In A Word, Usurp – The war has expanded again and our National Guard has become another victim.
Gerald Eisman
August 15, 2006
Usurp - To seize and hold (the power or rights of another, for example) by force and without legal authority. To take over or occupy without right.
The real problem began when the Army had difficulties meeting its recruitment goals. Allegations of violations by military recruitment personnel, already high in 2002 and 2003 reached new heights in 2004 when the number topped 4400, and then again in 2005 when 6600 cases of violations were reported, 630 of which were substantiated. During the same period, criminal violations more than doubled, from 33 to 68.
In 2006, a bill passed in both houses of Congress called the National Defense Authorization Act which gave president Bush to take control of the National Guard forces in the event of a national disaster or a threat to homeland security. The two versions were sent to a House-Senate conference committee to resolve the differences in the two plans. The one provision giving Bush power over the Guard is particularly rankling to the nation's governors who sent a sharply worded letter to the leaders of both houses protesting the provision.
The letter states: "This provision was drafted without consultation or input from governors and represents an unprecedented shift in authority from governors as commanders and chief of the Guard to the federal government."
In a rare, but very welcome sign, 51 governors, which include some from the U.S. territories, have signed on to the letter, displaying a strong bipartisan action. This is in direct opposition to activity in the past few years where moves by Bush have been rubber-stamped by his own party and underscores the ongoing question of his credibility among the nations citizens and its elected officials.
Typical of the administration's standard operating procedure, the governors first heard of the provision just two weeks ago as the Bushies attempted to conceal it until passage. The governors mounted a strong oppositional campaign to remove the offending provision last week. This is reminiscent of the recent attempt by the administration to bushwhack congress by sneaking a ports deal through where several American ports would be administered by an Arabian company.
This is not the first confrontation between the governors and the administration. Back in March of this year they were at loggerheads with Bush and the administration concerning the administration's plans to cut and reorganize National Guard forces as part of a planned pentagon shift or many military functions to the regular Army. Once again the governors were blindsided by the action.
The basic complaint and fear among the governors in their March meeting concerning the first cut was that the budget sought funding for only 333,000 Guard positions, a reduction of 17,000 in normal manpower. But numbers weren't the only concern. The governors also wanted to know the details on what functions of the Guard will be in each specific location and what equipment would be forthcoming in the budget.
At this latest meeting, Republican governor Mike Huckabee (Arkansas) called the provision one that "violates 200 years of American history." The governors see it as part of a broader effort by Bush and the administration to diminish the sovereignty of the individual states. Just another attack on the constitution and other American institutions,
Since the disclosure of Bush and Rumsfeld's plan to usurp power from the states, when pressures on the Guard have been so great in light of the aftermath of Katrina and other disasters, the governors have been stunned. One governor, Tom Vilsack of Iowa (Democrat) declared himself skeptical of the "trust me" stance of president Bush when he said to the earlier meeting, if recruitment reached the 350,000 man level, funds would be found to sustain their enlistment and service. Those are big words that ring hollow.
All of which brings us back to the root cause of these shenanigans by the administration, and that is the lack of recruitment into the armed forces causing non-reaching of armed forces enlistment numbers, particularly in the Army. That is mainly due to the fact that new recruits are aware they are likely to be deployed into a war zone, either Iraq or Afghanistan. Parents, coaches and others who hold some sway with potential recruits are far less likely to recommend volunteering. The current low unemployment has much to do with the low rate since the youth of our nation have far more options to examine.
The violations utilized by recruiters are lowering the standards of our armed forces and allowing more and more undesirables and misfits into the ranks. This is creating opportunities for more disastrous occurrences throughout the world wherever our forces are deployed and billeted.
Responding to a GAO report on the matter, Defense officials wrote their belief in a possible centralized way of tracking violations so as better to prevent them. One possible way would, of course, be to tell the truth rather than spout administration propaganda. Another might be to keep their word when making promises to would-be recruits. A third must be to get Bush and Rumsfeld to alter their policies toward the world and use diplomacy rather than force except as a last, honest resort. Usurping power won't cut it, ever. Honest might.
The real problem began when the Army had difficulties meeting its recruitment goals. Allegations of violations by military recruitment personnel, already high in 2002 and 2003 reached new heights in 2004 when the number topped 4400, and then again in 2005 when 6600 cases of violations were reported, 630 of which were substantiated. During the same period, criminal violations more than doubled, from 33 to 68.
In 2006, a bill passed in both houses of Congress called the National Defense Authorization Act which gave president Bush to take control of the National Guard forces in the event of a national disaster or a threat to homeland security. The two versions were sent to a House-Senate conference committee to resolve the differences in the two plans. The one provision giving Bush power over the Guard is particularly rankling to the nation's governors who sent a sharply worded letter to the leaders of both houses protesting the provision.
The letter states: "This provision was drafted without consultation or input from governors and represents an unprecedented shift in authority from governors as commanders and chief of the Guard to the federal government."
In a rare, but very welcome sign, 51 governors, which include some from the U.S. territories, have signed on to the letter, displaying a strong bipartisan action. This is in direct opposition to activity in the past few years where moves by Bush have been rubber-stamped by his own party and underscores the ongoing question of his credibility among the nations citizens and its elected officials.
Typical of the administration's standard operating procedure, the governors first heard of the provision just two weeks ago as the Bushies attempted to conceal it until passage. The governors mounted a strong oppositional campaign to remove the offending provision last week. This is reminiscent of the recent attempt by the administration to bushwhack congress by sneaking a ports deal through where several American ports would be administered by an Arabian company.
This is not the first confrontation between the governors and the administration. Back in March of this year they were at loggerheads with Bush and the administration concerning the administration's plans to cut and reorganize National Guard forces as part of a planned pentagon shift or many military functions to the regular Army. Once again the governors were blindsided by the action.
The basic complaint and fear among the governors in their March meeting concerning the first cut was that the budget sought funding for only 333,000 Guard positions, a reduction of 17,000 in normal manpower. But numbers weren't the only concern. The governors also wanted to know the details on what functions of the Guard will be in each specific location and what equipment would be forthcoming in the budget.
At this latest meeting, Republican governor Mike Huckabee (Arkansas) called the provision one that "violates 200 years of American history." The governors see it as part of a broader effort by Bush and the administration to diminish the sovereignty of the individual states. Just another attack on the constitution and other American institutions,
Since the disclosure of Bush and Rumsfeld's plan to usurp power from the states, when pressures on the Guard have been so great in light of the aftermath of Katrina and other disasters, the governors have been stunned. One governor, Tom Vilsack of Iowa (Democrat) declared himself skeptical of the "trust me" stance of president Bush when he said to the earlier meeting, if recruitment reached the 350,000 man level, funds would be found to sustain their enlistment and service. Those are big words that ring hollow.
All of which brings us back to the root cause of these shenanigans by the administration, and that is the lack of recruitment into the armed forces causing non-reaching of armed forces enlistment numbers, particularly in the Army. That is mainly due to the fact that new recruits are aware they are likely to be deployed into a war zone, either Iraq or Afghanistan. Parents, coaches and others who hold some sway with potential recruits are far less likely to recommend volunteering. The current low unemployment has much to do with the low rate since the youth of our nation have far more options to examine.
The violations utilized by recruiters are lowering the standards of our armed forces and allowing more and more undesirables and misfits into the ranks. This is creating opportunities for more disastrous occurrences throughout the world wherever our forces are deployed and billeted.
Responding to a GAO report on the matter, Defense officials wrote their belief in a possible centralized way of tracking violations so as better to prevent them. One possible way would, of course, be to tell the truth rather than spout administration propaganda. Another might be to keep their word when making promises to would-be recruits. A third must be to get Bush and Rumsfeld to alter their policies toward the world and use diplomacy rather than force except as a last, honest resort. Usurping power won't cut it, ever. Honest might.
Print
Email
