Should Congress pass a law restricting Reserve/NG call-ups?

[JaySherman]

Should call-ups for overseas duty be limited to national emergencies and only with Congressional approval or a declaration of war? Obviously not going to happen anytime soon, but it would seem a wise course of action, given the abuses we're currently seeing. It's obvious the War Powers Act needs some serious fixing and imo this would be good start. Is this a good idea or not? Your thoughts?

[DarkPhenyx]

1. Absolutely not.

Bad idea. Bad, bad idea.

[JaySherman]

3. Why?

[DarkPhenyx]

4. Something like 1/2 our combat power...

...and 2/3 of our combat support/combat service support units are in the guard and reserve. That's just the opening complications. All of us are in fear of the draft starting. Want to make it a forgone conclusion? Once the draft starts then even a law restricting activations and deployments would be null and void.

[JaySherman]

6. But if that had been the case in 2002...

Isn't possible the IWR might never have gotten that far given the manpower limits?

My understanding of the Guard/Reserves, especially the Guard, used to be that they existed for the defense of the continental U.S. and to provide military manpower in domestic emergencies such as mass civil unrest. Obviously this isn't true. But I'm thinking maybe we should go in that direction. I think the duties of the Reserve, Guard, and full-time military should be more specifically defined so as to limit foreign imperialist ventures without comprimising national security.

But then what do I know :shrug:? I no military expert, just some liberal with a crazy idea.

[DarkPhenyx]

7. I understand the thought process...

...in the end we'd simply have a bigger standing active duty force, or a draft, or both.

[JaySherman]

8. But with the exception of Iraq...

The vast majority of our troops stationed overseas are full-time military anyway, right? So in a sense you wouldn't be limiting the overall manpower of the military to act internationally, so much as limiting the potential of situations like Iraq from occurring again.

BTW, good discussion. :cheers:

[DarkPhenyx]

9. If you restrict the guard and reserve to simply stateside defense...

then you are cutting the active duty off at the knees. They would have absolutely no backups to come and save their asses as they are getting overun on the front lines. This lack of "depth of force" would severly hinder our ability to project military power. Not just for the crap like Iraq, but for things like Haiti and other deployments that we are not adverse to.

[PsN2Wind]

2. I think Congress should have to authorize

the call-up of National Guards and Reserves from their states. Then they can go home to face their constituents and explain their decision. And also and more important is EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE TO GO ONCE BEFORE ANYONE GOES TWICE!!!!!! Then there are no "Champagne Units" such as Bush used to avoid Viet Nam.

[DarkPhenyx]

5. They already did authorize it.

They gave Bush their power in the Iraq resolution vote.

[PsN2Wind]

10. No they offered a blanket OK

I said they should have to authorize the call-up from Their states.
Roll call. Do you Rep. Kolbe vote to authorize the call-up of reserves and guards from Arizona? There is a difference.

[Frodo]

13. That confuses/crosses legislative and executive powers.

An individual Congresscritter cannot be given veto power over military callups in his/her state.

Maybe make it the Governor?

The other problem here is that "laws" have to be signed by.....somebody.... but I can't remember who.... Oh yeah! Bush!

Looks lilke that won't fly.

[PsN2Wind]

14. Well excuse me!

We certainly wouldn't want any confusion to disrupt the orderly process we currently enjoy, such as the pRez being elected by a 5 to 4 vote in SCOTUS. What could be more orderly than that.

[Frodo]

17. Don't get your panties in a wad.

I'm just pointing out that there are roles that belong with the judiciary (even when they screw them up - as you point out) and roles that are executive in nature (Mayor, Governor, President) and roles that are Legislative.

Each of these exists on multiple levels from county government to federal. You just don't go and give executive powers to a legislator - it isn't what they are elected for.

You are free to disagree, but you basically need a new Constitution if that's want to do.

What was wrong with it being a Governor?

[justsam]

11. NO! why should they

collect tax payer dollars and not have to earn it in some way, when you join the reserves and the guard, it is understood that you may not get a free ride..

[JaySherman]

12. So I guess those welfare queens...

shouldn't get a free ride from taxpaper dollars either, should they?

[skeptic9]

15. Are Guard members being forced to stay in ...

.. for periods longer than they signed up for? Have there been horror stories of people getting killed in Iraq after the hitch they signed up for already had ended? IMO those kinds of abuses definitely should be outlawed, if they aren't already.

[NuttyFluffers]

16. good idea

we as a nation never started with an established army, just mention of regulated militia. before we just had a standing navy. it was assumed if there was a national emergency we could draft up an army and use standing state militias. reason for this thinking? they were petrified of a standing army and the abuses such a machine/institution would invite. no matter the power of a navy it can't hold land, but an army can!

we were given some of the strictest restrictions on military creation and implementation comparatively during the inception of our country. we were supposed to stay out of costly war excursions. but things are noticeably different now in this century, we are actively seeking 'the bad guys.' it's like we got this amazing hammer (standing army) and everything is a nail (countries errant of our 'wishes').

it was so bad we implemented the War Powers Act to spare us the madness of easy access to war. none, remember this, none of the 'executive excursions' and 'police actions' were unmitigated successses. if we didn't outright lose physically we definitely lost diplomatically (which can seriously bite you back). we have not recently benefitted from this skirting of the powers of congress, so let them still have it? for fear of actives not having backup of the reserves? nonsense. if there's clear and present danger the congress would definitely acquiesce, it'd be a de facto condition. but if there was no clear and present danger the congress would create enough bickering, dallying, and contemplation as to make 'excursions' unprofitable.

and that's what this recommendation is about. the safety of the soldiers is already in danger, and severely, each and every time we leave things as is. that's why War Powers Act was made. they are already cut off at the knees when presidents can arbitrarily call the continuation of a war, after the heavy fighting, 'just the reconstruction phase.' we, at the domestic front, are cut off at the knees by being deprived of the reserves, who are designed not only as an emergency supply to actives, but to protect and defend domestic issues. they are here to be the emergency supply if we are ever attacked here while our main front is away. to give the president access to both (!) to toss far and wide across the planet and leave us essentially empty in our homeland is beyond irresponsible. what are we gonna defend ourselves with? police and firemen? angry homeowners? the NRA? seriously...

and that's why we need congressional enforcement of the process, to prevent the machinations of a madman to throw not only our active force, but our emergency force, and leave the homeland high and dry. no, this extension of the WPA is essential. we must insist on the supremacy of the congress to declare war. we, as a nation, didn't collapse within days in the @150 years before Korean War when we respected this check and balance. and i can assure you, with the inclusion of this into the WPA, we won't collapse either.