of urgency exists, the Guard currently has less than 35% of the equipment it requires to perform its mission." (from Bob Deans, Cox Washington Bureau, Atlanta Journal and Constitution). The Guard has also fallen below its desired recruiting goals, due to the high tempo operations of the past few years. Now Senator Wiles, Governor Perdue, and President Bush want to stretch the Guard even further.
I find it contradictory that Mr. Wiles would sponsor legislation decrying the hardships placed upon National Guard families, yet he now supports further deployments after these brave soldiers return home from lengthy deployments overseas, sometimes with more than one deployment. As a retired Lieutenant Colonel of Marines, I spent 13 of my 21 years of service, in the Marine Corps Reserve. I have direct experience related to the current situation. My unit was recalled for active duty for Operation Desert Storm. Furthermore, although, I am not at liberty to discuss certain classified details, my unit also participated in numerous border operations in support of drug interdiction missions. There are two major differences in my unit's experience and the current situation. The major difference is I was part of the Marine Corps Reserve, which is a national asset. The National Guard is a state asset, unless called to active duty for war. As far as I know, the current immigration plan does not involve war. The other difference is my unit was flying airborne reconnaissance missions for short periods of time, with drug interdiction being a explicit exception in the Posse Comitatus Act.
Although President Bush denied it in his speech, he, with the aid of Governor Perdue, is now planning to mobilize National Guard ground forces to perform police work along the U.S.-Mexican border, for potentially long periods of time, following extensive overseas deployments. The President said the Guard troops would not have law-enforcement powers, presumably because that power would violate the Posse Comitatus Act. What power, then, will they have? On deployments in which I have personally participated, Marine ground forces occasionally received hostile fire, while they were denied authority to carry live ammunition for their own protection. In fact, some of the Marine officers received death threats over their hotel room phones. I doubt the Rules of Engagement will be any different in the current plan. If that is the case, Georgia's troops will be in constant danger, but without the means to defend themselves. This is unacceptable.
I have no doubt the Guard forces will not complain when called upon to patrol the border, because they are professionals in all senses of the word. A soldier goes where his commanders and political leaders tell him. Since, these fine soldiers will not complain, someone must speak for them. I am attempting to do so here. The Guard was not established or trained to perform border patrol duties. As I understand the intent of gubernatorial power for call up of National Guard forces, a governor is allowed to call up those forces in time of emergency, in the state. Of course, in some instances, such as hurricane relief, a governor can order Guard troops to other states to assist with humanitarian relief or rescue efforts.
As your readers know, Georgia does not share a border with Mexico. Nor is this going to be a humanitarian relief or rescue effort. It is not the job of the National Guard to patrol our borders in peacetime. Mr. Wiles, with no military experience of his own, from his law office chooses to send Guardsmen and Guardswomen away from home for a peacetime mission, despite the fact he will be with his family every night. The fine men and women of the Georgia National Guard will be forced to leave their families and their civilian jobs to perform duty for which they cannot legally be called up. The economic hardships Mr. Wiles addressed in SR 334 are because most of these fine soldiers are forced to take massive pay cuts, when they transition from their civilian employment to active duty pay scales. It is sad that many of their families will qualify for food stamps and welfare, while their mother or father is on active duty. When these troops are called up for a mission of war, they do not complain. But to ask them to endure family hardships, caused by peacetime border patrol work, it is more than I am prepared to ask of them or is mandated by their organizational mission. To do so would force Georgia taxpayers to bear the financial burden of the federal government's job, so much for states' rights.
I would love to hear the views of you or your readers regarding this subject. I can be reached at ....
Disclaimer:
AHRC is an interactive information WEBSITE. The information contained here is
that of the users. AHRC is not responsible for any content submitted by a user of the
website. This includes any information that may be automatically generated. It is not
the opinion of AHRC. AHRC does not WARRANT the accuracy, reliability or timeliness of
any information and shall not be liable for any losses caused by such reliance on the
accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of such information.
American Homeowners Resource Center (AHRC)
PO Box 97 • San Juan Capistrano • California • 92693
Telephone: (949) 366-2125 Email:
Disclaimer: AHRC is an interactive information WEBSITE. The information contained here is that of the users.
It is not the opinion of AHRC.
AHRC does not WARRANT the accuracy, reliability or timeliness of any information
and shall not be liable for any losses caused by such reliance on the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of such information.
