Elsewhere: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
State Legislators Attack National Guard Deployment
September 12th, 2008
Anti-war Pennsylvania state legislators frustrated by the federal government’s inability to withdraw troops from Iraq are trying to use their state powers to bring members of the National Guard back home.
The legislation, which encourages Gov. Edward Rendell (D) to withdraw the Pennsylvania National Guard from Iraq, reasons that the goals set out in the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (AUMF) have been met, and that the president can only keep guard members in Iraq to meet the AUMF benchmarks. That includes defending the United States from threats posed by Iraq and enforcing all United Nations Security Council resolutions about Iraq.
Proponents of the bill hope to prevent further troop deployments. In September, Pennsylvania will send an additional 4,000 guard members to Iraq.
The bill emphasizes the need for the Pennsylvania National Guard to assist locally.
“We must empower our governor to take back control of the Pennsylvania National Guard and restore Pennsylvania’s ability to defend and protect our citizens at home,” said Pennsylvania State Senator Jim Ferlo (D), the bill’s chief sponsor.
Ferlo cites the Iowa floods in early June as the kind of disaster the National Guard is meant to assist with, and which he fears might strike an unprepared Pennsylvania. However, after the September deployment, Pennsylvania will be left with at least 13,000 guardsmen—enough to respond to emergencies, according to Kevin Cramsey, a spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Department of Military and Veteran Affairs.
States can also utilize the Emergency Management Assistance Compact that provides interstate assistance, including National Guard units, during emergencies.
In a way, the legislation is no more than a political statement. Even if the governor accepts the bill’s recommendation, a 1990 Supreme Court decision, Perpich v. Department of Defense, constitutionally bars governors from making military decisions.
“You can’t have people going home in the middle of an operation. You can’t have 50 governors making operation decisions,” said Gene Fidell, a military law expert at Yale Law School.
The bill is part of a larger anti-war movement that seeks to stop future troop deployments and bring back currently deployed troops. Versions of the bill have been introduced in New Jersey, Vermont and Rhode Island and grassroots efforts exist in California and New York, which has 2,200 National Guard members in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In addition, New York is one of 26 states with a state defense force that consists of 700 voluntary members who are not deployed overseas. Instead, they are used for state and local emergencies.
“Most of the National Guard call-ups are very small and don’t make up the entire force,” said Eric Durr, director of public affairs for the New York Division of Military and Naval Affairs. “We have enough people to handle any emergency that we’re likely to have.”
Some of the larger call-ups include a 1998 ice storm in the North Country, which drew on 5,000 members, and the Sept. 11 attacks, when 2,500 were used to assist in the aftermath.
Most emergencies have required much smaller response forces, meaning the 14,000 National Guard members left in New York should leave the state more than prepared for whatever unexpected situations arise. Nonetheless, there are many who believe the full force needs to be returned from overseas.
“The excess should not be sent to Iraq,” said State Sen. Bill Perkins (D-Manhattan), an opponent of the war who plans to introduce a bill similar to the Pennsylvania measure next session. “The more that we have, the less of a burden it is on the others. I don’t think we can have too much.”
Perkins may run into legislative obstacles, particularly if Republicans retain control of the Senate. State Sen. Vincent Leibell (R-Putnam/Westchester/Dutchess), chair of the Veterans, Homeland Security and Military Affairs committee, does not believe the Legislature has any jurisdiction in the area.
“It’s important for the federal government to make these determinations as to when troops should be brought home,” Leibell said.
The legislation, which encourages Gov. Edward Rendell (D) to withdraw the Pennsylvania National Guard from Iraq, reasons that the goals set out in the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (AUMF) have been met, and that the president can only keep guard members in Iraq to meet the AUMF benchmarks. That includes defending the United States from threats posed by Iraq and enforcing all United Nations Security Council resolutions about Iraq.
Proponents of the bill hope to prevent further troop deployments. In September, Pennsylvania will send an additional 4,000 guard members to Iraq.
The bill emphasizes the need for the Pennsylvania National Guard to assist locally.
“We must empower our governor to take back control of the Pennsylvania National Guard and restore Pennsylvania’s ability to defend and protect our citizens at home,” said Pennsylvania State Senator Jim Ferlo (D), the bill’s chief sponsor.
Ferlo cites the Iowa floods in early June as the kind of disaster the National Guard is meant to assist with, and which he fears might strike an unprepared Pennsylvania. However, after the September deployment, Pennsylvania will be left with at least 13,000 guardsmen—enough to respond to emergencies, according to Kevin Cramsey, a spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Department of Military and Veteran Affairs.
States can also utilize the Emergency Management Assistance Compact that provides interstate assistance, including National Guard units, during emergencies.
In a way, the legislation is no more than a political statement. Even if the governor accepts the bill’s recommendation, a 1990 Supreme Court decision, Perpich v. Department of Defense, constitutionally bars governors from making military decisions.
“You can’t have people going home in the middle of an operation. You can’t have 50 governors making operation decisions,” said Gene Fidell, a military law expert at Yale Law School.
The bill is part of a larger anti-war movement that seeks to stop future troop deployments and bring back currently deployed troops. Versions of the bill have been introduced in New Jersey, Vermont and Rhode Island and grassroots efforts exist in California and New York, which has 2,200 National Guard members in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In addition, New York is one of 26 states with a state defense force that consists of 700 voluntary members who are not deployed overseas. Instead, they are used for state and local emergencies.
“Most of the National Guard call-ups are very small and don’t make up the entire force,” said Eric Durr, director of public affairs for the New York Division of Military and Naval Affairs. “We have enough people to handle any emergency that we’re likely to have.”
Some of the larger call-ups include a 1998 ice storm in the North Country, which drew on 5,000 members, and the Sept. 11 attacks, when 2,500 were used to assist in the aftermath.
Most emergencies have required much smaller response forces, meaning the 14,000 National Guard members left in New York should leave the state more than prepared for whatever unexpected situations arise. Nonetheless, there are many who believe the full force needs to be returned from overseas.
“The excess should not be sent to Iraq,” said State Sen. Bill Perkins (D-Manhattan), an opponent of the war who plans to introduce a bill similar to the Pennsylvania measure next session. “The more that we have, the less of a burden it is on the others. I don’t think we can have too much.”
Perkins may run into legislative obstacles, particularly if Republicans retain control of the Senate. State Sen. Vincent Leibell (R-Putnam/Westchester/Dutchess), chair of the Veterans, Homeland Security and Military Affairs committee, does not believe the Legislature has any jurisdiction in the area.
“It’s important for the federal government to make these determinations as to when troops should be brought home,” Leibell said.
