Less than 3 weeks after 24 Wisconsin cities, towns, and villages said yes to referendum questions asking for immediate withdrawal from Iraq beginning with the National Guard and Reserves, 430 additional members of the Guard were shipped out on Saturday. According to the Associated Press, “With this latest deployment, the state has sent roughly three-fourths of the Guard's 9,700-members to serve on active duty since the terrorist attacks in 2001. The 1157th Transportation Company of Oshkosh will begin active duty in June with about 160 soldiers.”
According to the Wisconsin Constitution (Article V, sec. 4), the governor is the commander in chief of the military and naval forces of the state. Governor Doyle should use that power, and the power granted him by the 1986 Montgomery Amendment, to veto the Bush Administration’s order to deploy the 430. Such an action would provoke a much needed court battle over whether the Iraq War represents, as I and many others believe it does, an abuse of the federal government’s power over the Guard and Reserves.
In 1933, the US Congress declared that any state’s National Guard unit could be called into federal service during periods of national emergency. In 1952 the Congress eliminated the national emergency requirement, but provided that a federal call-up of a state National Guard unit required the consent of the governor of the state.
In 1986, after some governors withheld their states’ National Guard members from Reagan Administration military training initiatives in Central America, Congress responded with the Montgomery Amendment. The Amendment states that, “The consent of a governor . . . may not be withheld (in whole or in part) with regard to active duty outside of the United States, its territories, and its possessions, because of any objection to the location, purpose, type, or schedule of such active duty.”
Minnesota Governor Perpich took the Department of Defense all the way to the Supreme Court, which in 1990 ruled unanimously that the Montgomery Amendment was Constitutional. However, the Court’s decision included a caveat that would seem to allow any current governor to veto a deployment to Iraq. The Court said:
“The Minnesota unit, which includes about 13,000 members, is affected only slightly when a few dozen, or at most a few hundred, soldiers are ordered into active service for brief periods of time. Neither the State's basic training responsibility, nor its ability to rely on its own Guard in state emergency situations, is significantly affected. Indeed, if the federal training mission were to interfere with the State Guard's capacity to respond to local emergencies, the Montgomery Amendment would permit the Governor to veto the proposed mission.” (italics added).
We are now long past the time of talking about “a few dozen, or at most a few hundred, soldiers are ordered into active service for brief periods of time.” As noted earlier, three-fourths of our state’s 9,700-members have served in active duty since 2001. Many of them have had their tours of duty extended against their will. Should Wisconsin suffer a natural disaster, we will face the same tragedy faced by Louisiana when huge numbers of military forces and equipment that could have helped with Katrina rescue and recovery efforts were deployed instead in Iraq.
Jim Doyle should veto the mission of the 430 and cite the Montgomery Amendment in doing it. He can also argue that the April 4th referendum results represent convincing evidence that his state's residents do not support the continued exploitation of the Guard.
13 comments:
Keeping it simple, I say; yep, I agree.
Bob (Roberts) Knudsen
But have "the people" really spoken? Absolutely not. Wisconsin has 1,266 towns and only 32 voted on the referenda. That amounst to a mere 8 percent of the state's 2004 electorate, of which, only 2 percent cast ballots for the referendum. The 32 towns were also heavily Democratic, and a smaller percentage voted for a pullout (60%) than voted for Kerry in 2004 (69%). So, the referendum actually did not do well at all, considering the circumstances.
Since Kerry won these towns with 69% of the vote, it cannot be claimed that they accurately represent Wisconsin, which Kerry narrowly won 49% to 48%. If Democrats give any credence to this story, then you know they are really desperate to exaggerate any signs of opposition to the war in Iraq.
Gawd, de ja vu!
John Kerry supported the war in Iraq, promised to continue it, and even upped Bush in 2004 by saying that we needed to commit even MORE troops to Iraq.
A vote for Kerry WAS NOT A VOTE TO END THE WAR.
However, a vote for immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, beginning with the National Guard and Reserves, is, without a doubt, a vote to end the war.
You can play with the numbers all you want - you could say that 9% of Kerry voters were also War voters (60%-69%) - but the point is that Wisconsin is DONE with this bullshit war and so is America. If you disagree - please encourage your state legislature to hold a state wide non-binding referendum on the question. I guarantee you Wisconsin STATE WIDE would vote to bring the troops home.
I am writing this as my point of view and is not meant to be confrontational. I have remained silent because I didn't want an argument. That hasn't changed. I will debate this issue, but please remember, I will not address anonymous. This is an important issue that should be debated. I will not hide, but be willing to sign your name if you want an answer from me.
Everyone wants the troops to come home. The sad reality is that it isn't going to happen anytime soon. They are there to do a job and will have to stay until it is done. In the meantime, the troops that are there can only come home if there are troops to replace them. If you reduce the numbers prematurely, you risk the soldiers that are left behind. I want the troops home just as much as the next person, but I support them no matter where they are and want them all to come home when the job is done. As a former soldier and leader, I understand better what is happening there and hope that this war/conflict can be resolved soon to bring all the troops home.
We need to support the troops. They are there fighting day in and day out while we (loosely) are here fighting about whether they should be there or not. It is not up to us. It is not up to them. I can guarantee you that more than 50% of them want to be home but will NEVER admit it. They will fight and could die because that is what they believe in and that is what they signed up for. No referendum can change that or take it away. They will still be soldiers. I am proud to be a veteran. We should be thanking them for protecting our way of life, not criticizing their leaders for putting them there.
Thank you for your time.
Kent V. Monte
SGT, US Army
Retired.
Dreat Kent, 'I Support the Troops' Monte,
How? How are you supporting the troops? What did you do today to make thier lives safer? What did you do today to get then the body armor they need? What did you do today to make sure that their government is held accountable fortheir lives and sacrifices? What did you do to make thier lot better? What did you do today to prevent such a bad policy from occurring again?
'Support Our Troops' is the most hollow phrase in English. It is not supporting them to leave the Bushies to play dice with their lives and families.
No one supports the troops more than a protester. No one harms them more than the blind man who goes along with bad policy.
Anonymous 1:30, did you not follow the last election where Kent was running for city council? He works for the DOD at Oshkosh Truck making sure the troops have quality vehicles and armor. No where in his post does he say he supports the current policy. He does say he thinks we need to finish the job or have an exit strategy to protect the troops as they leave. I do believe he also said he wants the troops home and was encouraging our support of the troops. That support has nothing to do with President Howdy Doody and his puppeteers in Congress.
Kent Monte doesn't want to criticize our leaders for putting troops in Iraq but he has no problem criticizing local leaders whose position he wants. But hey, why should he criticize a government that is paying his insurance and probably a retirement too? The Iraqi government has made it very clear that they want us out of their and want to take over their own country. Who is Kent Monte to give us statistics and reasons why we need to be there?
S.B.
I never said that I knew what was going on in Iraq, although I know many that are there currently or have been over there recently. I do know Military Doctrine and what it will take to pull out of there. If the order were given today, we would be lucky to have the last troops on a plane in 6 months. Things like this don't happen overnight and a strategy has to be created to prevent significant casualties as our forces are reduced. If there are 1000 troops on the ground right now and you pull out half, the other half just became 2 or 3 times more vulnerable to attack. It is not as simple as people think. If we pull out too soon, we will endanger the troops more than if we wait it out until the region has more stability and the Iraq government can give some protection to the returning soldiers.
It is not perfect and I am far from being an expert but rest assured, I have experienced this before as I served during Desert Storm, and know what condition the equipment is when it comes back. It certainly doesn't load itself on ships for the return to the states and takes a lot of time.
Again, I will say that I want our troops home too. My step-children have a father serving there right now. If you think that this isn't personal, you have another guess coming.
Have a nice evening.
Kent Monte
On the subject of the war, troops and the like, ABC news is reporting at this hour that the Pentagon is prepared to pull 30,000 troops out of Iraq - if the conditions are right. I'm sure we'll hear more about those plans and what constitutes the "right" conditions as the story develops.
That is truely good news. I am glad that they are finally ready to start withdrawing. This is only the beginning, I would expect it will take a year or more to see significant reduction in forces over there. But this is a good start. Thanks Cheryl for the update.
K Monte
Yes, as a soldier and leader I understand what it is like to be in a "hot" zone. I understand what it is like to where body armor all day in 100+ degrees. I understand what it is like to stand guard for hours and hours. I understand all of those things. I also know many that are there or have been there to experience it. I am unable to serve there myself because of a medical condition. That is why I am no longer in the service but that does not mean that I am not in touch with it.
You said that you and Tony attended a presentation given by a peace activist. Did she go there? Did she experience it first hand? Has she ever picked up a rifle to defend her life? Has she ever been shot at? When that happens to you, it would change you forever. Fortunatly, I have never had to do it first hand, but I was trained to do it.
As for the conflict, I don't know all of the details. But neither do you. You know what you have been told. You know what they wanted you to hear. You should go to a forum that is given by a veteran to get that point of view as well. I would be willing to attend a peace forum to see your perspective. How about taking a look at mine? Let me know.
Have a nice evening.
K Monte
Has she ever been shot at? When that happens to you, it would change you forever..."
When I was one and twenty I loved a man to whom all the things of which Mr. Monte speaks happened. And more. He was the first person from our state to volunteer in 1950 when the unpleasantness in Korea broke out. He went in raging with patriotism and all kinds of will to kill and be killed if necessary.
Somehow the battleground changed him. Instead of reacting out of the conditioning he had received he began to THINK under fire. In time he wrote of the "loony fanaticism and ruthless ambition
of the military mind". He came to see that that war was a "test of will not of power" and that he had more in common with the enemy field soldiers than with the world political technicians that had placed all of them there.
That was heady stuff for a lowly soldier in 1952. There was no anti-war movement them, only John Wayne saving the world with a few good men. My friend was a writer and a very good one at that who wrote his story in a time when such stories were not being written. Publishers did not know what to do with his work and because he told a truth that did not set very well with conventional wisdom of the day he was, for all intents and purposes, blacklisted.
He was never published and in time took his own life.
It is not fair to surmise that all people react in kind to the same stimuli. Boot camp is brain-washing and most young people, especially in these days of the volunteer military, do not resist the instruction. If they survive they become elders who, most probably, will tell their stories of heroism to themselves and to the next generation.
But sometimes someone sees the experience in a different light. The circumstances of the present war makes that easier it seems. Read Stars and Stripes on-line. There are letters there written in grief and pain about the dawning awareness that lies have been told and, sweeping away all the platitudes, good hearted men and women are being spent like pennies in an arcade where all the games are rigged.
Somehow, to some, the architects of this engagement seem to have taken Henry Kissinger to heart when he said in the seventies:
“American soldiers are dumb animals to be used in the furtherance of ‘our’ foreign policy."
That is a quote that should be burned into the soul of every person before they say the first word about all the glory of war and the good faith of the men who send our children into the inferno.
I reread Monte's comments after reading Citizen's. I do not believe either is far from the other in opinion. Neither glorifies war. Monte thinks we need to support the troops who are there and from the words of Citizen, the troops need all the support, prayers, and well wishes we can send them. Monte also seems to think pulling out isn't a bad idea, but it does require planning and can't be done all at once or the lives of our men and women will be in greater jeopardy.
We are so quick to look at the differences in words we choose that we are failing to see the similarities in ideas being expressed. Both Citizen and Monte are speaking from differing perspectives and seem to share some opinions.
s.b. If you are not a soldier, Monte does know better than you what is going on for the soldiers. That is not presumptious. Presumptuous would be if he had said he knows more than EVERYONE. Just as, I am sure, you have experiences you know more about than Monte. That is not presumptuous. Lets not get so touchy about this issue, we forget we are, mostly, on the same side
Post a Comment