Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Where do National guard units deploy outside combat zones? Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Where do National guard units deploy outside combat zones?

    Where do National guard units get deployed (beyond war zones)?

    Ive heard a lot of people talk about Europe (is that kind of stuff common?), but where else are units deployed besides Iraq and Afghanistan?

  • #2
    I'm not sure if the ARNG does but I know people in the Army that are stationed in Korea, Japan, Germany..... I think the NG does, I wanna think my friend's brother in law is in the Guard & is in Germany..

    Comment


    • #3
      Egypt, Horn of Africa, Kosovo, Guantanamo Bay, long stateside missions.

      Comment


      • #4
        [QUOTE=SteveLord]Egypt, Horn of Africa, Kosovo, Guantanamo Bay, long stateside missions.[/QUOTE]

        when i join i wanna go to kosovo cause i hear the women love us:D matter of fact i use to talk to this chick a pretty blonde haired girl that lived there maybe i could look her up haha.

        Comment


        • #5
          [QUOTE=darthlaidher]when i join i wanna go to kosovo cause i hear the women love us:D matter of fact i use to talk to this chick a pretty blonde haired girl that lived there maybe i could look her up haha.[/QUOT

          I would never have expected a post like that from darthlaidher. I am truly shocked lol.

          Comment


          • #6
            Well sounds cool except, it sounds like it would be fun explaining to your boss why your going to be in Europe for a year. Deploying to a war zone I would think would be a lot better on your civilian job. Then its like its war time and they need me. Using the National Guard on those kind of overseas deployments is not what it was designed for. Its supposed to be the force that stays and protects the US during wartime and supports combat operations. Not the "imperial grunts" that patrol the world.

            Comment


            • #7
              [QUOTE=James2912]Using the National Guard on those kind of overseas deployments is not what it was designed for. Its supposed to be the force that stays and protects the US during wartime and supports combat operations.[/QUOTE]

              Says who???

              Comment


              • #8
                Published on Monday, February 27, 2006 by the New York Times
                Bush Policies Are Weakening National Guard, Governors Say
                by Robert Pear

                WASHINGTON - Governors of both parties said Sunday that Bush administration policies were stripping the National Guard of equipment and personnel needed to respond to hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, forest fires and other emergencies.

                The National Guard plays an incredibly valuable role in the states. What we are concerned about...is that when our troops are deployed for long periods of time, and their equipment goes with them but does not come back, the troops are very strained, and they no longer have the equipment they were trained to use.

                Gov. Mike Huckabee, R - Arkansas, chairman of the governors association
                Tens of thousands of National Guard members have been sent to Iraq, along with much of the equipment needed to deal with natural disasters and terrorist threats in the United States, the governors said here at the winter meeting of the National Governors Association.

                The National Guard, which traces its roots to the colonial militia, has a dual federal-state role. Governors normally command the Guard in their states, but Guard members deployed overseas in support of a federal mission are under the control of the president.

                The governors said they would present their concerns to President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Monday. In a preview of their message, all 50 governors signed a letter to the president opposing any cuts in the size of the National Guard.

                "Unfortunately," the letter said, "when our National Guard men and women return from being deployed in foreign theaters, much of their equipment remains behind." The governors said the White House must immediately re-equip Guard units "to carry out their homeland security and domestic disaster duties."

                Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, a Republican and chairman of the governors association, said: "The National Guard plays an incredibly valuable role in the states. What we are concerned about, as governors, is that when our troops are deployed for long periods of time, and their equipment goes with them but does not come back, the troops are very strained, and they no longer have the equipment they were trained to use."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Paid vacation

                  And don't forget, Overseas Annual Training is awesome..

                  Spent a few weeks in Germany, Honduras, and Israel...

                  And this week I am in New Jersery...Truly seeing the world...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Not to mention the way it hurts employers and local economies when soldiers are put on long deployments. Nat guard soldiers are signing up part time, why even have a guard if those soldiers are going to be activated on regular army missions all the time, the whole having a civilian job thing becomes a farce, instead the Nat guard becomes the active army in all but name.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      A bunch of Governors are complaining about their part of the dual role of the National Guard. Politics as usual. It's like you and your sister fighting over a shared car in high school.

                      You said that the "National Guard was not designed for overseas deployments" which is to what my question referred.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        [QUOTE=James2912]Not to mention the way it hurts employers and local economies when soldiers are put on long deployments. Nat guard soldiers are signing up part time, why even have a guard if those soldiers are going to be activated on regular army missions all the time, the whole having a civilian job thing becomes a farce, instead the Nat guard becomes the active army in all but name.[/QUOTE]

                        Technically, it helps unemployment - more people get hired to fill the void left by activated soldiers.

                        Plus, everyone nowadays knows exactly for what they are signing. The recruiting numbers are good. Not so sure that your concern is shared by your fellow Guardsmen.

                        EDIT: fixed typo.
                        Last edited by chd; January 29th, 2009, 10:18 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          First of all the employers are not allowed to replace guard soldiers and if they did I think that would hurt soldiers who come home with no job to return too. Second of all the guards motto is "two days a month 2 weeks a year" if you talk to older guardsmen they will tell you that that used to be true but no more. Now guard soldiers are soldiers more than they are civilians in a career sense. which is okay if you have a low to medium income job that is easily replace or easy to find but if you have a CAREER and a family it those deployments are hard. 60 minutes did a special on this a while ago. what I was saying is deployments to war zones are understandable thats what you signed up for but if the guard is just going to be treated as the active army thats wrong and not what it was meant for. Second of all those were Republican and Democratic governors and I can assure you they know more about what they are talking about than you do. If they say the guard is hurting under these constant deployments and not capable of completing there primary objectives because of the stress, they are the EXPERTS they have the numbers and the data. If anybody knows what they are talking about they do.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            [QUOTE=James2912]First of all the employers are not allowed to replace guard soldiers and if they did I think that would hurt soldiers who come home with no job to return too. Second of all the guards motto is "two days a month 2 weeks a year" if you talk to older guardsmen they will tell you that that used to be true but no more. Now guard soldiers are soldiers more than they are civilians in a career sense. which is okay if you have a low to medium income job that is easily replace or easy to find but if you have a CAREER and a family it those deployments are hard. 60 minutes did a special on this a while ago. what I was saying is deployments to war zones are understandable thats what you signed up for but if the guard is just going to be treated as the active army thats wrong and not what it was meant for. Second of all those were Republican and Democratic governors and I can assure you they know more about what they are talking about than you do. If they say the guard is hurting under these constant deployments and not capable of completing there primary objectives because of the stress, they are the EXPERTS they have the numbers and the data. If anybody knows what they are talking about they do.[/QUOTE]

                            Employers would fill the spots temporarily and then offer them to the returning soldiers. One less unemployed person for one year. Inarguable.

                            Keep trusting politicians for the most accurate information. Governors want their Guard units home - period, end of story. Unfortunately for them, they are only half of the equation. Cite one example of a natural disaster, prison riot, etc. in which a state didn't have enough Guardsmen because their soldiers were serving a deployment in Kosovo or Egypt (which you claim to be non-Guard missions).
                            Last edited by chd; January 29th, 2009, 10:45 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              [QUOTE=James2912]First of all the employers are not allowed to replace guard soldiers and if they did I think that would hurt soldiers who come home with no job to return too. Second of all the guards motto is "two days a month 2 weeks a year" if you talk to older guardsmen they will tell you that that used to be true but no more. Now guard soldiers are soldiers more than they are civilians in a career sense. which is okay if you have a low to medium income job that is easily replace or easy to find but if you have a CAREER and a family it those deployments are hard. 60 minutes did a special on this a while ago. what I was saying is deployments to war zones are understandable thats what you signed up for but if the guard is just going to be treated as the active army thats wrong and not what it was meant for. Second of all those were Republican and Democratic governors and I can assure you they know more about what they are talking about than you do. If they say the guard is hurting under these constant deployments and not capable of completing there primary objectives because of the stress, they are the EXPERTS they have the numbers and the data. If anybody knows what they are talking about they do.[/QUOTE]

                              And if you talk to even older National Guardsmen (those that my grandfather served with) they were deployed for years at a time and fought in Normandy, New Caledonia etc... Just putting everything in perspective.

                              Governors are mad they have troops sent overseas. Virginia has a transport company overseas, an engineering unit going overseas as we speak, several units just got back within the last 12 months and we still have a whole battalion on call status that was deployed in support of Hurricane Hanna, the Inauguration and fought wildfires last year. We have enough National Guardsmen to help out in emergencies.

                              We were meant to fight our enemies foreign and domestic. We just happen to be citizen-soldiers, who have a dual purpose. The founding fathers thought in principal that the regular army should be small (only 16,000 men at the beginning of the Civil War) and that volunteers/milita should be added in time of war. Thats what occurred during the Civil War, adding just under 3 million volunteers. The Militia/National Guard again was deployed in support of WWI and extensively in WWII. The use within the last 20 years before OEF/OIF has regulated the perception that the National Guard is never deployed (like in Vietnam when it occurred rarely). I don't know who has the authority to judge what its original intent was (please don't say "but its NATIONAL guard, supposed to guard the nation") that's just the name.

                              Anyways, governors have the numbers and what not but to be honest there is always at least a good sized portion of one state's Air and Army Guard at home and not deployed. The only thing a state would not have enough troops and equipment for is an invasion, and of course the Regular Army would help in that defense anyways.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X