Excerpt
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION opted to fight two land wars with an overextended service corps, and one harmful side effect of this decision has been the regular deployment of state National Guard units in these conflicts. This is not the purpose for which the Guard is intended, and it has left units far short of the vehicles and equipment they need to assist in homefront emergencies. Over the long term, this practice also runs the risk of hurting recruitment and reenlistment of Guard members.
A report released earlier this month by a congressional commission said that the Massachusetts Army National Guard at the end of last year had just 46 percent of its needed military equipment. Even worse, it had just 40 percent of the dual-use trucks, radios, generators, and medical equipment needed both in combat and in civilian emergencies. The state official in charge of homeland security, Juliette Kayyem, says that figure somewhat overstates the shortage the state Guard faces for civil emergencies, but the report leaves little doubt that many states would be hard put to respond to major disasters.
One indication that the Pentagon at least understands the strain that has been placed on both regular units and the Guard came Wednesday, when Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Senate that the top US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, is not the sole adviser to President Bush on the war. The clear implication was that decisions on troop levels in Iraq would reflect not just Petraeus's estimation of what is needed but also the opinions of Pentagon officials of what the military - active duty, the Reserve, and the Guard - can sustain.
Again and again, Emperor Bush worries about the war but is raping our military to support it.
No comments:
Post a Comment