Gary Hart: Bring the National Guard Home From Iraq

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 02:04:16 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Former Senator Gary Hart has a new post at Huffpo on the specious argument that the National Guard needs to be fighting in Iraq to protect Americans at home.

....the National Guard units in Iraq are not in the United States standing post over our nation's security at home. They are not being trained and equipped for this vital mission. If we are in fact at war with terrorism, we are leaving our homeland flanks totally exposed. The Administration and its supporters have excused this dereliction in security with the hollow slogan: We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here.

....The "them" we are fighting in Iraq are overwhelmingly Iraqi insurgents who have no interest in following us home. And the relatively small but growing numbers of al Qaeda in Iraq can do more than one thing at once, as the people of London and Madrid can testify.

We need the National Guard at home, not in Iraq.

More...

Both the U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century and the follow-on Council on Foreign Relations report a year after 9-11 concluded that the backbone of homeland security is the 50-state National Guard. Properly trained and equipped, the Guard must play the central role in deterring jihadist attacks on America and responding to them if they occur.

....Members of Congress truly concerned with national security will pass legislation requiring National Guard forces in Iraq to be steadily withdrawn and restored to the homeland security mission originally placed upon them by the Constitution of the United States.

If we truly face a threat from terrorists in the U.S., the best insurance against it is our National Guard. Rather than extending their tours of duty and requiring multiple re-deployments to Iraq, let's bring them back home.

< Lieberman's Iraq Argument: Eviscerate the Separation of Powers | Iraq, Apologies and Hillary >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Gary Hart: Bring the National Guard Home From Iraq | 21 comments (21 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Deployment A Violation Guard Agreement? (none / 0) (#1)
by john horse on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 04:56:51 PM EST

I was wondering about this part of Hart's op-ed.

Many of their units have been redeployed multiple times in violation of the agreements Guard members sign when they enlist. (emphasis mine)

Can someone explain how this violates the Guard's enlistment agreement.

Re: Deployment A Violation Guard Agreement? (none / 0) (#2)
by SGT Sparky on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 04:31:48 AM EST

John, they cannot.

--SGT White
Camp Phoenix, Afghanistan
31U, OKARNG

Couldn't Open Link (none / 0) (#3)
by john horse on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 04:58:19 AM EST

Sgt White,
I was unable to open your link.


: John H (none / 0) (#8)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 01:38:29 PM EST

Worked fine for me.

: Sorry. (none / 0) (#21)
by SGT Sparky on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 09:45:21 AM EST

From the link: The Senator will forgive me if I ask him to produce these "agreements." I'd like to see them, in writing. But never mind. I can offer the counter proof here and now. First, let me tell you that we in the Guard (and Reserves), regardless of branch, attend the exact same basic training as our Active Duty bretheren. We train to the exact same standards. And we sign the exact same enlistment contract. The following is from Department of Defense Form 4 (DD Form 4), the Enlistment/Reenlistment Document.
In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States. (Section 9 (c))
Even more to the point;
If I am a member of a Reserve Component of an Armed Force at the beginning of a period of war or national emergency declared by Congress, or if I become a member during that period, my military service may be extended without my consent for up to six (6) months after the end of that period of war. (Section 10 (b))
As a member of a Reserve Component, in time of war or national emergency declared by the Congress, I may be required to serve on Active Duty (other than for training) for the entire period of the war or emergency and for six (6) months after its end. (Section 10 (c))
There is of course more, but these would seem to be sufficient.

Nope. Gary Hart's lying like a rug. (none / 0) (#6)
by Jason Van Steenwyk on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 10:53:12 AM EST

His argument is fundamentally dishonest for a variety of reasons.

1.) There is nothing in enlistment contracts that prevent Guard deployment on federal missions...even extended ones. Hart's lying.

2.) Truman deployed the 40th Infantry Division to fight in the Korean war. Somehow there was no constitutional crisis.

3.) Hart knows all about the Abrams doctrine. It's clear that Hart knows that the Army cannot function without its reserve component troops. He is calling for surrender without actually having to say so in so many words. Despicable.

Here's my argument in more detail.

and here.


: Jason (none / 0) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 01:40:21 PM EST

And they were deployed in Vietnam and in Desert Storm.
Par for Hart.

Hart's Plan Could End The War (none / 0) (#4)
by john horse on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 05:21:44 AM EST

I think there is more to Gary Hart's op-ed than meets the eye. The Bush administration can only fight the war in Iraq by bending (some might argue breaking) the rules. The mission of the National Guard is different than that of the regular Army. Per the Constitution it is to "suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions", that is to suppress domestic insurrections and to repel foreign invasions against the US.

My point is this. As Hart points out "more than 40% of our combat and combat support units in Iraq are National Guard and Reserve forces." If the Democrats insisted that the National Guard be used for its mandated function then you remove a major portion of the combat and support troops in Iraq. The war becomes unsustainable in terms of manpower. The only way that the Bush administration could increase the size of the regular Army is by instituting a draft, and that they won't do for political reasons.

I think it has to do with the definition of ... (none / 0) (#5)
by Sailor on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 10:09:01 AM EST

individual activations

National Guard members cannot be mobilized individually, except through voluntary transfers and Temporary Duty Assignments (TDY). However, there has been a significant amount of individual activations to support ongoing military operations related to the Global War on Terrorism (2001-?); the legality of this policy is a major issue within the National Guard.

From the pen of Hart (none / 0) (#7)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 01:35:29 PM EST

...The "them" we are fighting in Iraq are overwhelmingly Iraqi insurgents who have no interest in following us home.

How does he know? Has he spoken with OBL himself?
Got a little side info??

And the relatively small but growing numbers of al Qaeda in Iraq can do more than one thing at once, as the people of London and Madrid can testify.

Huh? First no one will follow us home, they'll just continue to attack Europe....

Well, which is it?

not making sense (none / 0) (#10)
by Sailor on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 03:20:07 PM EST

"First no one will follow us home"

Hart never said that.

The "them" we are fighting in Iraq are overwhelmingly Iraqi insurgents who have no interest in following us home.

that statement has no connect to

al Qaeda in Iraq can do more than one thing at once, as the people of London and Madrid can testify.

AQ in iraq is a very small part of the civil war that we're stuck in the middle of. The insurgents won't follow us home, and the war in iraq had nothing to do with AQ until we destablized the country.


: Yet another lie (none / 0) (#12)
by Jason Van Steenwyk on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 06:58:58 PM EST

The notion that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda prior to 2003 is another lie.
In fact, the members of the 9/11 commission had found "all kinds of ties, all kinds of connections" between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda. (You have to read beyond the incompetent headline into the transcript itself.)
Were they able to tie Saddam to the 9/11 attacks specifically? No (but Saddam can be tied to the 1993 attack on the WTC).
The notion that Saddam and Al Qaeda were somehow hermetically sealed from one another is just ridiculous. Not even Hilary Clinton believed that.

: Yet another lie (none / 0) (#13)
by Jason Van Steenwyk on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 07:11:23 PM EST

The notion that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda prior to 2003 is another lie.
In fact, the members of the 9/11 commission had found "all kinds of ties, all kinds of connections" between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda. (You have to read beyond the incompetent headline into the transcript itself.)
Were they able to tie Saddam to the 9/11 attacks specifically? No (but Saddam can be tied to the 1993 attack on the WTC).
The notion that Saddam and Al Qaeda were somehow hermetically sealed from one another is just ridiculous. Not even Hilary Clinton believed that.

: Senator Hilary Clinton on Iraq (none / 0) (#14)
by Jason Van Steenwyk on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 07:20:13 PM EST

From a 2002 speech before the Senate:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Now this much is undisputed.
Dang. Now, if Bush was manipulating intel, don't you think Bill Clinton might have clued Hilary in at some point?
No. Because the intelligence reports said the same thing for Bill Clinton. Indeed, that's why the Reno Justice Department sought and obtained an indictment against Osama Bin Ladin that specifically asserted that Bin Ladin and Hussein were in cahoots with a nonaggression pact. Was Clinton lying then?

Sailor - He wrote what he wrote (none / 0) (#11)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 06:19:46 PM EST

The following is exactly what Hart said.

..The "them" we are fighting in Iraq are overwhelmingly Iraqi insurgents who have no interest in following us home.
And the relatively small but growing numbers of al Qaeda in Iraq can do more than one thing at once, as the people of London and Madrid can testify.

If you think it makes no sense, I agree.

My comment remains. How does he know the terrorists, he calls them "insurgents" due to his obvious misunderstandinbg, aren't interested in following "us" home?

My second comment remains the same. If we are to believe Hart, they'll just continue in Iraq and attack Europe.

Why they would be limited to Europe?? Obviously they wouldn't, but that's Hart's position, as uninformed as it is.

Maybe he's trying to say al-Qaida will follow us home, or maybe he's just giving us the Monkey Business.

He's talking about two groups (none / 0) (#19)
by roy on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 01:19:09 PM EST

You're throwing around your "them"s and "they"s pretty haphazardly. Hart claims there are two distinct groups fighting us in Iraq:

Insurgents, people trying to get the occupying forces out. Hart thinks that if our forces leave, our fight with the insurgents simply ends.
Al Qaeda, people trying to hurt the US and Europe. Hart thinks that if our forces leave, they'll still be able to fight al Qaeda at least as effectively as by staying in Iraq.

Hart isn't claiming that al Qaeda would be limited to Europe, he's pointing to Europe as a demonstration of the point that al Qaeda isn't tied to any one battlefield.

Personally, I'd add a third group, making up the bulk of the enemy: terrorists trying to take over Iraq, without much connection to international terrorism. I think Hart conflates this group with the insurgents, but the difference is demonstrated by the fact that most violence is directed against Iraqi civilians and government, not against occupying forces.

Also, Hart doesn't seem to wonder if the number of al Qaeda in Iraq is "small" because al Qaeda doesn't want to place forces there, or because we've done a good job killing them there. Given how many times we've killed their #2 man, it seems like at least partly the latter.


The Clinton position on Iraq and Al Qaeda (none / 0) (#15)
by Jason Van Steenwyk on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 07:26:52 PM EST

Here is the text of the relevant passage of the indictment the Clinton/Reno justice department obtained against Bin Ladin in 1998:

"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

"nothing to do with Al Qaeda," indeed.

Care to retract?

Or did Clinton lie to us all?

Which is it?

Bottom Line.... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by kdog on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 08:29:56 PM EST

We can't believe a word Democrats and Republicans say. They are all bought off or worse.

It's time to bring all the troops home and close all the bases on foreign soil and find out who really wants to fight us, as opposed to whose just pissed we are f*cking with their country. Yes, this will take some courage, but if we want peace we must cease aggression. If we are attacked after we cease aggression, both militarily and political meddling, then we give the aggressor all the hell we got and are justified.

Whose with me?


: Re: Whose with me. (none / 0) (#18)
by Edger on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 11:20:52 AM EST

if we want peace we must cease aggression. If we are attacked after we cease aggression, both militarily and political meddling, then we give the aggressor all the hell we got and are justified.
Right on the money, kdog. I said the same thing here last October.
Thanks for putting it much more succintly.
Don't want to be attacked? Stop attacking.

the difference (none / 0) (#17)
by Sailor on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 11:04:37 AM EST

How does he know the terrorists, he calls them "insurgents" due to his obvious misunderstandinbg, aren't interested in following "us" home?

insurgents are fighting for their own country. It's called a 'civil war.' We started it by waging war a country that nothing to do with AQ or 9/11.


: "Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda" (none / 0) (#20)
by Jason Van Steenwyk on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 09:00:45 PM EST

Funny. That was decidedly NOT the opinion of the Clinton administration in 1998.