Sunday, February 18, 2007
More on Gary Hart
The Signaleer eviscerates Hart's idiotic proposal to strip commanders of their reserve component troops in the heat of battle.
First, he calls Senator Hart on his assertion that deploying Guard and Reserve units during a time of war violates any agreement between the reserve component soldier and the military. That assertion, Signaleer demonstrates by directly citing the enlistment contract, is a lie.
I will further call Senator Hart's assertion that the Constitution relegates the National Guard to domestic mission and homeland security operations a lie.
The National Guard was deployed in force during the Spanish American war and WWI. The 29th Infantry Division, which stormed Normandy Beach in June of 1944, was a National Guard division. The most decorated unit of the war, the 100th Battalion, 442nd Regimental Combat Team, is a reserve unit out of Hawaii. The 40th Infantry Division, California Army National Guard, was deployed to fight in Korea by the Truman administration. Somehow I don't recall a constitutional crisis ensuing.
The 29th Infantry Brigade, Hawaii National Guard, was mobilized in 1968 - its members sent to Viet Nam as individual replacements. Somehow, our Constitutional form of government remained intact.
Bill Clinton dispatched a number of Guard units on peacekeeping missions in the 1990s - somehow Congressional Democrats were unperturbed at the constitutional implications of same.
There is no passage in the Constitution that prohibits the President from nationalizing and deploying National Guard units in the event of an emergency.
I doubt Senator Hart will be pounding the table attacking the Eisenhower administration for Federalizing Mississippi National Guardsmen who had been mobilized to prevent integration in the 1950s - stripping the governor of his power to enforce bigotry, and assigning the newly federalized troops the mission of enforcing the 14th amendment.
Gary Hart is not on record attacking the constitutionality of same.
Then there is the small matter, which Signalleer addresses, of Hart's suggesting that al Qaeda "can do more than one thing at a time." Hart argues that engaging Al Qaeda in Iraq did not prevent them from mounting attacks in Madrid and Spain. True. But NOT engaging them anywhere certainly did not prevent them from mounting far more devastating attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C.
Senator Hart is arguing that Al Qaeda is capable of multitasking, while simultaneously mounting the absurd argument that we are not.
This is the argument of a defeated man.
This is the argument of a loser.
Splash, out
Jason
First, he calls Senator Hart on his assertion that deploying Guard and Reserve units during a time of war violates any agreement between the reserve component soldier and the military. That assertion, Signaleer demonstrates by directly citing the enlistment contract, is a lie.
I will further call Senator Hart's assertion that the Constitution relegates the National Guard to domestic mission and homeland security operations a lie.
The National Guard was deployed in force during the Spanish American war and WWI. The 29th Infantry Division, which stormed Normandy Beach in June of 1944, was a National Guard division. The most decorated unit of the war, the 100th Battalion, 442nd Regimental Combat Team, is a reserve unit out of Hawaii. The 40th Infantry Division, California Army National Guard, was deployed to fight in Korea by the Truman administration. Somehow I don't recall a constitutional crisis ensuing.
The 29th Infantry Brigade, Hawaii National Guard, was mobilized in 1968 - its members sent to Viet Nam as individual replacements. Somehow, our Constitutional form of government remained intact.
Bill Clinton dispatched a number of Guard units on peacekeeping missions in the 1990s - somehow Congressional Democrats were unperturbed at the constitutional implications of same.
There is no passage in the Constitution that prohibits the President from nationalizing and deploying National Guard units in the event of an emergency.
I doubt Senator Hart will be pounding the table attacking the Eisenhower administration for Federalizing Mississippi National Guardsmen who had been mobilized to prevent integration in the 1950s - stripping the governor of his power to enforce bigotry, and assigning the newly federalized troops the mission of enforcing the 14th amendment.
Gary Hart is not on record attacking the constitutionality of same.
Then there is the small matter, which Signalleer addresses, of Hart's suggesting that al Qaeda "can do more than one thing at a time." Hart argues that engaging Al Qaeda in Iraq did not prevent them from mounting attacks in Madrid and Spain. True. But NOT engaging them anywhere certainly did not prevent them from mounting far more devastating attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C.
Senator Hart is arguing that Al Qaeda is capable of multitasking, while simultaneously mounting the absurd argument that we are not.
This is the argument of a defeated man.
This is the argument of a loser.
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
I am not surprised at all by Hart's comments. As a prominent member of the "Military Reform Movement" in the 1980s, he opposed the development and deployment of virtually every piece of equipment in our arsenal today. While he and the other reformers (which included then Congressman Richard Cheney, Newt Gingrich, John Boyd of OODA loop fame, and many many more) had some notable successes, such as the adoption of maneuver warfare by the Army in FM100-5 1983, the anti-technology position advocated by hardcore reformers like Hart, his staffer for military affairs William S. Lind, Boyd, Pierre Sprey, Franklin Spinney, etc., was a failure. To this day, none of those guys has been willing to admit that it was possible to adopt maneuver warfare and the OODA loop alongside high-tech weaponry. So ya, "bitter and defeated" is more accurate than you know.
As for these ideas being Hart's ideas....don't count on that. I'm not sure how much contact he and Lind still have, but back in the day it was pretty clear that Lind was doing Hart's military thinking for him.
Lind has been a critic of Bush and the war, arguing not only that it is inevitable that we will lose, but that we deserve to lose. He seems to believe more in an apocalyptic "destroying the world to save it" sort of vision. His ideal vision is one in which "Brave New World" (his name for the U.S.) and the "Fourth Generation" (al-Qa'ida, Hizbullah, whoever) destroy one another. A long quote from Lind,
"Just as Brave New World is correct when it says that the forces of
the Fourth Generation represent a return to the Dark Ages, so the
Fourth Generation is correct when it calls Brave New World Satanic.
Yet as I said at the outset, the collision between these two vast
forces will define the grand strategic context in the 21st Century.
"How should the next conservatism deal with this situation?
...
"...we must do what seems impossible. We must rally the remnants of
the Christian West to fight the Fourth Generation and Brave New World
simultaneously. The next conservatism must strive to keep the old
faith, the old morals and old ways of living alive as, hopefully,
Brave New World and the Fourth Generation destroy each other. Will
that be possible? With God, all things are possible. But it certainly
is not going to be easy." (http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/2006/060306.asp)
More of Lind's thinking can be found at "Defense in the National Interest," (http://www.d-n-i.net), as well as at the Center for Cultural Conservatism of the Free Congress Foundation (http://www.freecongress.org).
What's scary is that a guy who has written that he hopes the U.S. and al-Qaeda destroy one another, that defeat is inevitable and deserved, also regularly boasts that he is on a team of folks who are advising the Marine Corps on how to win in Iraq.
We must ask: which side are Hart and Lind supporting?
As for these ideas being Hart's ideas....don't count on that. I'm not sure how much contact he and Lind still have, but back in the day it was pretty clear that Lind was doing Hart's military thinking for him.
Lind has been a critic of Bush and the war, arguing not only that it is inevitable that we will lose, but that we deserve to lose. He seems to believe more in an apocalyptic "destroying the world to save it" sort of vision. His ideal vision is one in which "Brave New World" (his name for the U.S.) and the "Fourth Generation" (al-Qa'ida, Hizbullah, whoever) destroy one another. A long quote from Lind,
"Just as Brave New World is correct when it says that the forces of
the Fourth Generation represent a return to the Dark Ages, so the
Fourth Generation is correct when it calls Brave New World Satanic.
Yet as I said at the outset, the collision between these two vast
forces will define the grand strategic context in the 21st Century.
"How should the next conservatism deal with this situation?
...
"...we must do what seems impossible. We must rally the remnants of
the Christian West to fight the Fourth Generation and Brave New World
simultaneously. The next conservatism must strive to keep the old
faith, the old morals and old ways of living alive as, hopefully,
Brave New World and the Fourth Generation destroy each other. Will
that be possible? With God, all things are possible. But it certainly
is not going to be easy." (http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/2006/060306.asp)
More of Lind's thinking can be found at "Defense in the National Interest," (http://www.d-n-i.net), as well as at the Center for Cultural Conservatism of the Free Congress Foundation (http://www.freecongress.org).
What's scary is that a guy who has written that he hopes the U.S. and al-Qaeda destroy one another, that defeat is inevitable and deserved, also regularly boasts that he is on a team of folks who are advising the Marine Corps on how to win in Iraq.
We must ask: which side are Hart and Lind supporting?
# posted by 
: 12:55 PM
: 12:55 PM
Duh, the National Guard was created in the early 20th Century, in large part, because the Federal government found it difficult, if not impossible, to use the several states' militias in foreign wars (i.e., Mexican War, Spanish-American War).
Abrams Doctrine aside, the Guard has always been largely a creature of the Federal government; a number of regulatory changes and court decisions throughout the 20th century have made it almost completely so.
It wouldn't surprise me if some clueless journo (NYT editorial board, call your office) didn't know this; I'm surprised that Hart doesn't (or would pretend he doesn't in order to make a bogus, politically-advantageous case).
Abrams Doctrine aside, the Guard has always been largely a creature of the Federal government; a number of regulatory changes and court decisions throughout the 20th century have made it almost completely so.
It wouldn't surprise me if some clueless journo (NYT editorial board, call your office) didn't know this; I'm surprised that Hart doesn't (or would pretend he doesn't in order to make a bogus, politically-advantageous case).
# posted by : 5:00 PM
: 5:00 PM
Just to add to your ARNG service list:
The 45th ID (OKARNG) fought Salerno to the Bulge in WWII - more than 500 combat days. Then it was activated again for Korea.
It has rotated through Afghanistan (the 1/180 INF is there now) and is scheduled for deployment to Iraq in 2008.
Post a Comment
The 45th ID (OKARNG) fought Salerno to the Bulge in WWII - more than 500 combat days. Then it was activated again for Korea.
It has rotated through Afghanistan (the 1/180 INF is there now) and is scheduled for deployment to Iraq in 2008.
