Advertise Here
Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.
Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.
Our latest headlines
- Weekly Radio Address: Assembly Lead Water Negotiators Huffman, Caballero Discuss this Week’s Historic Agreement to Solve California’s Water Crisis
- Feinstein Once Again Flirts With Entering the Governor’s Race
- A Good Health Care Bill Emerging from the House
- Schwarzenegger Applauds Passage of Peripheral Canal/Dams Water Package
- "Historic" Water Deal Draws Both Praise and Criticism
- Republican State Senators Vote for Administrative Chaos, Backdoor Cuts in IHSS
- Assembly Budget Committee Follow-up Informational Hearing on Implementation on IHSS Program Changes
About Us
David Greenwald, Editor. (Contact David.)
CFC Education Foundation, Publisher. (Contact us.)
Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column?
Contact David here.
About California Progress Report.
Founded by Frank D. Russo (Publisher and Editor, 2006-08).
Sponsors
Books
It's Time to Bring the California National Guard Home
By Loni Hancock
Member of the California State Assembly
In 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans and exposed the federal government’s inability to respond to natural catastrophes. Thousands of National Guardsmen were unable to respond to the Gulf Coast because they were deployed to the war in Iraq. The recent fires in Southern California engulfing parts of Los Angeles and San Diego only further highlight the need for the National Guard to be ready and available for disaster relief efforts. We need our first responders to natural disasters - the California National Guard - in California to protect us when natural disasters strike.
The concern over the depletion of the National Guard is a bipartisan issue. Many of the nation’s governors have expressed serious concerns about the foreign deployment of the National Guard - leaving states with reduced resources to respond to major disasters. Reported in the New York Times, former Republican Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee stated in reference to the oversees deployment of the National Guard, “If we had a major disaster we would be stretched thin.” Former Chairman of the National Governor’s Association and Democrat Mark Warner of Virginia expressed a similar sentiment, “Is it really the best use to take a first responder from home and put him in to guard an airport in Saudi Arabia?”
Two years ago, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer was so concerned about a wildfire disasters he asked the Pentagon to return his state’s National Guard from Iraq. Hawaii passed a resolution that requested that all its troops remain in Hawaii to provide disaster relief instead of being deployed abroad.
When the California Legislature reconvenes, I will introduce legislation to request that the Governor take immediate steps to bring the National Guard home. Instead of the California National Guard being used to protect Californians, thousands have been deployed to Iraq putting Californians at risk. We need the California National Guard here at home to protect us in the event of a natural disaster.
Comments
There is a reason it is called the National Guard and a militarized unit.
Many Californians think and agree that our National Guard serving in Iraq IS protecting California citizens as well as citizens throughout the U.S.
The National Guard and Reserves are integral components of the United States military readiness.
Posted by: KCK at November 19, 2007 12:52 PM
KCK: Most Californians, the vast majority do not think the War in Iraw is strengthening our security.
Their use as a continuing and long term supply of troops in Iraq instead of the Army, Marine, and Air Force raises more questions and is unprecedented.
Posted by: Frank D. Russo at November 19, 2007 01:43 PM
The National Guard and its personnel are NOT first responders to any disaster. They are trained for defensive and offensive military operations. That's why they carry weapons and learn how to kill and break things. They learn construction and medical skills (and more) to support that mission. They also have the equipment to carry out the missions assigned to them by the Federal Government.
The payroll, training, and equipment are paid for by FEDERAL DOLLARS. NOT California.
The equipment is owned by the FEDERAL GEVERNMENT. NOT California.
If you want first responders to state-wide disasters then start up a "California Civil Corps" (or some other name) and ask for volunteers to join. The costs better come out of the State's budget, and not from the Federal budget.
I would advise you to study the history and reasoning behind why each state has a National Guard.
- I am a National Guard Member
- I have been serving in our military for 20+ years.
Posted by: Rich Hull at November 21, 2007 08:41 AM
Hello Rich and KCK,
I TRIED, really hard, to inform Mr. Russo of exactly what you have said here. (He didn't respond to those facts being pointed out either).
No, lots of liberals seem to think the National Guard is some kind of "first responders" to all kinds of natural disasters. They neither recognize nor understand what the Guard is for (its primary and secondary missions being fighting foreign enemies and secondary supressing chaos at home such as when Martial Law is called for by either federal or state government leaders-sometimes when there are natural disasters too!) nor how it is funded to do all of this; mostly by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
California National Guard equipment has "US ARMY" painted on it...
California Air National Guard equipment "USAF" painted on it...
In smaller painted on font, if at all, is the units guard specific identity, just as active duty units display their unit identity...
Senator Boxer has a shallow view of the Guards mission. She apparently wanted them home from Iraq to fight th elatest round of California wildfires.
What is an M-16 trained guardsman/woman supposed to do when fighting fires?
The fires DID NOT generate any civilian chaos or need for martial law...
Just EXACTLY WHAT were our Guardsmen supposed to do during the latest round of fires anyway that existing firefighters, etc., were not handling? (This aspect was too reasonable to address I guess...but the emotional illogical NEED for them here was by Senator Boxer). I can only surmise Mr. Russo, by his comments, shares Boxer's positions on this issue and as was demostrated in earlier articles/blog posts on this website.
Posted by: Jay Gould at November 22, 2007 04:40 PM
If you go read contemporary accounts of WWII you see lots of Isolationist Opinion till Pearl Harbor - then for the next 5 years or so there is no hue and cry about "first responders" - I'm from MT and I couldn't figure what the heck our Governor was thinking back then - if people like him and Boxter have their way - they'd have NO JOB! Who needs a State Governor if the Feds are funding and in charge? Who needs a State Senator when the Senate abdicates their role to Federal oversight of local issues? (Oooohhh Riiiggghhtt - they're called BIG GOVERNMENT DEMOCRATS...)
Posted by: Larry Himes at November 27, 2007 01:28 PM
I've been in the Cal Guard since 1988. I've been to an earthquake, fires, floods, gone to the boarder to slow the drugs down and helped train folks for the Rodney King festival. I've also been to Bosnia and Iraq for a total of 24 months of deployments.
I think all guard members should be aware of their missions, and they are both STATE and FEDERAL missions. Yes, we can do a lot to help in disasters and anyone who thinks other wise must be an office poge.
I do think that there should be a limit on how many deployments anyone in the guard should be forced to do..as my unit now wants me to go on a third deployment overseas-- this would give me over 36 months of active duty deployments in hostile places.
I think before some of us go a third time, they need to make sure everyone else in our MOS has gone at least once. Rumsfeld also promised us when he was around that they only expected 24 months of call up over 7 years after 9-11.
I am proud to have served on all the above, but a third deployment is too much for a citizen soldier.
Posted by: Dan W at December 12, 2007 11:16 AM
This very ridiculous blurring of the boundaries between the California Guard and a California State Assembly Woman who has to be corrected prompts me to write my opinion too. California has the time, people, space and NEED to recruit into the California State Military Reserve!! CA SMR supports the Guard! I serve in the CA SMR and have been mobilized as part of Operation Gulf States Relief for Louisiana Katrina duty, to San Diego for Operation Fall Blaze wild fire fighting duty and am at this instant On Warnos due to expected rain and snow damages in the Sierras as a result of the earlier fires. The California Assembly needs to FUND the CA SMR too and also deploy us to Iraq so some of the men and women in the Cal Guard CAN come home! But replace them with what - no one? Thats absurd!! The State Assembly should not allow itself to be blinded by their liberal anti war values to commit militarily self defeatist actions!
Maybe its time for you to go home and let a real patriot into your seat. California is a great state but is laughing stock in the nation owing to its liberals and liberal poilitics. We love the Gaurd for they do not so much hate their enemies as much as they love the state the have left behind. You are here 24/7/365 but are part of the liberal stench we conservatives have to endure. The Guard have been in every eras armed conflicts in this nation and abroad since 1633 - they do deserve to come home but men like me and those in my unit can replace them. Go Guard! Go CA SMR!!!
Posted by: 1LT C Ramos at January 3, 2008 07:56 PM
Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.
Get Email Updates
Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.
© 2008 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use policy.
Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling.
RSS 