The latter part of 2006 was marked by a severe winter storm which cloaked western New York in a thick blanket of snow, measuring two feet deep. As a result, over 300,000 residences were stripped of electricity amidst plummeting temperatures. Local agencies struggled to manage the sudden calamity. This was the scene when I first stepped up with the National Guard to address a domestic disaster. We rose to the challenge just as Americans anticipate the Guard to: the uniformed personnel, who are also part of the community, arrived armed with trucks, generators and relevant expertise to support recovery.
The incident outlined a traditional agreement that has been ingrained in the National Guard’s ethos for generations. During extraordinary circumstances, citizen soldiers are summoned to reinforce civil order and safeguard their neighbors. Unfortunately, the trust instilled by this principle has been severely shaken over previous months. The Guardsmen’s duties have been stretched far beyond their original intent, leading to actions that elevate conflicts rather than resolve them in the very neighborhoods they are designed to protect.
Recent events hint at possible transformations within the organization. There are indications that these servicemen may soon be reorganized into special units designated for nationwide crime suppression and protest control. The present portrayal of the Guard diverges from the familiar image of service members assisting locals in a crisis by filling sandbags or providing warm blankets after a tempest. Instead, their role appears to mimic that of law enforcement, with soldiers actively patrolling city streets.
My own tenure with the Army National Guard was as a combat engineer. Here, we prepared extensively to respond to assaults potentially involving mass destruction weaponry. Our responsibilities were unequivocally stated: to rescue civilians trapped under debris, sanitize potentially hazardous zones, and provide immediate stabilization for the wounded. Our operations were directed by a civilian incident commander, and our efforts to assist never depended on the political affiliations of those we rescued.
Our tasks and the authority we served under formed my perception of the National Guard. The Guard’s purpose is to offer support to the existing civil authorities, not to replace them. The current circumstances contradict this understanding and further extend a tendency that has been emerging over decades. Political leaders, at both the federal and state level, have been using the National Guard as a sweeping solution, rather than investing in public infrastructure, thereby causing an erosion in the lines distinguishing civil support and military force.
This habit is a perilous one for American democracy. To use the National Guard to plug gaps for every politically precarious or underfunded issue, blurs the distinction between aiding civil authorities and exerting absolute control. This course of action also undermines civilian autonomy by treating services that are distinctive to military forces as interchangeable with civilian duties.
Considering education as an example: rather than working to cultivate a steadier network of educators, governors are deploying Guard units as makeshift teachers. The same is seen with basic facilities like sanitation; instead of updating these systems, city leaders are calling upon soldiers to manage waste. These are just illustrations of a broader problem – public safety mandates the creation and preservation of robust community ties and consistently applied legal processes.
The Guard has been rotating through an ongoing cycle of deployments for over three decades, with stations in places as diverse as Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine, and the Horn of Africa. Extending the list of responsibilities to include domestic policing dilutes the Guard’s readiness for tasks that are exclusive to military forces.
Governors and state legislatures hold the reins on when and how their National Guard is deployed. By setting precise limitations around law enforcement-centered deployments, especially in jurisdictions outside their own, they can put their units back on track to fulfill their intended roles. Genuine state emergencies may necessitate National Guard involvement, and in such situations, state leaders should insist that federal assignments are strictly defined by clear objectives and conditions.
Public directives should guide matters like the extent and duration of expected deployment, and parameters dictating when and how force may be appropriately applied. The president has the power to supersede state leadership and call in the National Guard; however, barring an actual emergency, governors across the country should stand united by refusing to commit troops voluntarily. In these circumstances, it becomes imperative for Congress to exercise its authority and bring a swift end to these deployments.
The National Guard, due to systemic neglect of civilian institutions, has become the ‘go-to’ force for both state and federal leaders. The challenging task of restoring these systems is a canonical part of governance, albeit a laborious and unappreciated one. However, carrying it out is the only sustainable way to retain the dedicated emergency role of the National Guard and fortify the democratic system it is created to safeguard.
While the National Guard can be a powerful asset when responding to disasters, its deployment against civilians is a disquieting prospect. Resorting to the Guard as a tool to navigate political and social strife will only diminish its capacity to function in its intended role – a community-based, life-saving force of ultimate resort.
The post Paradigm Shift: The National Guard’s Evolving Role appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
