Veteran’s Day 2008
(VFA) is greatly concerned that between now and the end of President George W. Bush’s
term in office on January 20, 2009, almost half of the Soldiers who are scheduled to deploy to
Iraq and Afghanistan – totaling almost 20,000 troops – will come from the National Guard.
Nearly half of the Army National Guard Brigade Combat Teams (BCT’s) deploying to
Iraq and Afghanistan in this timeframe will be on their second tour. A recent Veterans for
America (VFA) study found that a very high percentage of Guard members in units on their first
deployment will be on their second or greater deployment. More than 50% of members of the
Washington National Guard have been deployed before, as has more than 30% of the New Jersey
Guard.
To put the deployments of the National Guard in historical context, at least 35 states have
deployed more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan than to any war since World War II. In all, as of
March 31, 2008, more than 267,399 members of the National Guard have been deployed since
September 11, 2001, and, as of that date, 32,871 National Guard troops were deployed to Iraq
and Afghanistan.
Traditionally, Guard leaders have aimed to give their troops five times as much time at home
as deployed. None of the three Army National Guard Brigade Combat Teams scheduled to
deploy for a second time later this year will have had five years at home between deployments.
This is because then secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld signed a Department of Defense
policy that changed the reserves six year deployment cycle to three years. In the case of my
current unit, the 81st Brigade Combat team, our first inklings of an alert to deploy circulated
shortly after our three year hiatus. This means that many Soldiers who are soon to deploy will
have had insufficient time at home to rest, recuperate, and integrate new members. In addition, as
numerous Army studies have demonstrated, multiple deployments with inadequate time at home
have severe post-combat psychological consequences.
Last year, the Department of Defense found that members of the National Guard who had
been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan were 25% more likely to have suffered a combat-related
psychological wound than members of the active-duty Army who have been deployed. Within
the past two weeks, an Army history of the Iraq war found that “the price paid by reservists and
communities to sustain long and repetitive mobilizations…may not be sustainable in the future.”
The dual threat environments of Iraq and Afghanistan have placed members of the National
Guard in harm’s way to a degree never expected – with some devastating consequences.
The effect of Guard deployments on communities is also considerable. Many communities
are forced to devote additional resources to police and fire services to compensate for Guard
deployments. Emergency responders not deployed, in turn, often work overtime, which places an
additional burden on the fiscal resources of cities and towns. The absence of fire and police
personnel also strains some smaller forces to the point of reducing their effectiveness as first
responders.
As the recent flooding in the Northwest demonstrates, the presence (or absence) of adequate
number of National Guard members can be of considerable benefit to local communities, states,
and regions. On the other hand, when National Guards are understaffed, disaster response can be
hobbles, as partly demonstrated by the inadequate response to the destruction of Hurricane
Katrina.
Large-scale deployment of members of the National Guard also strains the ability of states to
respond to other contingencies. Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported
that Federal authorities continue to coordinate inadequately with state Adjutant Generals in the
development of homeland defense, homeland security, and civil response plans.
Frank Selden Page 1
Veteran’s Day 2008
VFA is greatly concerned that such inadequacies, combined with the deployment of large
numbers of troops from neighboring states (for instance, both New Jersey and Pennsylvania are
soon to deploy a large percentage of their National Guards), could have catastrophic effects in
the event of regional contingencies.
Discussions of National Guard and Reserve discussions coming out of the recently reveal
considering short but more frequent reservist tours as a way to cut costs in the active duty
military budget. A projected strength of 1.4 million reservists in the proposed plan would allow a
scale-back to 1.2 million active duty personnel. While this idea will save money for the
Department of Defense it does so at the expense of costs to our families, employers,
communities and states.
For example, under the USERRA regulations civilian employers must rehire deployed
soldiers at the same pay, benefit and seniority rate the soldier would have had at that time if they
had not deployed. The regulations include some exceptions and conditions to further protect both
the employer and employee. While this legislation sounds like a good in theory the costs to
private practice will reduce the ability of national and reserve soldiers to find civilian
employment. One employer, Conway Freight, estimated that their willingness to hire National
Guard and reserves soldiers costs their company an extra $400,000 - $500,000 annually. Other
employers just quietly find reasons not to hire reservists.
I would like to propose to the incoming Obama administration the following policy changes.
First, if the federal government needs to pick up the cost of its decisions and their repercussions.
I want that to start with our oldest veterans. The recruitment and retention money available to
current armed forces is staggering compared to previous campaigns. Yet, while I frequented the
Veteran’s Administration hospital in Seattle for injuries from my last deployment I met may
veterans of previous wars who lack the same access to health and mental health care for combat
related injuries. I am more than willing to forgo some of our bonuses and benefits if it means
veterans of previous generations will be taken care of as they deserve.
Second we need to reign in our pre-emptive strike policy. Our Armed Forces worked
miracles in Iraq against centuries-old obstacles. While most if not all Americans support our
troops many feel lied to about the reliability and implications of the intelligence used to build the
case for invading Iraq. Our government used a tragedy of outlandish proportions to justify an
unnecessary war. Yes, Iraq will be better off than under Saddam. Yes, we rid the world of a
brutal dictator. Yes, he used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. However, if
that was the criteria for whether to invade a country we should not stop at Iraq. This policy needs
to end even if it means reducing the President’s ability as Commander in Chief to launch a
military campaign.
Finally I hope the Obama administration considers ending using the global war on terrorism
(GWOT) as a justification to conduct military actions across international borders (such as
recently happened in Syria and Pakistan) without that country’s awareness if not consent. The
United States was furious at Great Britain when a small British element crossed our border
during a Canadian rebellion and sunk an American vessel that was supplying Canadian
revolutionaries. Out of that engagement we developed principles of sovereignty that we
ourselves are now disregarding. Winning the GWOT requires both military and diplomatic
strategies. Killing a terrorist across international borders has political implications that may be
far more important than the current military necessity. We need to add a diplomatic decision
making process to such military decisions.
Frank Selden Page 2
Veteran’s Day 2008
It is my hope that in the future that the United States of America will not need as many
people to become veterans as we do now. I also hope that when our country does ask people to
take such a stand that we will support them fully, to include what happens to them as a result of
their service.
Frank Selden Page 3