Saving the National Guard

President Bush and his overseas adventures are a grave threat to an important American institution, the National Guard. That was the impression I came away with yesterday at the Douglas Democrats Central Committee meeting, where we were treated to a fascinating presentation by recently-retired Brigadier General George Clark. (PowerPoint file.)

Clark reviewed the traditional role of the Guard, as it evolved from local militias and became an important tool, especially for Governors, to maintain domestic security in times of disaster. Historically the citizen soldiers of the Guard have been deployed only infrequently and for short periods for special events and natural disasters. The existence of this trained force has contributed to the resilience of our society, the ability to bounce back from misfortune quickly, to never have to fear from natural or man-made crises.

Guardsmen are responsible to both their government and their families, with families traditionally getting the bulk of their time. The culture and institutional arrangements of the Guard are all geared toward supporting people who maintain all their family and job responsibilities while temporarily taking time off for public service on short notice. It's a noble commitment, but certainly not a career.

Under George W. Bush, this historical role has been turned on its head. Guardsmen are asked to do the job of professional soldiers, without having career background and support that are taken for granted in the regular military. Unlike regular soldiers, guardsmen usually have families, and those families are not located on military bases. For regular soldiers, social connections are with other soldiers in their unit; for guardsmen, the social connections are all with the community they left behind.

Technology has exacerbated the social difficulties of misplaced guardsmen. Soldiers in fixed bases, or even in tents, frequently have broadband internet access, which guardsmen use to maintain their responsibilities and social connections with home. They start their morning helping the kids with their homework, settling squabbles, trying to maintain a friendship with their spouse, then sending the family off to bed. Then the rest of the day is spent among people who want to kill them, and who might do so at any moment.

Few people are super-human enough to be able to take this without injury. Nearly half of guardsmen deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan end up with problems related to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or Traumatic Brain Injury. Nearly half! Once sent home, the soldiers are expected to immediately jump back into their jobs and families, rarely taking time for treatment, often considering treatment to be an unwelcome stigma. But by that time, the damage is already done. They, and the people around them, will live with the psychological problems for the rest of their lives.

For me, the General's presentation underscored an important question. Why does the Bush Administration cause this to happen? For an authoritarian government, fear is an important tool for maintaining power. Bush does not want the Guard in its traditional role, because that role, of responding efficiently and effectively to domestic crises, makes our society more confident and less fearful. Sending the Guard to Iraq makes us more vulnerable to disaster, more susceptible to fear, and thus more controllable by an authoritarian leader. As an added bonus, it also serves as a substitute for the draft.

With their broadband access, guardsmen can choose between fantasy web sites like Fox News, which try to convince them that they aren't wasting their lives; or they can choose web sites with real news, giving the truth that their mission is a failure. The relevant question isn't whether the news media should report fact or fantasy; the real question we should be asking, is why should our government put people in a position where these are their only choices?