I read a lot of posts on here referencing the ANG and CAP working withthe ANG and the USAF and all of that.
You all do realize theat the ANG and the USAF are two different organizations? The USAF has very limited control over the ANG. The ANG (like the ARNG) is a state asset and the USAF is a federal asset. Unless the President of the United States activiates the ANG they work for the Govenor.
The only exception is ANG folks that are Title 32 and Title 10. They work for National Guard Bureau which is a joint organiztion of army and air guard in the United states. Its a full time Guard job that manages part timers.
I post thins just too make sure folks know CAP is an auxillary of the USAF and we really have nothing to do with the ANG. We have USAFR Lo's but then the USAFR is part of the USAF.
Quote from: flyguy06 on February 24, 2007, 11:10:14 PM
You all do realize theat the ANG and the USAF are two different organizations? The USAF has very limited control over the ANG. The ANG (like the ARNG) is a state asset and the USAF is a federal asset. Unless the President of the United States activiates the ANG they work for the Govenor.
Most people here are quite aware of that fact. There is a great deal of inter operation between CAP and the ANG. Many people here believe that the joint operations and similar workings of CAP and the ANG may merit a closer working relationship. They are entitled to their opinions.
There are also many people here that happen to be Guard of some uniform, and we have members that include reserves and state Guards. Many of the paralells are seen by these folks that work in two worlds.
Also, the President does not activate National Guard troops. It is requested of the state governor, who can say no. I don't believe it happens that often, but it is possible.
Hawk:
I think you are mistaken on the President's authority to mobilize NG forces for a federal mission.
The President identifies units needed, and calls them into federal service. The governors do not have the right to refuse, and once identified for mobilization, they are not supposed to activate them for a state callup.
We went through this discussion back in the 1980's when Rudy Perpich (sp?) who was the governor of Minnesota tried to prevent the MN Army Guard from being deployed on training missions into Central America.
Also, back in the 1950's when Gov. Faubus of Arkansas mobilized the NG to enforce segregation against Federal marshalls who were enforcing the Supreme Court's orders in Brown vs. Board of Education, President Eisenhower federalized the NG, effectively taking that force away from the Governor.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on February 24, 2007, 11:54:12 PMI think you are mistaken on the President's authority to mobilize NG forces for a federal mission.
The President identifies units needed, and calls them into federal service. The governors do not have the right to refuse, and once identified for mobilization, they are not supposed to activate them for a state callup.
Interesting to learn. Apparently some of my NG colleagues are a bit behind the power curve. Will look into that further on next drill.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on February 24, 2007, 11:54:12 PM
Hawk:
I think you are mistaken on the President's authority to mobilize NG forces for a federal mission.
The President identifies units needed, and calls them into federal service. The governors do not have the right to refuse, and once identified for mobilization, they are not supposed to activate them for a state callup.
We went through this discussion back in the 1980's when Rudy Perpich (sp?) who was the governor of Minnesota tried to prevent the MN Army Guard from being deployed on training missions into Central America.
Also, back in the 1950's when Gov. Faubus of Arkansas mobilized the NG to enforce segregation against Federal marshalls who were enforcing the Supreme Court's orders in Brown vs. Board of Education, President Eisenhower federalized the NG, effectively taking that force away from the Governor.
You're mistaken here. The governor has control. Here in LA during Katrina, Pres Bush requested several times and even got into a pissing match with the governor to allow him to federalize the NG and she refused. The NG remained under the governor's control the entire time.
That said, it may be a different story when it comes to activating for combat deployments overseas.
It may be that he didn't want to exert all the authority he technically could in the situation.
No, that wasnt the case. I was there.
Quote from: Hawk200 on February 24, 2007, 11:42:52 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on February 24, 2007, 11:10:14 PM
You all do realize theat the ANG and the USAF are two different organizations? The USAF has very limited control over the ANG. The ANG (like the ARNG) is a state asset and the USAF is a federal asset. Unless the President of the United States activiates the ANG they work for the Govenor.
Most people here are quite aware of that fact. There is a great deal of inter operation between CAP and the ANG. Many people here believe that the joint operations and similar workings of CAP and the ANG may merit a closer working relationship. They are entitled to their opinions.
There are also many people here that happen to be Guard of some uniform, and we have members that include reserves and state Guards. Many of the paralells are seen by these folks that work in two worlds.
Also, the President does not activate National Guard troops. It is requested of the state governor, who can say no. I don't believe it happens that often, but it is possible.
Ok, I was checing. Since my WIng does nothave any kind of working relationship to my knowledge with our state National Guard I have not seenthat before. But whatever its all good
Quote from: LtCol White on February 25, 2007, 12:15:19 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on February 24, 2007, 11:54:12 PM
Hawk:
I think you are mistaken on the President's authority to mobilize NG forces for a federal mission.
The President identifies units needed, and calls them into federal service. The governors do not have the right to refuse, and once identified for mobilization, they are not supposed to activate them for a state callup.
We went through this discussion back in the 1980's when Rudy Perpich (sp?) who was the governor of Minnesota tried to prevent the MN Army Guard from being deployed on training missions into Central America.
Also, back in the 1950's when Gov. Faubus of Arkansas mobilized the NG to enforce segregation against Federal marshalls who were enforcing the Supreme Court's orders in Brown vs. Board of Education, President Eisenhower federalized the NG, effectively taking that force away from the Governor.
You're mistaken here. The governor has control. Here in LA during Katrina, Pres Bush requested several times and even got into a pissing match with the governor to allow him to federalize the NG and she refused. The NG remained under the governor's control the entire time.
That said, it may be a different story when it comes to activating for combat deployments overseas.
During Katrina, The LA National Guard was with me in Baghdad. Well at least one Brigade was. ;D
Quote from: flyguy06 on February 25, 2007, 04:27:13 AM
Ok, I was checing. Since my WIng does nothave any kind of working relationship to my knowledge with our state National Guard I have not seenthat before. But whatever its all good
Many states do have working relationships, then again many don't. It's so inconsistent that it's really neither normal or abnormal (and I know that really doesn't answer a question :-\ ). It can go either way as to whether or not it's a good or bad thing.
Some Guard folks like us, some hate us. Many more don't even know about us. It can be a strange world at times..
Quote from: flyguy06 on February 25, 2007, 04:29:50 AM
Quote from: LtCol White on February 25, 2007, 12:15:19 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on February 24, 2007, 11:54:12 PM
Hawk:
I think you are mistaken on the President's authority to mobilize NG forces for a federal mission.
The President identifies units needed, and calls them into federal service. The governors do not have the right to refuse, and once identified for mobilization, they are not supposed to activate them for a state callup.
We went through this discussion back in the 1980's when Rudy Perpich (sp?) who was the governor of Minnesota tried to prevent the MN Army Guard from being deployed on training missions into Central America.
Also, back in the 1950's when Gov. Faubus of Arkansas mobilized the NG to enforce segregation against Federal marshalls who were enforcing the Supreme Court's orders in Brown vs. Board of Education, President Eisenhower federalized the NG, effectively taking that force away from the Governor.
You're mistaken here. The governor has control. Here in LA during Katrina, Pres Bush requested several times and even got into a pissing match with the governor to allow him to federalize the NG and she refused. The NG remained under the governor's control the entire time.
That said, it may be a different story when it comes to activating for combat deployments overseas.
During Katrina, The LA National Guard was with me in Baghdad. Well at least one Brigade was. ;D
We do have more than what was in Iraq.
Quote from: LtCol White on February 25, 2007, 11:22:01 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on February 25, 2007, 04:29:50 AM
Quote from: LtCol White on February 25, 2007, 12:15:19 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on February 24, 2007, 11:54:12 PM
Hawk:
I think you are mistaken on the President's authority to mobilize NG forces for a federal mission.
The President identifies units needed, and calls them into federal service. The governors do not have the right to refuse, and once identified for mobilization, they are not supposed to activate them for a state callup.
We went through this discussion back in the 1980's when Rudy Perpich (sp?) who was the governor of Minnesota tried to prevent the MN Army Guard from being deployed on training missions into Central America.
Also, back in the 1950's when Gov. Faubus of Arkansas mobilized the NG to enforce segregation against Federal marshalls who were enforcing the Supreme Court's orders in Brown vs. Board of Education, President Eisenhower federalized the NG, effectively taking that force away from the Governor.
You're mistaken here. The governor has control. Here in LA during Katrina, Pres Bush requested several times and even got into a pissing match with the governor to allow him to federalize the NG and she refused. The NG remained under the governor's control the entire time.
That said, it may be a different story when it comes to activating for combat deployments overseas.
During Katrina, The LA National Guard was with me in Baghdad. Well at least one Brigade was. ;D
We do have more than what was in Iraq.
If it's not IN, AR, or CAV then I'm not concerned with it ;D that was a joke ok?
Look at that, no love at all for AV. :P
What about ADA? "If it flies, it dies." ;D
Quote from: DNall on February 25, 2007, 11:41:38 PM
Look at that, no love at all for AV. :P
I was gonna say that I got love for USAF,USN, and USMC aviation. But you are right. Apaches have saved my companies neck more that once. You have no idea of the relief you get when you have to take a platoon of Bradleys into a village and not knowing whats in there then al of a sudden you see two Apahces go ahead of you for air support.
Quote from: MIKE on February 26, 2007, 12:40:15 AM
What about ADA? "If it flies it dies." ;D
Being a pilot I always hated that saying. :P
Quote from: flyguy06
If it's not IN, AR, or CAV then I'm not concerned with it ;D that was a joke ok?
I'll have to remember that next time someone needs several of our trucks to move
IN, AR, or CAV equipment and supplies. ;D
Tags - MIKE
Well, I looked it up.
The president has the full authority to call into federal service the National Guard of any state. He does not need the permission of a governor to do so. (National Defense Act of 1916).
But... The Insurrection Act prevented the President from federalizing National Guard forces for an emergency within a state unless and until the governor of the state requests such federal intervention.
The Insurrection Act has been modified since (and because of) the state response to Hurricane Katrina. Now, the President has full authority to take over the National Guard, even if a governor balks.
^ which has caused a lot of protests, but screw 'em. If a state won't respond correctly then the feds should take over, and frankly the feds should be in charge of a multi-state federal disaster area. Still, if I were governor I'd sure like to have the ability to order my troops in for security rather than be totally dependent on folks far away in Washington.
DNall:
The governor still has the authority to call up NG forces at his/her discretion for a state emergency.
You are right, the governors of all 50 states objected to the modification of the Insurrection Act, but the non-performance of Blanco was such that the change in the law was passed overwhelmingly, with even Democrats supporting it.
Having been here and working in all the bureacratic mess, I think the change was definitely a good thing.