DoD Troop Announcements – 5 ANG Brigades in ’09

National Guard brigades alerted for deployment to Iraq in the summer of 2009:

  • 32nd Brigade Combat Team, Wisconsin National Guard
  • 41st Brigade Combat Team, Oregon National Guard
  • 155th Brigade Combat Team, Mississippi National Guard

And here are two more headed to Afghanistan:

  • 48th Brigade Combat Team, Georgia National Guard
  • 53rd Brigade Combat Team Florida National Guard

I really think that everything possible must be done to avoid deploying National Guard units any more than is absolutely necessary. I don’t agree with those that claim this is a misuse of the Guard, and in fact believe that it is exactly what the Guard is for. But continued use this way is going to hurt the organization in the long run far more than the active service.

I know that they’re working to slowly increase the end strength of the Army and Marines, but I don’t think the increases are large enough.


  1. I don’t think the increases are large enough. I don’t see a problem here. We federalize some of those NG brigades and assign them lock, stock and personnel to the regular Army. There, done the Army is up to strength; I’m a frigging genius.

  2. Yea, good idea go ahead and assign the Guard Brigades to the regular Army. That shouldn’t mess up the Guardsmans live too much, just ruin their civillian lives completly. How about actually requiring American males 18-22 to spend two years in uniform serving their country, now that’s a idea.

  3. Why inconvenience any American with such duties? I thought that’s why we had Blackwater. What is all of the sudden wrong with outsourcing the soldier’s job? What, we have to pay them too much? Isn’t that the whole point of outsourcing to Peru and other South American countries where wages are low? Plus they die and their parents don’t vote. What could be better than that?

  4. What is all of the sudden wrong with outsourcing the soldier’s job?’ Its called hiring mercenaries, and if you read a little Machiavelli, you’ll understand why its not a really desirable answer over any kind of long run. I really don’t know what all the hub-bub is about….Didn’t Slick Willie during his 8 year disarmament program assure us that America would never need a large standing army again? Or did we miss something along the line? Ah, there are times I miss the peaceful oblivion of Democratic blinders.

  5. …….Although, Dfens, I assume you were joking there, I needed to add to it ’cause some rocket scientist out there might just take you seriously.

  6. The whole point of teh defense cutbacks and realinement’s of the 90’s was to prevent or at lest discourage teh US from getting involved in any foreign adventures. The Guard and Reserves were meant to handle the burden should we ever get into a real war. This reality would encourage any sitting president from… well using teh military for a ‘Adventure’.

  7. The Dems might have cut our forces, but the Republicans came along and started pumping money into our defense budget to the point where we are now spending as much as we did during the Cold War. And what do we get for that spending? We get crappy, 30 year old weapons that are nearly piles of rust, which we are trying to replace with a handful of wildly over priced weapons that took or are taking 2 to 3 decades to develop. We rely on net-centric warfare where we subcontract our software development to the communist Chinese and we don’t understand why there’s a problem with that. The few Americans left working on our weapons are crusty old codgers with an average age of 58 and who are so damn crotchety that they chase away 80% of any college graduates within their first 2 years out of college. It’s just as well, though, because the ranks of our defense workers have dwindled to a record low number even while the bill to pay for contractors has doubled, and the USAF sees no problem with laying off soldiers so they can pay for more already long in the tooth F-22s and C-17s. Of course, why not lay them off, when you can alway back fill with more ancient contractors. Which ever treasonous bastard it is that’s done all this to us deserves to be shot.

  8. I’d like to nominate the last two presidents and congresses for the last twelve years (for the treasonous bastards part). There’s no question that the Clintonistas gutting (sometimes referred to as downsizing) the military under the guise of ‘peace dividend’ has given rise to the current scope of ‘contracting’ and gross overuse of the reserve and guard as substitute active components. Not that the Bushites helped things by invading Iraq under dubious assumptions (mostly that Saddam had WMD), and the Americans have the legs for the consequentent 25+ year occupation & cost (human & financial) of it. I take it I’m not the only person who wonders why one of the most technically advanced ountries on the planet too often takes 20+ years to develop a new weapon system? That ends up costing way more than initially funded for?

  9. The reason we take 20+ years is because we can. We can and we know you will pay for it. It has become a shameful business. Speaking of faulty intelligence, have you seen this story about the intelligence report that says the Iranians haven’t worked on an atomic bomb since 2003? Personally I’d love to see us kick their ass anyway, but given how poorly that has worked for us else where perhaps adopting a real energy policy that takes away their funding source for such stupidity would be the better option.

  10. I declined to reenlist in the NG because year and a half activations are incompatible with career and family. Occupation duty is not what the Guard was designed for and will destroy the organization if it continues long-term.

  11. Bram: Yeah, when I said that I ‘believe that it is exactly what the Guard is for’ I meant supplementing the active military when the active military needs it, not that occupation or repeated long tours is what the Guard’s for. I’ve been told that the primary purpose of the National Guard is natural disaster aid, education assistance, and career training, so that makes deployment to a combat zone something outside of what the Guard was really designed for. That’s what I was referring to. As for the year-and-a-half deployments, that’s just crazy at this point. It sounds like a plan to, as you say, ‘destroy’ the National Guard. Civies aren’t going to be too keen join up and those getting out of the active military are going to a lot more hesitant if they think there will be no change in tempo coupled with trash for equipment half the time.