Lack of State Guard in Illinois

[SARMedTech]

I know this is the CAP forum but I have seen that there are some people who are interested and/or are members of their states State Guard. When I learned about the State Guard recently, I become very excited about the possibility of joining. Then I was crestfallen to learn that my home state of Illinois does not have a State Guard. Can anyone who is active in the SG in their State advise whether it is possible to start a SG in a state that doesnt have one, how one might go about it, etc? Do those of you who know think it might be possible to speak the Commander of the Illinois National Guard about starting a SG in Illinois. Obviously, if there are units in 22 states and Puerto Rico, someone started them at some point. Does it take an act of Congress or State Legislature, etc or can an interested individual begin the process in conjunction with their home states NG.  Any and all information I could get would be appreciated. As I say I was very dissapointed to find that Illinois has no SG...though I find mention of it in IL legislature documents and the like.  Not thinking that you obviously have to be a resident of the state in which you serve in the State Guard, I even looked at joining in neighboring Wisconsin, but alas, they are another state that does not have a SG. It seems like this could be a vital asset for Illinois and I am not sure why they dont have one, and I wonder if I would just be butting up against a brick wall to try to get one started.  Thanks for all your help in advance.

[JohnKachenmeister]

State Guard forces were authorized by (I think) the Militia Act of 1916, with the purpose of giving the Governor of a state a military force for emergencies in the event the National Guard were called into Federal service.  They were authorized, but not required.

It is a political decision as to whether or not to have a state guard force, ultimately the Governor must authorize it and the Legislature must fund it.

You would, as a first step, need to determine if there is a law authorizing a non-federal NG force in Illinois.  Then you, and a million or so others, need to lobby the governor and lawmakers to create, man, and fund a force of non-federal Guardsmen.

Some states are very active, notably Texas, other states that have a state guard only fund it to a cadre level, keeping units active with leadership personnel, and planning to fill the state guard out with troops brought in if an emergency arises.

Many states cut or eliminated the state guard forces after World War II when it became unlikely that there would ever be a full, total, and long-term mobilization of the National Guard again.

[ColonelJack]

Many states cut or eliminated the state guard forces after World War II when it became unlikely that there would ever be a full, total, and long-term mobilization of the National Guard again.

They obviously didn't foresee our current political leadership and the apparently never-ending war it seeks.

Jack

[RiverAux]

The Governor of Illinois signed an Executive order reactivating the Illinois Naval Militia last year but no action has been taken to follow through on this that I have been able to find. 

About half the states have State Defense Forces right now.  California and Texas seem to have the most active and progressive programs.  Texas has a very active air component to its SDF that focuses entirely on providing support to the Texas Air National Guard. 

For more discussion I would recommend the SDF board at VA Joe http://www.vajoe.com/board/viewforum.php?id=30 which is pretty active. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Many states cut or eliminated the state guard forces after World War II when it became unlikely that there would ever be a full, total, and long-term mobilization of the National Guard again.

They obviously didn't foresee our current political leadership and the apparently never-ending war it seeks.

Jack

Even though we are in a long-term action, Jack, our level of mobilization intensity is rather low.  I don't think ANY state has had all of its National Guard mobilized at any one time.  That was, however, the case in World War II.

Florida considered re-activating its state guard, but rejected the proposal as too costly, given the fact that Florida has one of the larger NG organizations, and no current scenarios involving full federalization of the FLNG could be envisioned.

[RiverAux]

The more successful SDFs are focusing on augmenting NG units while they are here in the states focusing on aspects of the NG mission for which they lack personnel or time to train.  The SDFs that are still trying to operate as independent forces in anticipation of taking over for the NG are doing quite poorly. 

[SARMedTech]

The more successful SDFs are focusing on augmenting NG units while they are here in the states focusing on aspects of the NG mission for which they lack personnel or time to train.  The SDFs that are still trying to operate as independent forces in anticipation of taking over for the NG are doing quite poorly. 

Arguably, the most active SG in the country is in Texas. Reading articles about them recently has shown me how much they are actually taking over certain duties of the Texas National Guard while they are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The SG (also often called SDF or State Defense Forces) have medical, military police, engineering, and supply units, just to name a few. I don't believe that any SDF is anticipating taking over entirely and permanently the duties performed by any State's National Guard. However, one thing that is interesting to note, is that with the over extension of NG troops in the Middle East, a recent report shows that of the 42 (I think that was the number) divisions in the Army, the DOD recently classified a full 2/3 of them as being "unsuitable and incapable" if for needed immediate deployment due to resources and supplies that have been damaged or just plain abandoned in Iraq. Further, the same report indicates 88% of the  National Guard units from the Gulf Coast states of Louisiana and Mississippi would be "undeployable" in the event of another natural disaster like Katrina due to their overuse in the Iraqi conflict, the fact that the bulk of their supplies and weapons have been sent to Iraq, rendered unsurvivable by action and that the bulk of their National Guard troops are either already deployed in the Iraq conflict or have been killed or medically discharged due to wounds received in action there. We don't need to worry about the State Guards of various states trying to take over the duties of the NG (I don't see them staging coups any time soon) but what we do need to worry about is establishing more units of the SG or SDF around the country (only 22 states have SG units) so that while the Iraqi conflict continues they can assume the duties of their states NG. It is projected that by the time all NG troops are pulled out of Iraq, they will be so decimated that it will devastate the numbers in the ranks of the NG in all 50 states. We need the SG and we need them badly.

A point to be taken from all of this is that the mostly tongue in cheek talk on this forum about arming CAP Squadrons, extending their DR capabilities and finding ways to associate them operationally with ANG units is perhaps not all that unreasonable. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. What if CAP squadrons and Wings could be organized along the lines of the SG? What if they were armed and had medical, supply and other specialized units? Knowing what I know about many of the folks in CAP, they would be willing to drill one weekend a month and be more than happy to utilize their private weapons in a military scenario. Perhaps this is our 21st century vision. What would happen if CAP were "de-privatized" and placed under the auspices of the AF or ANG full time. It seems to me like a natural evolution and one that is becoming more necessary all the time.

I know that there are those among us (you know who you are) who will say this could never be done, wont work, CAP is private, etc. But before you do, why don't you think about it. If your state has a SG contingent, take a look at how its organized, using Army surplus and private weapons and see if, with creative imagination and hard work, if these principals could not be applied to CAP to make it a sleeker, more agile and more effective asset to the United States military. After all, just as we do, the State Guards work with the Red Cross, etc, the only difference is that they are allowed to carry out missions which cause them to be armed.  For those of you who are wholesale fans of the second amendment, think about this: the Amendment was meant to allow private citizens to bear arms for the express purpose of maintain a "well-regulated militia." I am all for the 2nd Amendment because I myself shoot competitively and own firearms for personal protection, but maybe next time we hear the NRA (yes I am a card carrier) quote "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" lets stop and think about that whole amendment in context and not just the part that gives us the right to own guns. The US or state government is not just going to go around rounding up whoever has a gun to defend itself, but it will use "well-regulated" militias. Call your Congressmen and see if we cant get more than 22 states to have militias.  (Prepares flame suit)

[RiverAux]

Texas is a little bit of a mix between the traditional and progressive SDFs and would definetely be in the top group of SDFs.  It has basically become the go-to group when emergency shelters need to be set up and has taken that over from the NG but at the same time does do a lot of NG augmentation.   

The report you referenced very likely focused on Army brigades, not divisions. 

[SARMedTech]

Texas is a little bit of a mix between the traditional and progressive SDFs and would definetely be in the top group of SDFs.  It has basically become the go-to group when emergency shelters need to be set up and has taken that over from the NG but at the same time does do a lot of NG augmentation.   

The report you referenced very likely focused on Army brigades, not divisions. 

Yes youre right..it was brigades. Thanks for the correction. Unfortunately, not being former military, I dont know a brigade from a whole in the ground. Thanks again...I guess I cant even claim that fubar was a typo. 

[dogboy]

California and Texas seem to have the most active and progressive programs. 

The California state guard (the State Military Reserve) is primarily a means by which politicians in California are rewarded for budgeting for the California National Guard. Almost every hack politician who wants to be is commissioned as a Lt Colonel (at least) whether they have any military experience or not.

Of course, the CAP legislative squadrons do exactly the same thing.

[PA Guy]

California and Texas seem to have the most active and progressive programs. 

The California state guard (the State Military Reserve) is primarily a means by which politicians in California are rewarded for budgeting for the California National Guard. Almost every hack politician who wants to be is commissioned as a Lt Colonel (at least) whether they have any military experience or not.

Of course, the CAP legislative squadrons do exactly the same thing.

Twentyfive yrs ago I wouldn't have given you much of an argument over your comment about the CA SMR.  However, now I suggest you take a look at their website http://www.calguard.ca.gov/casmr/ and read the profiles of the senior leadership.  Also note the things they have been doing in support of the CA Natl. Guard.  The organization has changed dramatically in the past 6 yrs.  The deadwood has been culled from the membership, approx. 600 members now as compared to 1500+ 10 yrs ago and requirements and standards have greatly improved.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Political appointees simply held commissions, not command.  Just so they can run around and call themselves "Colonel."  Sort of like Colonel Sanders or a Nebraska Admiral.

[gallagheria]

It is not a question of legislative action, but action by the governor. Every state I know of has laws authorizing a state defense force (the federal term under 32 USC 109). Only about half the states actually have one though. There are several sites you can visit dealing with SDF's.

In Illinois, here is a link to your state laws that already authorize your SDF: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=317&ChapAct=20%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B1815%2F&ChapterID=5&ChapterName=EXECUTIVE+BRANCH&ActName=State+Guard+Act%2E . All you would need to do is get approval from your TAG and of course the governor for the unit to be established. Do NOT try to form the unit yourself. Lobby for it and volunteer, but don't try to do what people in DC, Florida, and Colorado have done--form "provisional" ones. That will look bad and will not in any effect be legal. Good luck.

[RiverAux]

The CA SMR is probably the leading SDF in the country and I've certainly never heard of any political appointments there in recent years.  They regularly have paid state active duty and the CA NG actually has a job announcement out right now for a paid recruiter for the CA SMR. 

[Major Carrales]

The California state guard (the State Military Reserve) is primarily a means by which politicians in California are rewarded for budgeting for the California National Guard. Almost every hack politician who wants to be is commissioned as a Lt Colonel (at least) whether they have any military experience or not.

Of course, the CAP legislative squadrons do exactly the same thing.

That sounds like a 19th Century practice.  Even in today's world, honorary rank is thus exploited.

I think that is disgusting. 

[RiverAux]

There may be some remants of this practice in the NY Guard (their SDF) or at least this was alleged in a recent newspaper article.  This was discussed over on one of the SDF boards and I think the consensus was that it might not be totally inaccurate.  However, this was a very biased article that totally ignored some of the great things the NY Guard is doing -- they've taken on major parts of the NY NG's chemical response mission.   

[gallagheria]

Well, under federal law honorary titles are not allowed, even in the SDF. Political appointees, on the other hand, occur. Look at the Pentagon. Once you get up past BG, trust me, you are a political appointee and are actually confirmed by the Senate, not just "confirmed" as a whole like most officers. Look at the TAG officers and higher ups in the military dept.'s of every state--every single one (except SC) is APPOINTED by the governor.

Here in Georgia, our wing commander is also a higher up in the SDF. I don't think that is a coincidence.

[RiverAux]

I don't know about not being able to give honorary titles, especially within the context of the state militia system.  Several states still follow that time-honored practice of appointing people as Colonels on the Governor's military staff.  Hopefully this would be kept separate from any organized SDF system. 

[Major Carrales]

Starting as SDF would require monumental effort.

1) Convinve the Governor to appoint such a thing
2) get the Legislature to fund it (unless it is memebr funded...these a good one)
3) Secure membership
4) Build validity

I'd kind of like to see it happen...that would make SARMedTech the Father of said organization.  I could say I knew him when!!! 

[SARMedTech]

Starting as SDF would require monumental effort.

1) Convinve the Governor to appoint such a thing
2) get the Legislature to fund it (unless it is memebr funded...these a good one)
3) Secure membership
4) Build validity

I'd kind of like to see it happen...that would make SARMedTech the Father of said organization.  I could say I knew him when!!! 

Thank you for the compliment. As many people as I tick off on a daily basis on these forums, I would probably get fragged inside a month.

[gallagheria]

I don't know about not being able to give honorary titles, especially within the context of the state militia system.  Several states still follow that time-honored practice of appointing people as Colonels on the Governor's military staff.  Hopefully this would be kept separate from any organized SDF system. 

They are actually given that rank. It is not honorary. For instance, under federal law, all TAG's are federally recognized--even if they are not in the military. It is up to each state to set the criteria for becoming TAG. Here in Georgia, the only requirement is 5 years minimum service in the GaANG, GaARNG, or GaSDF, and the attainment of rank of major (or higher). Once appointed TAG, you are automatically promoted to major general.

Remember, even National Guard soldiers have "dual" ranks. You are commissioned by both the state and the federal government. LTG Poythress is a good example. His federal grade in the Georgia Air National Guard is major general, but his state grade is lieutenant general.

As for states that you always hear about that give honorary titles (most notably Kentucky), that his officially done through societies, not actually through the states.

[RiverAux]

Uh, wasn't talking about TAGs, but Kentucky Colonels and Nebraska Admirals.... they may be "real" ranks, but since no duties are actually assigned to them it would be hard to say that they weren't honorary only.

[SARMedTech]

Kind of like Vice President of the United States.

[RiverAux]

Ah, you forget that this is now its own branch of government!

[SARMedTech]

Ah, you forget that this is now its own branch of government!

No i didnt. Just saying that you had talked about titles with no job attached to them and the VP came to mind. I frankly was a little nervous for 2 hours and 17 minutes this morning when Cheney had the launch codes.

[RiverAux]

Ah, you forget that he is President of the Senate!  There actually is a job there to do and I think he actually has had to cast a few votes. 

[SARMedTech]

No...you assumed I forgot his Constitutional duty as President of the Senate. However its still not really a responsibility because he goes up to the hill and votes the way the President tells him to. He's a high price lap dog.

[RogueLeader]

No...you assumed I forgot his Constitutional duty as President of the Senate. However its still not really a responsibility because he goes up to the hill and votes the way the President tells him to. He's a high price lap dog.

Thats a far cry from before-not from you though- that President Bush was HIS high priced lap dog.  Boy, how the times change.

[SARMedTech]

No...you assumed I forgot his Constitutional duty as President of the Senate. However its still not really a responsibility because he goes up to the hill and votes the way the President tells him to. He's a high price lap dog.

Thats a far cry from before-not from you though- that President Bush was HIS high priced lap dog.  Boy, how the times change.

LT-

I love the fact that you always go the extra mile and say the thing that I am thinking....I dont know, it just made me nervous thinking of him with the nuclear football today. I just imagined him on board Marine One, giggling all the way to NORAD. Alot can happen in two hours....You he was thinking....[darnit]...Ill fix this Iraq thing for good. And Afghanistan, too if 'W" is under long enough.

[JohnKachenmeister]

A local radio station had a call-in contest to say whay you would do if you were acting president for a day, like Cheney.  I got a $25 gift certificate to Coconuts Restaurant with mine:

"Call up Monica Lewinski and ask her if she wants her old job back."

[aveighter]

I love the fact that you always go the extra mile and say the thing that I am thinking....I dont know, it just made me nervous thinking of him with the nuclear football today. I just imagined him on board Marine One, giggling all the way to NORAD. Alot can happen in two hours....You he was thinking....[darnit]...Ill fix this Iraq thing for good. And Afghanistan, too if 'W" is under long enough.

And your problems with the Vice President are precisely, what?

[PWK-GT]

As someone who was actively involved with trying to re-start the Illinois Reserve Militia (what the Ill SG was traditionally called when active thru about 1948) I can say one thing largely led to the efforts being put on stand-by: The AG office in ILL has a long history of saying NOPE to this idea. It was stated to me that if they say they can't do the job by themselves, then that makes them look inefficient. Typical Land Of Lincoln BS.......justifying your own existence at the cost of funding dollars. Look at how the ARNG treats CAP units in-state: Paying premium for work space, and almost no support (there are few exceptions I know of). And guess how they would treat an agency that would be modeled more after themselves-- and a more direct threat to their livelihood. Regardless of how other states have instituted their own SG units. It's hard to work with closed minds. There was always my hope of 'new staff, new opportunities' regarding TAG here, but the situation never seemed to improve with those slot changes.

However, if you are truly determined, PM me and I can fill you in on some things where they last left off about 8 years ago. I also have some volumes related to the efforts that I would send to you (you pay the shipping) to get you started. Statutes, proposed TOE, charter info, etc. It's just collecting dust now.....

I have to mention in all honesty, that I am no longer an advocate for the IRM in Illinois. In some areas of proposed responsibility, I see CAP able to fill a void (based on situations like IAWG) and figure it is much better to work with the system we have-- rather than try the Herculian effort again to start yet another agency in Illinois.
YMMV....best of luck.

[dogboy]

I've certainly never heard of any political appointments there in recent years. 

http://antonovich.co.la.ca.us/LtCol%20Antonovich/index.htm

Prior service: Army Reserve when 18. No active service apparent.

[dogboy]

I've certainly never heard of any political appointments there in recent years.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Way_of_Plean

[dogboy]

I've certainly never heard of any political appointments there in recent years.   

Ten minutes on the web found:

Celes King III

http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=hb9z09p6tg&doc.view=frames&chunk.id=div00009&toc.depth=1&toc.id=div00004&brand=oac

Gil Coerper

http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ca/or/vote/coerper_g/bio.html

Hon. Irving S. Feffer

http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2457982_1?noconfirm=0&channel=CCC

James W. Goddard

http://www.seekingthelost.org/about.html

Johnny Grant
Ceremonial
Mayor of Hollywood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Grant

If I were in California, I sure would feel safe with Major General Johnny Grant, CSMR (Ret) protecting me. One thing I can't understand: how can it be a State Military Reserve when they're not allowed to have weapons?

[RiverAux]

Dogboy, the only one of those that actually mention "honorary" is the guy from Scotland.  Based on what was on the web, how do you know the others actually hadn't worked their way up to those ranks? Several of them mentioned being in the organization for quite a few years. 

[PA Guy]

I've certainly never heard of any political appointments there in recent years.   

Ten minutes on the web found:

Celes King III

http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=hb9z09p6tg&doc.view=frames&chunk.id=div00009&toc.depth=1&toc.id=div00004&brand=oac

Gil Coerper

http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ca/or/vote/coerper_g/bio.html

Hon. Irving S. Feffer

http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2457982_1?noconfirm=0&channel=CCC

James W. Goddard

http://www.seekingthelost.org/about.html

Johnny Grant
Ceremonial
Mayor of Hollywood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Grant

If I were in California, I sure would feel safe with Major General Johnny Grant, CSMR (Ret) protecting me. One thing I can't understand: how can it be a State Military Reserve when they're not allowed to have weapons?

If you had dug a little deeper in your research you would have found that the examples you gave were from the early '80s and '90s.  These people are no longer in CSMR.  Johnny Grant, also retired, was involved in CSMR in WW II and later.  Mike Antonovich, an LA County supervisor,  was a political appointment several yrs ago.  There is no doubt that at times some appointments in CSMR were political in nature.  However, a political appointment today would be very rare.

The CSMR is not an armed force per se and is not meant to be.  The CSMRs main function is to support the CA Natl. Guard.  That is not to say that they are not "allowed" to have weapons, as evidenced by the CSMR Small Arms Training Team and the CSMR personnel now serving on paid State Active Duty as armed guards. Is there a cite for CMSR not being "allowed" to be armed?

A look at the CSMR website, http://www.calguard.ca.gov/casmr/ , gives a good overview of CSMR and the activities and benefits available in CSMR.  A look at the senior leadership bios is also worth a look.

[dogboy]

Dogboy, the only one of those that actually mention "honorary" is the guy from Scotland.  Based on what was on the web, how do you know the others actually hadn't worked their way up to those ranks? Several of them mentioned being in the organization for quite a few years. 

The Scot is the only one being honest. The rest are political appointments. Yes, Major General Johnny Grant was in the SMR for several years. His biography is readily available on the web. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Grant  There's nothing to justify his appointment MG except maybe his two Emmys.

[dogboy]

Mike Antonovich, an LA County supervisor,  was a political appointment several yrs ago. 

Four years ago exactly. Here's CSMR pages showing him off http://www.calguard.ca.gov/casmr/moenhonored.htm http://www.calguard.ca.gov/casmr/asaward.htm I guess the CSMR isn't ashamed of its "political appointments"

There is no doubt that at times some appointments in CSMR were political in nature.  However, a political appointment today would be very rare.

Why don't you provide a list of CSMR Colonels and Lt Cols so we can see how many are political appointments?

The CSMR is not an armed force per se and is not meant to be.  The CSMRs main function is to support the CA Natl. Guard.  That is not to say that they are not "allowed" to have weapons, as evidenced by the CSMR Small Arms Training Team and the CSMR personnel now serving on paid State Active Duty as armed guards. Is there a cite for CMSR not being "allowed" to be armed?

I looked carefully through the website you suggested and I saw no evidence of even the use of small arms. There were lots of misleading photographs like http://www.calguard.ca.gov/casmr/40thvisit06.htm that implies the helicopters shown belong to the CSMR

I  did find CSMR with M-16s but they had blank firing adapters portraying untrained insurgents in an exercise with the NG. The fact that ""We wanted the soldiers who may not have had previous combat training to understand the basics..."  indicates the skill level of the CSMR. They might as well have collected teenagers at random from a shopping mall apparently. http://www.calguard.ca.gov/casmr/opfor1.htm

CSMR Small Arms Training Team as the name implies, this unit trains others to use small arms so far as I can tell it is not authorized to use arms operationally themselves.

CSMR personnel now serving on paid State Active Duty as armed guards.
Basically, it's a cheap way to provide security, since only E-3 to E-6 are eligible. While SMR personnel are eligible, no reference I've seen indicates that any are actually doing this. There don't seem to be many E-3 to E-6s in the SMR; almost everyone is an officer, warrant officer, or CSM. http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/dherz/Police%20Reserve%20Trainee.pdf

There is a new program to develop 120 reserve Military Police in the SMR. They will be armed. As a former law enforcement officer myself, I don't have a lot of faith in MPs trained only one day a month http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/dherz/Police%20Reserve%20Trainee.pdf
Frankly, I don't think MPs with so little training and experience should be armed. If their training is not very significantly increased, I predict any deployment will be a disaster. If they are used simply as static security guards, which is my suspicion, they might do alright. The training for a California "armed security guard" card is only 40 hours with an open book test. http://targetmasterswest.com/_wsn/page5.html

The CSMR are not banned by law from the use of firearms but as a practical matter, most receive no training in their use and members are not issued firearms. Here's the schedule for the Annual Training 2007 http://www.calguard.ca.gov/casmr/pdf/ATDAILYSCHEDULECOURSELIST4.pdf
There's no firearms training AT ALL.

  A look at the senior leadership bios is also worth a look.

What strikes me right off is how inflated is the number of senior officers. The CSMR has about 500-750 personnel (sources vary). Even the larger number is smaller than an Army battalion that would be commanded by ONE lieutenant colonel, two or three majors and captains and six or seven lieutenants.

The CSMR website shows one BG, 16 Colonels, a LTC, a Major, CWO, and CSM, and that seems to be only the HQ Detachment command and staff.

According to http://www.calguard.ca.gov/casmr/unitcontacts.htm there are about 16 CSMR units in addition to HQ. Assuming 500 CSMR personnel (many of them, like LTC Antonovich, not active) that averages out to about 31 personnel per unit, smaller than a platoon, yet most are "commanded" by a Colonel, LTC or Major.

For example, the 100th Troop Command Support Brigade was able to field 25 soldiers out of 34 TOTAL for a field training exercise. These 34 are commanded by a bird colonel. http://www.calguard.ca.gov/casmr/opfor1.htm

BTW, many of the units are termed "brigades" which would justify their commander being a bird colonel. However, in the US Army, a brigade is at a minimum 2 battalions and frequently 4. Yet we have seen that the whole CSMR is smaller than a single battalion.

Here's a summary of my opinion of the CSMR and other SDFs. I've been a Marine and I know being a soldier is dirty, nasty, and dangerous.

The whole concept of State Defense Forces are a failure because except for brief periods when there is a general belief that our country is truly in imminent danger, very, very few Americans will choose to be soldiers for free.

Many who join a SDF, no doubt, are motivated by patriotism. Perhaps also by the fact that they get to be Colonels and Majors even if there are virtually no enlisted personnel to command.

Of course, some of the above can be said about the CAP. We're all "officers" whether we deserve to be or not.  Most of us Majors at least.

However, no one above the age 18 pretends that the CAP is a military organization (In spite of my advanced rank, I have never been saluted by another Senior member, nor would I expect to be. I do salute others but it is thought to be rather eccentric)

Also, the CAP has AIRPLANES. Most of us are in the CAP because it offers us the opportunity to fly and to do some good at the same time. Finally, the CAP has Cadets. Many CAP Senior members are dedicated to the belief that the Cadet program produces better youth.

The CSMR has no airplanes, no weapons, no Cadet corps, and not much of a mission. What it does have is lots and lots of generals, colonels, and majors.

[PA Guy]

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.

[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.