MSNBC reported that after several natural disasters (tornadoes in Kansas, fires in California), the National Guard has been unable to provide rescue/relief services because of the war in Iraq. We've sent so many troops, and so much equipment overseas, we're unable to take care of our own now.For example. the Kansas National Guard has 1/3 of its vehicles in Iraq. Making matters worse, current estimates project we will be unable to bring any of the equipment back, due to lack of funds. We'll have to leave it in the hands of "allies" or just destroy it.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for pulling out of Iraq. It doesn't make any sense for us to be there in the first place. But I'm starting to wonder if we're in over our head... and just how high the water is rising.
2 comments:
If that's what MSNBC reported, they got it wrong.
There's never been any guarantee that any one state would be able to handle all it's problems internally, which is why there are agreements in place for states to help each other, help that has not been asked for and does nto appear to be needed.
There may be 1/3 of Guard vehicles form Kansas overseas, but are they vehicles that are needed for this? Is 66% remining not enough? Let's look.
Right now, there are ~500 KS guardsmen deployed (and several of those are deployed for schools and other TDY missions and not overseas).
So far Kansas has tapped only 566 Guardsmen for disaster response. 6,800 more wait inthe winds to go if called. 80,000 from other states can also be called on.
The Kansas Guard has, on hand, 352 Humvees, 94 Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Trucks, 24 medium and light tactical vehicles, 152 2.5-ton cargo trucks, 76 series 5-ton trucks, 13 M916 tractors, 870 trailers, 52 Heavy Equipment Transport Systems, and 30 Palletized Load System Trucks. That's a lot more than 566 can effectively drive and operate at once. National Guard Bureau also indicates that Kansas actually has more of some of these than are on their current allocations.
Kansas is short of helicopters and so 6 have been loaned from other states, just as the system is intended to work.
Actually, my point was that we really didn't think this through.
And MSNBC got it right: California had to borrow trucks from Oregon to help fight fires. While I appreciate your viewpoint, and right to share it... you might want to read my posts a little better. I mentioned more than Kansas in the MSNBC report. And while the stats from Kansas you offer may be accurate, it is not your place, but the officials who were interviewed by MSNBC, to decide who many Humvees, etc. they need in a time of disaster.
And furthermore, no agreements exist between states for this situation – that was the whole starting point of this report on MSNBC. The federal government has to approve any such requests, but Bush says the state is fine on its own.
And finally, I'm not sure where you got your stats from, but if the state in question (Kansas or California) feels it cannot meet the needs of a disaster, it is usually out of need, and not party-alliances. To suggest that a state in a state of emergency is "fine" based just on numbers, and not the first-hand assesments of those IN the state (you being TX, for example) is just plain wrong. But thanks for stopping by!
Post a Comment