Lack of State Guard in Illinois

[dogboy]

I suppose we all see what we want.  You seem to only see grade, weapons and following an agenda. Go for it, and I salute your "advanced" CAP grade whatever it is.  Good luck.

Thanks for the salute (it's a first) but I am afraid I must disagree with you fundamentally.  The purpose of critical thinking is to learn to see what is there rather than what one wants to see.

The reality is that State Defense Forces have been historic failures and they will always be failures so long as service is without pay. As I stated, being a soldier is a dirty, nasty job. Virtually no one would be a private without pay. A colonel maybe, even a major, but not a private or a corporal. However, an army without privates and corporals is a parody of an army.

As I wrote, at rare moments when the public perceives that there in an imminent threat, such as in 1940 in Britain and for the US when it entered WW I and WW II, and even immediately after 9/11, there will be volunteers. Otherwise, not. Why should anyone join a SDF to be a private without pay, when he could join the National Guard or the Reserves with pay?

Of course, the last thing I would want to do is impune the patriotism or service of anyone in a SDF.  At the same time, the harsh reality of the failure  of SDFs must be confronted.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Dogboy:

Most SDF's are authorized at this time only as "Cadre" units.  In other words, they recruit leaders, and intend to fill out the junior ranks in an emergency.  Any privates are in training to become corporals, then sergeants, etc. 

Also, the SDF's do not have to train for the entire spectrum of combat.  Their mission is to provide a National Guard to the governor when the real National Guard is working for the President.  The worst mission they are likely to be assigned is to prevent looting in a natural disaster.  Unless al Qaeda develops some serious airborne and amphibious capability all of a sudden.

When I commanded an SDF battalion, I had what amounted to an understrength company in terms of numbers, but a battalion headquarters and two companies fully staffed with leadership  personnel and a few soldiers below SSG.  Yes, you might see a SSG or SFC on gate guard duty at an ANG base, but that's the nature of the beast.  As we have learned in Iraq, it is fairly easy to train a basic soldier, but training a battalion or brigade commander takes a lot more time.  (In my case, a lifetime, but I'm a slow learner.)

We were armed with .38 revolvers and 12-guage riot shotguns, and requalified annually.

[gallagheria]

I guess the same reason someone volunteers with CAP for no pay.

The modern SDF's have been around since the National Guard was federalized in 1933. So now you have the state militias (Army National Guard, Air National Guard, and State Defense Force) which are covered under Title 32 of the USC, as well as the federal components (Regular Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard of the United States). The laws treat SDF's and ANG's and ARNG's no differently. Federal law merely requires that National Guard soldiers take dual enlistments/commissions; hence activation is possible under Title 10 for NG soldiers (and in some cases even for SDF soldiers--see the Militia Laws). If you want a more detailed explanation, read Perpich v. DoD. The Supreme Court gave a great analysis of the current scheme, including the SDF's.

With today's National Guard units over 90% funded by the federal government, and federal activation under Title 10 extremely easy, the states have few resources in cases of natural disaster and unexpected events. SDF's are a vital role there, especially in professional services such as medical corps, JAG corps, and chaplain corps. 

As for pay, that is a good point. Although the far majority of people join the military not out of patriotism (no matter what you hear--the reality is they don't want to flip burgers), there are some who do join out of desire to serve their country. Same with the SDF's (as well as CAP). Many are retired military, have a minor medical disqualification from joining, or have civilian jobs already that they do not want to leave.

Not everyone in the military can go to war. Both law and regulation prevent certain military jobs or personnel from being deployed. So your argument about actually being armed holds no ground. As for SDF's not being armed (the far majority), that is true. Regulations come and go with both different commanders and TAG officers. Policies change. I don't know of a single law that forbids it; in fact, every state I know actually authorizes it by law--merely policy/regulation prevents it. Same instance with NG soldiers who are activated under SAD rather than Title 10 or Title 32. Why? Because soldiers activated under SAD are not covered by federal protection such as USERRA and the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act. So it is not too different.

[RiverAux]

In the CASMR I see an organization that does much more to support its parent organization than CAP has ever done to really support the AF.  It does not pretend to be some sort of combat organization and in fact has done more to move away from that than any other SDF.  Primarily because they realized that it wasn't necessary and analyzed exactly what sort of help the CA NG needed and reorganized to provide it.   

Yes, they and almost every SDF is very top heavy.  I myself have made massive fun of some SDFs, including CA for having organized on the assumption that at some point they will receive a massive influx of volunteers -- hence most SDFs have organized as multiple brigades or regiments with only 5-10% of the troops needed.  In some states their state laws more or less require such cadre-style organizations.  I myself have advocated reorganizing most of them as a single battalion with a headquarters staff company with most local units being organized as platoons.  A few SDFS are large enough for two battalions so a brigade structure wouldn't be out of line, but most are nowhere near close.